hi gang... Here is the story, I have a charge off from Wachovia bank from 09/97 and it is paid. I did a validation thru experian and it came back verified. Do I do it again, thru another CRA? or send one myself? What do you advise? Also, have two very recent pd. medical collections, although the reason why they went to collections was my health insurance carriers error, they have since went back and pd on these. Can I do anything to get them off my cR as being reported as paid collections?
I am also kinda new at this, my first suggestion is to dispute with all of the credit bureaus, try again online with experian, you can only dispute online with exp 2xs after that you have to send by mail. Good luck
Thanks, I will try that. I am doing a lease with option to buy on a house starting this January, with hope that I can get my credit score boosted!! Appreciate it.
Did you send a validation rqst to Wachovia and wait for the green card to come back? Then, send a dispute to each CRA that is reporting the charge off? My guess is that the bank probably does not have these records on hand anymore so validation is probably not possible. Most banks only keep them on file for 5 yrs, as required by law. If they verified with Experian and did not send you the rqstd validation, that is a violation worth $1000 you can use as leverage. Even though this is a paid charge-off, they still must report it correctly so u'll need to catch them in a violation of the FCRA to use as leverage to get deletion of the TL. Verifying with a CRA and not answering your rqst for validation is one violation.
TonyD.. Thanks for your quick response. I have not validated the debt with Wachovia yet. Sometimes on these boards, I get so confused, i disputed with experian first, but it's not too late right? Here's the plan, let me run it by you just to be sure. Send a validation letter to Wachovia with a green card, then dispute with all 3 CRA's(at same time?)...If Wachovia verifies with the CRA's and doesnt respond to me, I have them in non compliance in regards to FCRA, right?
TonyD, its only a violation if the company you are dealing with is a CA. OC's have an exemption to the *FEDERAL* FDCPA. While a small number of states force all companies to the FDCPA standards, it doesn't hold true for everyone. Since Wachovia is a bank, chances are Wachovia is the OC.
Wachovia just charged it off, so it didnt go to a CA, what are my options then? do I still validate with the OC(Wachovia) or am I dead in the water, since they are not actually required to reply??
Re: Re: validation came back!! okay, so the consensus is to send Wachovia the OC a validation letter. Then dispute with the CRA's, right? If they cannot validate, then they must remove the negative tradelines from my report. I'm going to use the traditional Validation letter. Should I send a copy of my drivers licence and a utility bill like it says? ps- this is a paid charge off.
Re: Re: Re: validation came back!! I'll copy the letter that I was going to send to Wachovia(OC) that I found on here under pd. charge-off validation. That is where I got the license/utility part from: I was obviosly going to tweak it a little, if you thinK i should use another version, let me know. Date Name of Old Fully-Paid Acquaintance Address City, STATE ZIP To Whom It May Concern: I am formally requesting that you validate all tradeline notations you have submitted to the three major credit reporting agencies by â??NAME OF COLLECTION AGENCYâ? or â??NAME OF ORIGINAL CREDITORâ? for me, YOUR NAME, for account number XXXXXXXXX. Due to possible inaccuracies in these CRA reports, I must demand that the validation I hereby lawfully request be in the form of a notarized statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt as it was constituted and who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have been payable. Please be advised that I am not requesting a verification that you have my mailing address; rather, I am requesting validation, i.e., competent evidence that I had some contractual obligation sans consumer protection encumbrance which incurred the original claims associated with this tradeline. I have enclosed two documents which will verify my address: a photocopy of a [YOUR STATE] Driverâ??s License and a photocopy of a recent [NAME OF UTILITY OR TELEPHONE COMPANY] statement. Please know that you have 30 days from the tracked and confirmed delivery of this lawful notice to either answer these demands or to remove the associated negative tradeline notations from the CRA reports. Any other action may constitute evidence of your intent to abridge one or more civil or other constitutional rights. Please be further advised that continued unsubstantiated reporting of possible inaccuracies to third parties may provide a basis for criminal complaints being filed in accordance with FDCPA, FCRA, and other federal statutes. I look forward to a timely and amicable resolution to this matter. Sincerely yours, Your Name Address City, STATE ZIP .
Re: Re: Re: validation came back!! My guess is that the bank probably does not have these records on hand anymore so validation is probably not possible <-------------------------------> Just calm yourself! ----- ================== The reason they can't validate this one is because it's paid. THE END ** *** ** LB 59
Re: Re: validation came back!! An OC still must comply with the FCRA, namely Sec 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies --(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. And they must report the information accurately and correctly per this section. I think I was reading another post an got cornfused...there is still time for her to start the validation game with the OC.
Re: Re: validation came back!! Lbrown, Bottom line, should I send a validation letter to the OC? Im now confused..one says yes, one says no. Please advise..thanks .
Re: Re: validation came back!! Maybe it's too early in the morning for me to start reading the posts...hehehehehhe...((confused)) Just wanted to say thanks!!
Re: Re: validation came back!! TonyD, but remember a violations aren't sueable against a data furnisher, only b violations (those resulting from a CRA dispute). Validation whether to a OC or CA is always a good idea, but when dealing with an OC it doesn't have as much of an effect as it does with a CA.
