I am trying to decide to send a strong validation letter or a Nutcase letter for a paid charge off that is being reported by an orgiginal creditor in California. I managed to get it deleted everywhere except Experian. I have disputed many times with the Experian - The OC verifys every time. I even asked for a validation once from the OC - They just sent me a computer printout. Under California law (Rosenthal Act/California FDCPA) original creditors (OC) and collection agencies (CA) are held to the same laws. Please provide feedback ...
July 11, 2003 Original Creditor RE: Account XXXXXXXX Dear Sir/Madame: I am writing to dispute the account referenced above. I have disputed this account information as inaccurate with the credit bureaus, TransUnion and Experian, and you have been able to verify this debt. How is this possible? The tradeline is obviously inaccurate. In the event that you can not verify the item pursuant to the FCRA, and you continue to list the disputed item on my credit report I will find it necessary to sue you for actual defamation damages and declaratory relief under the FCRA. According to this regulation, I may sue you in any qualified state or federal court, including small claims court in my area. You have severely limited my ability to purchase a home. In light of the recent court case opinion No. 00-15946 CV-99-00290-D.C. by the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, Nelson Vs. Chase Manhattan, the court ruled that the creditor has the responsibility to investigate and make sure that correct information is being reported to the bureaus, and that the consumer has a right to sue under the FCRA, should his or her rights be violated. While I prefer not to litigate, I will use the courts as needed to enforce my rights under the FCRA. I look forward to an uneventful resolution of this matter. Sincerely, CRA Victim
Original Creditor To Whom It May Concern: I am formally requesting that you validate all tradeline notations you have submitted to TransUnion and Experian for [CRA Victim], account number [XXXXXXXX]. 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 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. Note that section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information (Nelson v. Chase Manhattan). 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 have enclosed a photocopy of a recent [Company Name] utility statement, which will verify my address. I look forward to a timely and amicable resolution to this matter. Sincerely yours, CRA Victim
Hi Butch, That was my thinking exactly ... I am just am not sure how to write a letter that will trigger a violation or deletion. A pull of my credit report with no permissible purpose would be good. Also, a failure to notate the tradeline as in dispute would be nice as well. I want it to be forceful enough that they pull an inquiry, but not so much that they send it to their legal department. BTW, I already have them on one violation of California law -- It is a hard to prove violation though. PG&E failed to notify me of their intention to Charge Off and send a negative notation to the CRA's. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Click on "Civil Code" and type "1785.26" in the search box. Section 1785.26 should be the second link. What do you think of this version ... ? Original Creditor Dear Sir/Madame: I am writing to dispute your reporting of account XXXXXXXX to Experian. I have disputed the account information as inaccurate with Experian and you have been able to verify. How is this possible? The tradeline is obviously inaccurate. In the event that you can not verify the item pursuant to the FCRA, and you continue to list the disputed item on my credit report I may find it necessary to sue you for actual defamation damages and declaratory relief under the FCRA. Please fix the reporting errors or delete the tradeline immediately. Regards, CRA Victim
Can I change my subject to "Ignore This"? I think we have a bunch of non-conformists here who wouldn't be able to resist reading my thread. j/k
We haven't forgotten about ya Aletes. You want your adversary to believe you're an idiot. That way they will be far more likely to violate, thinking, since you're an obvious idiot there won't be any ramifications for the violation. How would an idiot even know he's being violated? LOL So using language like "Pursuant to FCRA", etc., tells them too much BTW - you are neither affirming nor deying that the account is yours. .
Here is what I have so far ... Pacific Gas & Electric: 1) Failed to notate the tradeline as in dispute. 2) Failed to notify me prior to charge off and negative reporting. Also, the DOLA should be 9/2000. Experian has it as 1/2001 and TransUnion has it as 6/2003. I expect that I will have to go the ITS route ... Any pointers?
Re: Re: Validation or Nutcase Letter I don't believe this is a violation, unless its a California thing.
CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 1785.25-1785.26 1785.25. (Disputed by consumer notice.) (c) So long as the completeness or accuracy of any information on a specific transaction or experience furnished by any person to a consumer credit reporting agency is subject to a continuing dispute between the affected consumer and that person, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer credit reporting agency without also including a notice that the information is disputed by the consumer. (30 day investigation requirement.) (f) Upon receiving notice of a dispute noticed pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1785.16 with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided to a consumer credit reporting agency, the person that provided the information shall (1) complete an investigation with respect to the disputed information and report to the consumer credit reporting agency the results of that investigation before the end of the 30-business-day period beginning on the date the consumer credit reporting agency receives the notice of dispute from the consumer in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1785.16 and (2) review relevant information submitted to it. (Liability for violation.) (g) A person who furnishes information to a consumer credit reporting agency is liable for failure to comply with this section, unless the furnisher establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the failure to comply with this section, the furnisher maintained reasonable procedures to comply with those provisions. 1785.26. (Notice of negative reporting.) (b) A creditor may submit negative credit information concerning a consumer to a consumer credit reporting agency, only if the creditor notifies the consumer affected. After providing this notice, a creditor may submit additional information to a credit reporting agency respecting the same transaction or extension of credit that gave rise to the original negative credit information without providing additional notice. (Liability for violation.) (d) A creditor is liable for failure to provide notice pursuant to this section, unless the creditor establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at the time of that failure to give notice the creditor maintained reasonable procedures to comply with this section. CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 1785.30-1785.36 (Negligent and Willful violation damages.) 1785.31. (a) Any consumer who suffers damages as a result of a violation of this title by any person may bring an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction against that person to recover the following: (1) In the case of a negligent violation, actual damages, including court costs, loss of wages, attorney's fees and, when applicable, pain and suffering. (2) In the case of a willful violation: (A) Actual damages as set forth in paragraph (1) above: (B) Punitive damages of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation as the court deems proper; (C) Any other relief that the court deems proper. (3) In the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer credit report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, an award of actual damages pursuant to paragraph (1) or subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) shall be in an amount of not less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).
