Gib, I am REALLY interested in learning more on this. A "for instance" here is this situation: OC is on report, reporting balance, sorl is 7 years, it's been on my CR now for 17 years (I'm not kidding) it was on a bk AND they just pulled my CR w/o PP. In other cases, many of the pre-bk accts are still showing a balance or that it's unpaid/collection acct. As soon as the CRA's come back with results from my dispute, I want to go after whom ever is left. Can I use this threat of reporting them to the bk court as a way to get the tradelines removed? Also, what is the response to a CA who just verified with the CRA even though they were on the BK? Lastly - in another thread, we've been talking about when a debt isn't listed on the bk which is a zero asset case, that any undisclosed (ie forgotten) accounts would still fall under that bk. Going on that, when a CA pulls your CR and sees the BK (lol.. ahem sorry), wouldn't that clue them in that they need to not continue with collection activity as not only is it fruitless, but illegal?
Re: Re: Waking a sleeping time barred dog That you would need to get a BK attorney, and go after them with them, more than likely... BK is a tricky animal... Especially when lawsuits regarding it come into play... When BK is involved, FCRA compliance and BK compliance become a whole new ballgame, because BK has a whole new set of rules, which are often stricter than FCRA's rules. For instance, Nelson v. Chase. Chase reported on Nelson's credit report that an account was IIBK, but Nelson never filed BK, the person whose account it was had filed for BK, and Nelson was a co-signer on that account, when he was denied for a mortgage because it was showing in BK, he disputed with EX, and Chase (by CC: Chase the letter to EX), and Chase replied that they had to report the account in BK, but they would update it to show that the account was affected by BK of one but not all of the borrowers. When Nelson was denied for a truck loan for the same reason more than a year later, he filed suit against Chase, the case was dismissed by the district court, because the court erred in stating that the FCRA didn't provide a private right of action, and that was reversed on appeal.
Afternoon Jam! Thanks for the info. Now let me get this right, with an atty - fixing this is a piece of cake, in that the CA will know that they've done wrong but don't anticipate that I'll spend the $$ to hire an atty to fix it? After all, if I (ahem) don't pay my bills, I can't afford an attorney... right? If all it takes is for a bk attorney to go after this and HOPEFULLY that alone with the OC/CA knowing that this can get bounced to the BK trustee, they'll dance fast! If this is the case, I'm thrilled! I have an attorney that I just hired that can do this for me (just didn't know I could do this until now). And all at no cost to me! This is great news! (lol I hope!) Can I go after violations on this as well do you know? Thanks Jam!
How quick it will be, is relative. It depends on whether or not they can be made to see the light, without a suit being filed.
Shanyl, you are already have more than enough ammunition to use against the CA in this case. I would advise that you go to the NACA and find a good FDCPA/FCRA attorney. If everything is as you say and you've disputed this account and it keeps coming back verified, you could nail them to the wall. I wouldn't waste any time with C&D letters, you don't need to. Anything they do is illegal already. Gib
