I sent out a Nutcase letter to a CA back in Aug. Then after 30 days I sent a estoppel/2nd nutcase letter. I do not know if this was wise. After sending the estoppel/2nd nutcase letter, the CA sent me a very cordial letter telling account is paid in full (which was already being reported) and they will update with the CRAs. I immediately faxed them a letter saying they were not permitted to notify any CRA if a debt was not valdiated, threatened court action-blah, blah. I previously had success getting account removed from TU, it is now only on EX and they said they verified it. I got EX to re-investigate this account again. I hope they do not update TU. Can they verify with EX if I requested validation? Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do next?
Frankly, you DO want them to "update with the CRAs"... I received a letter like the one you described from a student loan guarantor, and they ultimately updated my tradelines to "paid, never late." Now, of course, if they had simply updated the tradelines without the additional improvement I sought, then I would have proceeded with the 2nd in the Nutcase series. In your case, by insisting that they not communicate with the CRAs about your account, you may be creating a situation where you won't get the outcome you seek. After all, you're really not interested in their VALIDATING THE ACCOUNT. Instead, notice that -- unlike a validation letter for an allegedly outstanding debt -- you are asking them to VALIDATE THE TRADELINE. It's a subtle and very strange difference, lol. When I originally authored the Nutcase letter, I specifically wanted to create a scenario where the OC would read the letter, do a double-take, scratch their collective heads, wonder what I asking, and then delete or update the tradeline just to be rid of me. As for what to do next, just sit back and see what they do. If they delete the tradeline, or update it to positive status, then great! If they "update" it without the desired improvement, go ahead and send them another Nutcase letter (try the first letter again, rather than moving to #3) with the words "SECOND NOTICE" in large all-caps at the top. Your motive is to use their own time-tested method in order to get your way -- pester them into submission. Good luck to you! Doc
Doc, Thanks for your quick response and advice. The account is already reported as paid in full (and it has been paid), I now want to get removed. The reason I did not want them to contact the CRAs is because I got it removed from TU. I sent out the 2nd letter to the CA this past Monday and received their letter yesterday (Tues). This is letter I sent them after I read their letter saying they would update with the CRAs: October 8, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: I want to thank you for the letter I received from XXXXX dated October 7, 2002. Unfortunately, your company has decided to ignore my request for validation of this account on 8/22/02. I did not request verification that this account has been paid in full. I clearly requested a complete validation that this I was responsible for this account and your company could legally report this information to the credit bureaus. Since your company has not fulfilled my request for complete validation, I must assume you are unable to validate this account and have erroneously reported this information to the credit bureaus. This is in violation of the FDCPA Section 809. Mr. Smith wrote that he would â??re-send notices to the bureaus againâ?. If indeed these notices were sent out to the credit bureaus, this would be a violation of the FCRA. A collection agency is not allowed to report any information about an account if it has not been validated. Reporting any information to the credit bureaus will be seen as continuing a collection. Each of the above violations carries a $1000 fine. I reiterate that fact that your company has not provided proper validation of this account. Since you are unable to validate, I expect full deletion of this account from all credit bureaus your company reports to. If this information is not deleted from my credit files with the credit bureaus by 10/11/02, I will have no choice but to seek legal remedy via the court system. Sincerely, XXXXXXXXXXX cc: Federal Trade Commission Better Business Bureau State Attorney General-Bill Lockyer Any additional in advice??????
I'm confused. You said it was a CA... collection agency? you want those lines removed completely. a paid collection is a killer of scores... You are correct though.. they cannnot rereport or change the reporting without validating. If they have not validated then they are now violating the FCRA by reporting a trade line they know they have not validated as per the FDCPA.
Marie: Don't mean to hijack the thread but you bring up something I've been wondering about... since the CA cannot change or report until validation is complete what about the following scenario... I send a CRRR to a CA demanding validation... they receive and sign for the validation letter... I then dispute with the CRA... if they verify with the CRA before providing validation to me is that a violation or is "verifying" not considered reporting? Kirk
Yes it is a violation of continued collection activity by reporting to the cra after receiving but not responding to validation. Do a search here for "continued collection activity" and you should find a bunch of stuff on this.
