Sorry to be redundant, but I've been off the board for several months and I keep reading about this letter. I did a search and it found 700 hits, so I don't know where to start. Does anybody have a link to it?
use advanced search the auther is Quixote,and Nutcase is the best search word. I had the same question this weekend. when you do find the text be sure to read the entire thread, or any thread that relates. I have been reading thid site for a week, and the biggest message is understand what what you are useing before you go out half cocked.
Re: What/where is the Nutcase lette Ok, I always enjoy an excuse to talk about the Nutcase letter. I authored the original Litigious Nutcase letter as a tool for dealing with FULLY-PAID but VERY LATE tradelines which appear on CRA reports. At that time, the conventional wisdom went something like this: Well, good luck. You can't do much with fully-paid tradelines because YOU'VE LOST YOUR LEVERAGE. Once you've paid, they'll do nothing for you. In my case, I'd paid everything, and I had three rotten credit reports (Equifax FICO 564) because of the terrible way I'd repaid my credit cards and student loans. For that reason, the conventional wisdom didn't appeal to me one bit. If I was going to repair my credit, I needed to coerce those 120-plus-day-late original creditors to literally reopen my casebook and send UDF forms to the CRAs attesting to my perfect payment history. After consulting with Bill Bauer (yes, the controversial but brilliant [in my opinion] curmudgeon [lol, sorry Bill] who operates Creditwrench.com), my hope was rekindled. He expressed serious doubts that I would succeed, but worked with me on the outlines of what would eventually become the Litigious Nutcase approach. In addition to Bill's consultation, others who influenced this tactic were marci (through her unique original approaches) and John Gliha (from DueProcess.org). My brother, who is an attorney, finished it out. For these reasons, I really can't claim true authorship. The thinking behind the letter required replacing the old conventional wisdom with something new, viz.: With a paid account, you have a lot of leverage. Since the creditor is in the business of collecting money that is STILL DUE, they would rather not waste their time with you now. From their vantagepoint, every letter you send is a NUISANCE which COSTS TIME AND MONEY which would otherwise be productively spent collecting outstanding obligations. If you become enough of a nuisance, and ESPECIALLY if they think you are a LITIGIOUS NUTCASE who might actually incur legal fees on their behalf, they will do just about anything to make you go away, including revising or deleting old tradelines. The original letter itself does not threaten outright but, rather, gently suggests that you are indeed a litigious nutcase who is up to something serious and will likely cause them trouble. Here is a link to version 2.0 (lol -- it included a Nelson v. Chase reference) of the original Litigious Nutcase letter. MY RESULTS were great -- PHEAA (the student loan guarantors) immediately retreated, actually APOLOGIZED by letter, and ultimately updated my payment history to perfect. MBNA didn't send a letter, but instead their tradeline mysteriously disappeared. Creditnet's own betacredit expanded the letter into a series of letters, including the Son of Nutcase and Nutcase Number Three letters, etc., and here is a link to the entire sequence, which has proven effective for quite a few: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=160448#post160448 Although the tactic hasn't always worked, it seems to work more often than not. Here are some positive outcome testimonials shared by others, including those who have paired Nutcase with intent-to-sue letters, etc.: 1. As I mentioned, I successfully used the original Nutcase letter against PHEAA (six student loan tradelines) and MBNA. 2. nquisitive's work with two paid collections 3. missy73's success with three accounts 4. Killer's success with a bad check, a paid telephone bill, and a collection agency 5. Gillian's two CAs 6. betacredit's UDF form after he used nutcase and a followup he devised called the "Son of Nutcase letter 7. betacredit's Son of Nutcase testimonial 8. betacredit's Nutcase Followup #3 testimonial 9. wolverine's two successes and a recommendation to pair nutcase with a 48-hour intent-to-sue fax 10. another wolverine success using the nutcase/intent-to-sue combo 11. Gib's recommended variation that resulted in one deletion 12. dfwgt's success and suggestion that nutcase be paired with a standard estoppel letter 13. monicagee's nutcase success 14. Rusty Can's happy result from over on the FairCreditMovement.org discussion board 15. DemPooches's work with a CA 16. rblues and two chargeoffs 17. premeno and stubborn Assoc/Citi chargeoff using Nutcase and Son of Nutcase 18. kjoe's nutcase success with nasty Permiter/Gulf State/OSI 19. tmitchell's success with two paid collections 20. Quixote's success against a Macy's paid collection with what he called his "Raving Lunatic Cousin of Nutcase" letter which combined aspects of Nutcase with Bill Bauer's Knockout Letter with personalized details Some have asked when to use the Nutcase series as opposed to the Goodwill letter. Here's a link to some ideas about that. In this regard, it's worth noting that a letter originally posted by marci which really was the genesis of the Goodwill Letter was also directed at fully-paid creditors; here's a chronology of that (marci's posts are REQUIRED reading, imho): http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=1&postid=191392 It's also worth noting that Bill Bauer later developed his own technique for dealing with paid chargeoffs specifically, the "KNOCKOUT LETTER," which has proven effective time and again. Bill doesn't claim a 100% success rate either, although the testimonials suggest it works far more often than not. Here's a link to Bill's excellent KNOCKOUT LETTER tactic: http://pub50.ezboard.com/fcreditwrenchfrm1.showMessage?topicID=123.topic Also, Creditnet's DanceRat developed an approach for dealing with paid collections that proved to be effective. Keep in mind that unlike the Nutcase series and Bauer's Knockout tactic which do NOT disclaim the original underlying debt, the DanceRat approach uses a "not mine" claim. For that reason, you really shouldn't switch between the approaches; rather, you should pick one rationale and strategy and stick to it. Here are two links regarding DanceRat's excellent approach: -- http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=182001#post182001 -- http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=1&postid=188506 Well, I hope this helps somebody. Doc
In the spirit of giving proper "Credit", it was actually Psychdoc who developed the Nutcase letter. I'm merely a grateful beneficiary, as well as proud unindicted co-conspirator in the evolution of the series. The derivative I used successfully against Chevron (no joy so far on Macy's) borrrowed heavily from Doc's work, as well as Bill Bauer's Knockout Letter. In the words of Sir Isaac Newton, "If I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
Just adding my two cents. I do not deny the validity of the debt (because it has already been paid). I am requesting they remove the tradeline due to inaccurate reporting. If the amount, date paid, date of last activity, if ANYTHING is incorrect, they need to remove it. What I have found to be most successful is *when* a delinquent tradeline is paid because at that point it is NOT an open account, and they cannot check OR run an inquiry since it is not a permissable purpose. So they have the decision of going to court over a paid account which according to you is incorrectly reported, although of course, you conveniently do NOT tell them which report it is incorrectly reported on. So they have to delete it from all three. As soon as I close my account with Providian I plan on using this, which has successfully worked with 5 of my paid tradelines to date. Hopefully that will make it 6. I hate Providian.
Doc I wanted to thank you for such a complete answer to a probably very common question. I have been looking for the original text referred to as the Nutcase letter, and other strong letters to build my next assault on. You have provided me, a huge amount of information to start with. I will be drafting my own version of the Nutcase letter (for a filthy rodent CA who tricked me into paying a settlement before I found this site) to be sent out ASAP. I will post for your review and any advice the creditnet vets would like to offer. Thanks for a very complete answer to a question. I wish I had subscribed to this thread to start with it only took me two weeks to find the answer I have been looking for all along and you posted it right away!!!
I respectfully request that docs response be placed in the creditnet faqs created by our friend NAVE. It is an outstanding learning tool how about it Nave?
Re: What/where is the Nutcase lette DanceRat, I have the same issue but do not know how to proceed. All of the CRA's report different late payment dates. One, TU, reports even dates that I was not EVEN late on. So, basically, each one reports something different then the other. Also, the account was fully paid in 2001 and currently reports as Paid/Pays as agreed but contains late payments (up to 120). How should I proceed using your tactic? Please let me know as I can see that is the only way of getting this lates removed. Also, should I try nutcase letter (and which one),because I've already tried Goodwill adjustment but they would just send me a letter stating: we report all the information on your account CORRECTLY to all the CRA's! Do I have a case? Please let me know! Thank you so much.
Since this thread has cropped up again...here is where I added this info... First, the NUTCASE RATIONALE now has its own section labled: What is the Nutcase Rationale and where can I find samples? and then within the text it has this link with this update: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (CLICK HERE for an updated post dealing with the Nutcase Rationale presented below) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -Peace, Dave
Hi everybody! I am reading nutcase letter, it has the phrase: .....rather, I am requesting validation, I.E.(?), competent evidence........... I.E= in example: paid/ charge off 1-2001 180 days as of 3-98 150 ----------- 2-98 120 ----------- 1-98 90 ---------- 12-97 30 ---------- 10-97 Can someone please clarify this. Also, if I send to OC, would that be OK if I want to put on the top letter " NOTICE OF FULL DISPUTE" ? thank you.
i'm bumpin too Butch...this really is a great thread. i plan on sending MBNA a nutcase letter shortly to get rid of my only bad tradeline (it's horrible!). i'm disputing two collection items, and hopefully everything will turn out nicely. i'll be posting updates! dilla
colection co= National Credit Solutions,oc= BMG I'm having similar with National Credit Solutions whom purchased an account from BMG (whom by the way does not exist anymore). They allege that my wife owes them for a CD that she supposedly purchased in 2004. She never did buy this CD or request this CD. She never even had a BMG account. The collection was only recently reported on her credit report at around August and it suspiciously appeared there only after we requested a pre approval for a mortgage. We live in New York, NY and Iâ??m not sure what the statute of limitation is here. I requested from the collection agency that they verify and they basically sent me a letter stating the item number of the CD, name of the CD and the amount owed. They never really sent us anything that could reasonably prove my wife requested this CD or that she even got delivery of the CD. We disputed it with Experian but they sent us a letter saying that it was founded or that they did validate it. I donâ??t get it. Isnâ??t there anyone defending honest hard working people out there? We pay all our bills on time and are responsible and still in the end are being bamboozled by this collection agency. Shouldnâ??t the laws protect the innocent from being wronged? How can these collection agencies and creditors be allowed to put these things on our credit report without actually verifying it with actual real proof and why donâ??t the credit bureaus actually investigate if their claims are genuine. I mean what is considered real verification? This is supposed to be an instrument to assure that the people who do the right thing with their credit are compensated with better rates, more credit etc. But as you can see this system is so very flawed. We feel so hopeless. This is really hard on us since her credit went down so low we canâ??t afford the mortgage we currently qualify for because we are now high risk. Help anyone.
