How many months can an account be late on the first month that the account is open? Hmmmm, don't think too hard on this one, that must me Eq's problem... Tradeline which was ruled by the FTC to be a FRAUD by the company which it is with, and the OC was forced to enter into a FTC settlement because of it. #1) Over the phone "We can't accept a letter from the FTC." EXCUSE ME, they are the supreme authority in the laws that GOVERN your operations. #2) They rubber stamped the verification request to have the OC verify the entire tradeline. Now, here's the brain teaser. "Equifax verified that this item belongs to you. Equifax has verified that this item has been reported correctly. If you have documents that release you from this obligation, please forward a copy to us." "Equifax has verified that this item has been reported correctly." Date Account Opened: 09/1998 Account History with Status Codes: 09/1998 - 4 (91-120 days) September 1998, must have been a chronologically impossible month to allow for the alleged account to be 3-4 MONTHS late within that MONTH alone. Equifax's answer: "We only report what they tell us." HELLO, you are required by law to at least look at what they tell you to make sure that what they are telling you is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE. This is the third time that they've verified this account with incorrect information.
If the FTC settlement required that the OC refund and cease collecting, and CRA is continuing to report "verified", file FTC complaint against both. FTC administrative law judges probably want their orders followed, and this may be a condition for suspending additional penalties.
ontrack: thats where it gets fuzzy... the press release from the settlement on the ftc web site, refers that all negative information must be deleted. tu and efx have both finally deleted, after the company verified the account initially. the settlement itself just states that all collection activity itself has to stop, and since they're the OC, the fdcpa definition of collection activity doesn't apply directly, the settlements definition was slightly more vague. "This cessation of collections shall include, but is not limited to, directing all third parties engaged in debt collection (e.g., debt collectors and debt collection attorneys) to cease immediately all collection activities; <b>furnishing credit information to the three credit reporting agencies to whom the defendants report to show the applicable account no longer has an outstanding balance</b>; returning all monies received from customers after the effective date of this Order; filing in the court where the initial judgment was entered a Satisfaction of Judgment; and sending a copy of the Satisfaction of Judgment to each affected customer or its attorney of record along with the form shown in Attachment A to this Order. Defendants shall provide the FTC with a computer readable list of the affected customers, including names, addresses, account numbers, product(s) financed, amount outstanding at the time of entry of this Order, and, whenever available in Leasecomm's records, the location of the court in which the judgment was entered and the date of the judgment." actually, i just read in the non-redress portion, and there is a specific clause that i wasn't looking for because i focused on the redress portion... but that is phrased so that it seems to only affect the reporting of the judgement (which could never be reported because i was, and am judgment proof.) "Where defendants effect dismissal of a suit or vacation of a judgment pursuant to paragraph IV.B above, they shall give effective notice of the dismissal or vacation to the affected customer and to each consumer reporting agency, as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 603, or business credit reporting agency, that defendants have informed of the suit or have reason to know regularly records defendants suits or judgments in its files. Effective notice is notice given in the manner ordinarily provided by defendants reasonably sufficient to remove or correct any negative effect on the customer's credit rating that may exist due to the original reporting of the judgment or suit. Additionally, defendants shall furnish the notice to any other person or organization upon request of the customer." actually, the interesting thing is that i sent a letter to their lawyer about 3 days after the settlement knowing nothing about the settlement complaining about creating new account numbers to create twin listings, etc. they corrected experian the same day, transunion the twin didn't show up until a while later, but after i had disputed the original account, the original account was deleted and the twin was the active account. my dispute to eq was trying to get them to verify EVERYTHING, because they are still reporting it as a lease, even though that was the fraud that got them into trouble in the first place... not only a lease, but a $3,000+ lease for something that didn't exist, physically, and as per the FTC, had no value...
They only report what they tell them? Are these the same people that tell us consumers that because they are so interested in upholding the integrity of the credit reporting system, they have to VERIFY our disputes?????????? I guess the accuracy part of the equation only applies to us, not the creditors.
Yep... Hard to believe huh, especially when i asked the first 'supervisor' how many months late an account can be the month that its opened, she acted if *I* was the dumb one... Anyone know how to get above Team II to someone who actually has power at Eq? The supervisor's manager returned the first message, but convieneintly a minute later "wasn't at her desk", and decided to not return the second message.
Friday, I hand-delivered to the local attorney that the OC had for this account a copy of the Eq dispute, and a copy of the same letter customized for themselves, informing them that their client was reporting, and verifying three times over erroneous information (3 - $1,000 (b) violations) (other than the information which was contained in the original EQ dispute, I didn't elaborate on any of the specifics of the other tradeline problems -- i.e. no mention of the brain teaser error itself... ) Also conveiniently mentioning the fact that neither the OC, or their attorney has refunded as required by the FTC Settlement the payment that I had sent post-settlement. Today I received the 'cover letter' that the attorney is adding to the letter that I delivered to him with the refund check included. And a notation that he has writen to his client and advised them to get in contact with EQ to correct the credit history regarding this item. Been pulling PG daily to see if any changes happen, as they happen... Here is what is really puzzling me about their listing, other than the 90-120 days late the month it was opened, the current listing 'looks' mostly benign... From the PG report. Acct Type: Installment Acct Status: Closed Monthly Payment: $0 Date Open: Sep, 1998 Balance: $0 Terms: N/A High Balance: $3,XXX Limit: N/A Past Due: $0 Remarks: ACCOUNT CLOSED BY CONSUMER Payment Status: Bad debt& placed for collection& skip The PG 2 year account history shows all OKs, but the EQ report itself shows nothing except for the 9/98 (4) notation. The only true negatives as far as I can tell is the Payment Status/Comment, and the Account History 'error'...
I don't read it that way, and (obviously) neither does EQ. I pointed out on the phone how difficult it would be for me to be 120 days late TWELVE TIMES in eleven months. They truly are not interested in content, only in procedure. The sooner we get plugged into the procedure chain, the easier our lives will be. I called today to point out that three accounts were marked as OPEN when they had been discharge in BK two years ago. Gee, maybe that's why FICO thinks I have multiple recent late payments? They were not interested in how absurd this was, only in disputing it and having it come back (hopefully) correct.
I am waiting with baited breath for an explaination from them on how they can comply with the laws requirements for "maintaining adequite safeguards" when they could look at the garbage that comes in, and see with their own eyes that the response was garbage... Gee, and they wouldn't accept the FTC's word that the furnisher committed fraud, all they have to do is look at what the furnisher has provided them, and they can see the fraud with their own eyes...
