I received a letter from Leasecomm along with a UDF yesterday in reply to my â??nutcaseâ? letter sent 29 days ago. Hereâ??s what it says: Dear tiger00, This letter is to confirm our correspondence regarding the above referenced account number. At this time, your account with Leascomm is closed. However, as the finance lessor of this equipment, Leascomm is required to report the status of your account and the history that we have had with you to the credit bureaus. Therefore, Leasecomm cannot remove the derogatory comments that have been placed on this account. Sincerely, Leascomm As well they included a UDF with the following in the â??Reason for deletion or status change from adverse to favorableâ? ACCOUNT WAS SETTLED WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY, WAS OVER 180 PAST DUE. SETTLED IN FULL 11/16/2001, PREVIOUS HISTORY REMAINS The question now is: #1 They indicated that this was sent to an outside agency, so shouldnâ??t that agency be responsible for the reporting (assuming that it wasnâ??t Leasecommâ??s own internal collections)? #2 Although they are not required to validate as they are the OC, are they not following the rules by reporting on an account that was placed into collections with an outside agency? Nonetheless, â??nutcaseâ? letter 2 goes out in the mail tomorrow ;-)
<mini-BUMP> I just did a search, and I think that I might have some answers to my earlier questions, as well as some new ammunition. One thing that I have noticed with the reporting of this account to the different CRA's that it shows as "closed by grantor" on two, but as a Paid Collection on the third (TU of course). Does this constitute a failure to accurately report per FCRA? Secondly, on the UDF, all of the fields are blank, sans the company name, my account #, and the statement mentioned above. Since there is not any information in the payment history section is this another boo boo on the OC's part?
1*Leascomm is required to report the status of your account and the history that we have had with you to the credit bureaus. 2*Therefore, Leasecomm cannot remove the derogatory comments that have been placed on this account. tiger00 ================== 1*This is a false statement. 2*So is this.
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" Question for you -- why wouldn't you continue with the Nutcase series, letter #2, etc.? It sounds like you're considering switching tracks to the validation/estoppel sequence, a strategy reserved for unpaid alleged debts. Doc
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" This is where the water get's a little murky for me. I was taking the approach that dfwgt used with the nutcase followed by the estopple. Is there a better approach? http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=173290#post173290
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" Frankly I think the best approach is to follow the well-worn path. The Nutcase series is intended for fully paid accounts with very bad tradelines. The validation/estoppel sequence is intended for unpaid alleged debt. Consider reviewing the intro threads again regarding each approach. That said, no tactic works for everybody; regardless, keep us posted how it goes! Doc
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" doc, thanks for the advice!!! Since the estoppel has gone out already I'll see what the response will be, although a little off of the "nutcase" and "son of nutcase" path. I've been reading the posts/FAQâ??s/intros voraciously, and there doesnâ??t seem to be any consistency with the steps to take when using the â??nutcase rationaleâ?. Some have gone the NC and son of NC route, while other have taken the NC-estoppel route. I think that the bottom line is that I keep going after them, but Iâ??m not sure if the best approach is to try to rack up violations so that I can eventually sue, or am I just kidding myself?
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" tiger, there really is some consistency. Most people who begin with validation follow through with the optional secondary validation letters and then estoppel and finally intent-to-sue. Likewise, most people who begin with the Nutcase Letter #1 follow through with #2 and #3 if it gets that far. You will find examples of those who combine and modify techniques -- and with success sometimes -- but usually those people aren't new to the task. I always recommend that you follow the basic pathways when you're first getting a handle on all of this -- it really can be confusing! I remember being where you are now not too long ago. (Time flies, LOL!) Doc P.S. By the way, the fact that your initial Nutcase #1 was met with a UDF form is a very positive sign. It means that your nuisance quotient outweighs any concerns they have about credit reporting and that you've got them on the run.
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" doc, again thanks for the advice. I looked at some of the different techniques that were discussed before starting the process. The nutcase technique is a little harder to follow than the unpaid collections, as this is well documented. Believe you me, Iâ??ve searched high and low for a step by step on the nutcase, and what is really there, based upon the Unofficial FAQ, is this person did it this way for this reason, and this other person did it this other way because of another reason. Of course, every situation is a little different, but because of this itâ??s a little bit daunting to know if the approach that you use is the best one for the situation. Iâ??d love to see this expounded upon and added to the â??Hall of Fameâ? once itâ??s something thatâ??s more definitive. So, to understand the steps that you recommend correctly, you are suggesting nutcase letters 1-3: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=153707#post153707 and following the failure for the CRA to validate, as well as continuing to show the debt not being disputed then this provides the ammunition for a lawsuit, hence the ITS as the fourth letter to go out?
Re: Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" Sounds like an opportunity for another of your great essay's Doc. I think you're being recruited. Paid accounts are getting easier to deal with Tiger. Used to be we couldn't do much. Today, we've realized that you can become such a pain in the butt that it's not worth it for them to continually argue about it, hence the "nuisance' quotient". Just stay after them. And yes they are in violation of the FCRA for not reporting correct information. It must be 100% accurate and complete and variably. .
I would wholeheartedly agree. I know that the intention is to make the CA think that you are somewhat touched (you know, a nutcase) and you will continue to be a pain in their behind unless your requests are met. But, what is not clear, is if the same rules for reporting disputed paid debts by the CA to the CRA when validation requests are made are indeed violations that can be used in court later if needed? The real question here being "What teeth can I use to bite if I have if the CA doesn't respond to my bark?"
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" Doggonnit, I just realized that you answered my question, and again I do appreciate the help!!! It's not that Leascomm doesn't have enough enemies already, but now they've got a NUTCASE to deal with TOO!!!!
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" I got a letter in response to my disputes sent 3 weeks ago to TU and they indicated that the accounts that I disputed aren't showing on my TU report. I decided to pull my TU report last night, and low and behold, the same items that I disputed are still showing online. I called TU this morning, and they told me that there are ZERO NEGATIVE ITEMS showing on my report, and they didn't know why it would still show online. I requested that my report be sent again, and made a call to TrueCredit, as this looks like the company that actually posts the reports online. Their response was that I was continuing to pull an old report, rather than the current, and the current shows nothing!!! So, the good news, as I know it, is that the TU report is now CLEAN!!!!
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" Well, I'm waiting to celebrate until I receive the hardcopy from TU. I called TrueCredit to figure out why the information that TU said was gone was still showing up, and they said that my old report that I was pulling was out of date. Just to verify, I pulled a new TU report. Well, you can probably guess it, the items still showed as being there, and a call to both TU and TrueCredit resulted in no definitive answers. TU says that it's gone, and TrueCredit said that they are using the current report, so something isn't jibbing. Has anyone had this happen to them, where their online report isnâ??t the same as a hard copy?
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" I remember WorthKnowing.com TU reports used to lag behind the real deal by a business day or two at one point. It sounds like this is simply a third-party vendor who isn't delivering top notch service rather than a Trans Union issue. The UDF ("Universal Delete Form") action is pretty definitive. If you're cautious, hold off on celebrations, LOL, but I would definitely allow room for optimism regardless. Doc
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" Doc, as said before "You da man" or if you're PC then "Yo da person"!!!! I'll have a mini celebration, and once the hard copy gets here the real partying begins. That will knock me down to just 2 negatives left on EQ and 2 on EX that need to disappear.
Re: Re: Received UDF following "nutcase" Just another update, and soon I'll put these into a collection for others to refer to, but I just received another partial validation from a CA and the dispute results from EXP. The EXP disputes came back as verified, so the PR goes out today. The "nutcase/estoppel combo" went out on the last week, and the first green card has made it back. I'm still waiting on the TU hardcopy, which should now be clean. EQF has yet to respond to the disputes, but the PR is waiting in the wings for their anticipated response of "verified". That puts the score at 0 negatives on TU, 3 negatives on EXP, and 2 negatives of EQF. Happy happy, joy joy, but more to come!!!! So, a quick question on best next steps. Since I used the nutcase #2/estoppel combo is it a safe next step to go with nutcase #3, or straight to the ITS?
Time for another update. Received a billing statement from an OC in response to a validation request from to the CA. Of course, it was incomplete (no contract, no indication of all payments made, etc.), so things are moving along. I also received a couple of letters, one from the aforementioned Leascomm, and one from a CA, both requesting ID, signatures, SS card, stool samples, and cavity searches before they would investigate the alleged "fraud" they have assumed my validation letter indicated. Leasecomm actually had the audacity to send me a copy of the contract along with this letter. I guess the thought is, umm were not sure who you are, so we'll send you this guy's information, who we think is you, instead. After searching the board I am rest assured that the only thing that they will receive from me is another letter, the dreaded ITS, and then all of them can establish my identity once they receive the court summons ;-) I have a certified letter waiting at the PO, but Iâ??m sure that itâ??s just one of the CAâ??s with another stall/scare tactic, so Iâ??m not too worried about it. As a matter of fact I canâ??t wait to read it to see how the CA has missed the mark again. More updates as this moves along!!!
