Sorry for the prolonged absence. Between job hunting and getting ready to move this Saturday, well... kinda busy... Here's the deal: Two Cap One accounts are listed on my CR's as well as those of The Lovely Mrs. Quixote (She'd have me for lunch if she knew I referred to her that way, lol!). Here's how they are reported: Account A My EQ: Collection Account $59 Owing verified 12/01 My Ex: "Paid In Settlement past due 180 days" Creditor's statement: Account legally paid in full for less than full balance. Verfified 12/01 My TU: Paid Charge Off $0 Owing Verified 12/01 TLMQ's EQ: Not Reporting TLMQ's EX: "Paid In Settlement past due 180 days" Creditor's statement: Account legally paid in full for less than full balance. Verfified 12/01 TLMQ's TU P&L Write Off $65 Balance Verified 12/01 Account B My EQ: Collection Account $0 Owing verified 12/01 My Ex: "Paid In Settlement past due 180 days Verfified 12/01 My TU: Paid Charge Off $0 Owing Verified 12/01 TLMQ's EQ: Not Reporting TLMQ's EX: "Paid In Settlement past due 180 days" Creditor's statement: Account legally paid in full for less than full balance. Verfified 12/01 TLMQ's TU Paid Collection Verified 07/01 So there you have it. Two accounts, five different descriptions. All in disagreement. All verified. Where to now? Seem like some clear violations of the FCRA, but I would be curious to hear some feedback before I go get the shotgun... TIA! Tom
Welcome back Quixote You could probably file suit against Cap 1 for these violations or write them a letter citing this section and tell them to delete or get sued. Then if they tell you that they never validated this way, you have the CRA's. Either way, keep us posted. Bobbi § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. (C) No address requirement. A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address. (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. (4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed. (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action. (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. (c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s]. (d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section.
Thanks Bobbi! I was thinking along the same lines. I've been watching the thread started by Christi "(I GIVE UP!)" and can't help wondering if much of that same verbiage would translate to my situation. Thoughts anyone?
Don't you just love it Ok, what is the deal with the account? still owing? paid in full? I'd do 2 things... Ask the cras for procedural descriptions on all the recent verifications of these accounts. they likely won't send them to you. that screwup alone can justify a lawsuit. then talk with Cap1 and see if you can work it out.. Also, let them know how off the reporting is and that there must be a disconnect somewhere. All else fails, you could small claims it. You know how to start the trail to the courthouse.
Thanks, Marie, for responding. I should have clarified. Both of these accounts are fully paid collections. They were, in fact, accounts that were called back from collections by Cap1 due to our participation in CCCS. Then they were paid off at 100 cents on the dollar. It seems to me that much of the liability here lies not with the CRA's, though there may be some, but directly with Cap1. Presuming a good faith effort to "verify" the account on the part of each of the CRAs, then Cap1 "verfied" one account three different ways, the other two different ways. Willful non-compliance with the sections cited by bobbidk maybe? If Cap1 comes back with a story that they were never asked to verify, then I've got an open and shut case against the CRA's. Either way, someone to sue, and evidence of violations. Make sense? I've got a good paper trail consisting of modified validation letters, modified estoppels, and Planet FeedbBack correspondence. CRR green cards, of course. I spoke to Mr. Cooke around Christmas and he promised he would change all the listings to "Paid Collection- R5" which would be considerably less negative than "Paid Charge Off" or "Paid In Settlement", which are not only more derogatory, but they are innacurate. When it didn't happen after two weeks, I called him again, and he again assured me it would be taken care of right away. I frankly would have been willing to settle for that, since they're four years old and not a huge factor on the score if they were reflecting the truth. Since they have yet again reneged on this, it feels like it's time to drop the hammer. Just thought I'd see if anyone had any template letters that might be useful for this situation. I can do it, but with everything going on in my life right now, I'm looking for shortcuts. Thanks! Tom "One more day 'til moving day"
Well... first you're assuming that the cras actually verified and cap1 gave bad info. that very well might not be the case. cras fake investigations all the time. Honestly, I'd ask for procedural descriptions of the cras. At the same time, I'd fire a letter to Cap1 about how the accounts are all reporting differently... and state how they're reporting. That's ludicrous. State that all these errors (repeated errors) are fcra violations and you now expect, since clearly they can't even update a tradeline correctly, that the only real way to render you accurate is to delete the tradelines completely. then if you need to, file the cra small claims. you'll definitely get them removed. and especially with Experian, don't assume because they're old they are killing you. they shouldn't, but sometimes the coding internally (you won't know) will send a Currently derog notation to the scores and to the creditors. I know, I saw it on my mortgage trimerge. How can an old paid account have an I5 anyway (that's currently past due x amount)... it affected me over 60 points once deleted (and put me at 700) If these are you only derogs... I'd aggressively go after both sides. any moron judge/ juror can easily see someone's screwing up. How can the same account be so different????? it can't
Thanks Marie! After the Big Move next week, and then a trip out of state for a final interview (Fingers Crossed!) I'll get my feces aggregated and head down that path quickly. First, as you suggested, I'll fire off a threatening letter to Cap1 regarding their continued violations of FCRA and cite them chapter and verse. In parallel, I will request verification procedures from all of the CRA's. If Cap1 blinks, I'm done. If not, then I sue the CRA's. I'm still not sure why I shouldn't also be suing Cap1, but I'll defer to your wisdom... I'm sure I'll be posting more on this as I go.
OK, since our hero lasted tilted at his windmills , I've a) finished scraping that damned popcorn of the ceiling in the new house and plastering, sanding, and painting said ceiling; b) moved into said house; and c) gotten a new job, which starts Wednesday. So, with these few minutes of calm between storms, I need to get these crazy letters out. I've begun to draft them based on kustomkat's Intent To Sue letter (Thanks kustomkat!!). I am sending out several variations to the last few holdouts on our CR's; two CA's and Cap1. It was easy to find the Agent for Service of Process for the CA's, from a link that LKH posted a while back (Thanks LKH!!!). I have not, thus far, been able to figure out who to name at Capitol One, nor which address to send to, in this last, most threatening letter, to be accompanied by copies of filled out Small Claims suit paperwork. Can somebody help me out here?
QX~HX#XX!!! Thunk Thunk Thunk Is this thing on??? Mebbe I just send it to Mr. Cooke without the Small Claims paperwork for the time being?
