936 replies to this topic

[101st]

How does this look using TFC to try and get CRA to delete stuff?

DATE:November 15, 2012

CSC CREDIT SERVICES
PO Box 619054
DALLAS, TX 75261-9054

RE: COLLECTION ACCOUNTS

Dear Sir or Madam:

I recently viewed my credit report issued by your agency. Needless to say I am extremely upset that my report is replete with inaccurate and false information, all of which reflects poorly on my credit worthiness. In accordance with the Texas Finance Code, Title 5 Chapter 392 Sub-chapter C, I expect you to complete this request within 45 days. Also be advised you are hereby put on the 60 day notice of "right to cure" as allowed under the Texas Business and Commerce Code (BCC17).

COLLECTION ACCOUNT
Creditor's Name: NAME
Account Number: ######
Provide me documentation that this is my account or delete it

As you are aware, the Texas Finance Code (TFC), Title 5 Chapter 392 Subchapter C was enacted to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting. Moreover, the TFC sec 392.201 also requires you, as a credit reporting agency, to provide ALL information contained in a person's report. Specifically, Section 392.201 states:

"Not later then the 45th day after the date of the request, a credit bureau shall provide to a person in its registry a copy of ALL information contained in its files concerning that person."

and Section 392.202. states:

"An individual who disputes the accuracy of an item in a third-party debt collector's or credit bureau's file on the individual may notify in writing the third-party debt collector or credit bureau of the inaccuracy. The third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall provide forms for the notice and, when requested, assist an individual in preparing the notice."

Specifically, I request all item(s) you obtained from said debt owner to validate this alleged debt. Be assured that, in the event you fail to promptly respond to this letter and make the aforementioned corrections on my credit report, I am prepared to take the appropriate measures to protect my interests and will pursue all remedies available under the TFC Sec. 392.403 which provides for penalties, including attorney's fees, and punitive damages, for violations as set forth below:

(a) A person may sue for:

(1) injunctive relief to prevent or restrain a violation of this chapter; and

(2) actual damages sustained as a result of a violation of this chapter.

( A person who successfully maintains an action under Subsection (a) is entitled to attorney's fees reasonably related to the amount of work performed and costs.

© On a finding by a court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award the defendant attorney's fees reasonably related to the work performed and costs.

(d) If the attorney general reasonably believes that a person is violating or is about to violate this chapter, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of this state against the person to restrain or enjoin the person from violating this chapter.

Lastly, I demand that if proper documentation was not obtained to validate this alleged debt You must delete his debt and all information about this debt in your registry.


Sincerely,


______________________________________
Signature

NAME
SS#: ############
DOB: ##/##/###
ADDRESS

[101st]

Just found something else to add and to the TFC DV letters

§ 391.002. FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION; PENALTY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly furnishes false information about another person's creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity to a credit reporting bureau. ( A credit reporting bureau commits an offense if the credit reporting bureau knowingly furnishes false information about a person's creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity to a third party. © An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $200.

[shinto123]

This is a great thread.

I have learned a lot from reading all through it.

Please indulge my ignorance/stupidity, and please forgive me if I've overlooked the info that answers the questions.

• If a third party collector failed to procure a surety bond before attempting to collect on a debt, besides violating TX code 392.101, wouldn't their actions be void completely since they failed to obtain the required bond?

Here's the situation;

• Junk debt collector operating out of state tries to collect on a small (under $300) debt in Texas.
• Alleged debtor was never served written notice from the collector, and found out about it when it appeared on their credit reports.
• The alleged debtor sent registered letter demanding proof of the debt. The collector sent back a copy of a check. The check was returned to the original creditor because the account was closed when the check arrived for payment. The check was also discovered as forged by the alleged debtor. (this happened several years ago no correspondence from former bank which has long since been absorbed by a larger bank).
• The alleged debt is confirmed past TX state 4yr S.O.L. Will fall off completely in a few years.
• Alleged debtor could easily pay the debt amt declared, but does want to pay a debt that isn't theirs.
• Research in the TX SOS data base shows no issuance of required surety bond by the collector. Alleged debtor also obtained signed cert of "no record" from TX.
• Alleged debtor will only communicate via registered mail pursuant to this matter.
• Some unknown event triggered this report of this debt to the CA's.
• No harassment, or legal suits incurred by alleged debtor on this, just the annoying mark on otherwise perfect credit

Alleged debtors goal;

• Have the debt removed from an otherwise spotless record of credit with CA's.

Any comments and suggestions welcome.


Local attorneys not much help, but understandably this probably is not worth their time.

[cprems]

Start a new thread with Texas in the header. You will get more responses. This thread is a research thread and doesn't get many replies.

[Jon77]

I haven't been in this thread since around page 12 or so. lol But, I just wanted to say that this will always be the best thread ever on CB. I don't know how many CA's have INSTANTLY folded due to the information I used here. Even the notorious CA's that no one else can seem to get rid of in other states.

Thanks Walter and Centex!

[shinto123]

Start a new thread with Texas in the header. You will get more responses. This thread is a research thread and doesn't get many replies.

Many thanks!

I will wait, to not clutter the board, and keep researching the board. My answers are probably there, and I'm overlooking them ;-)

[shinto123]

This is a great thread.

I have learned a lot from reading all through it.

Please indulge my ignorance/stupidity, and please forgive me if I've overlooked the info that answers the questions.
 

• If a third party collector failed to procure a surety bond before attempting to collect on a debt, besides violating TX code 392.101, wouldn't their actions be void completely since they failed to obtain the required bond?

Here's the situation;

• Junk debt collector operating out of state tries to collect on a small (under $300) debt in Texas.
• Alleged debtor was never served written notice from the collector, and found out about it when it appeared on their credit reports.
• The alleged debtor sent registered letter demanding proof of the debt. The collector sent back a copy of a check. The check was returned to the original creditor because the account was closed when the check arrived for payment. The check was also discovered as forged by the alleged debtor. (this happened several years ago no correspondence from former bank which has long since been absorbed by a larger bank).
• The alleged debt is confirmed past TX state 4yr S.O.L. Will fall off completely in a few years.
• Alleged debtor could easily pay the debt amt declared, but does want to pay a debt that isn't theirs.
• Research in the TX SOS data base shows no issuance of required surety bond by the collector. Alleged debtor also obtained signed cert of "no record" from TX.
• Alleged debtor will only communicate via registered mail pursuant to this matter.
• Some unknown event triggered this report of this debt to the CA's.
• No harassment, or legal suits incurred by alleged debtor on this, just the annoying mark on otherwise perfect credit

Alleged debtors goal;

• Have the debt removed from an otherwise spotless record of credit with CA's.

Any comments and suggestions welcome.


Local attorneys not much help, but understandably this probably is not worth their time.

 

Start a new thread with Texas in the header. You will get more responses. This thread is a research thread and doesn't get many replies.

Many thanks!

I will wait, to not clutter the board, and keep researching the board. My answers are probably there, and I'm overlooking them ;-)

Thanks to everyone posting in this thread!! With time, patience, and lots more research.....

 

Errant collections removed!!

 

Got  certification from TX SOS OFFC, that collector had not filed surety bond.

 

Looking to file suit on collector now!

[breeze]

We like clutter.

[shinto123]

We like clutter.

Hey, this forum is a goldmine of knowledge.

 

Many thanks for all you do!!

[MB34]

Wife just served petition filed by Brachfeld/LVNV in County Court, Williamson County. Funny, it was signed on Mar7 but we didn't even get it til yesterday and the process server did not sign the document at all. It says we are "supposed to file a written answer to the clerk by 10:00am on Monday next following the exiration of 10 days after you were served". Ohh, we can also pay $5.00 and ask for a jury trial! Many misspellings on the front page signed by the County Clerk.

 

They are asking for Discovery Level1 along with OP.Total owed is $1900. SOL is out in September this year.

 

Have Plaintiff's Request for Disclosure, asking all kinds of things that they should already know. They also have a Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions to Defendant that asks questions that if answered correctly essentially admits that they are correct in everything they claim. Nothing like throwing out the Fifth Ammendment, here...

 

They continue to call, using phony CallerID, which is a violation of Federal CallerIDAct of 2009, and the generic, "This is a call for xxxx, if this is not xxxx, please hang up..." type of voice mails.

 

Just wondering, how should I respond to these?

Edited by MB34, 02 April 2013 - 10:56 AM.

[breeze]

Wife just served petition filed by Brachfeld/LVNV in County Court, Williamson County. Funny, it was signed on Mar7 but we didn't even get it til yesterday and the process server did not sign the document at all. It says we are "supposed to file a written answer to the clerk by 10:00am on Monday next following the exiration of 10 days after you were served". Ohh, we can also pay $5.00 and ask for a jury trial! Many misspellings on the front page signed by the County Clerk.

 

They are asking for Discovery Level1 along with OP.Total owed is $1900. SOL is out in September this year.

 

Have Plaintiff's Request for Disclosure, asking all kinds of things that they should already know. They also have a Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions to Defendant that asks questions that if answered correctly essentially admits that they are correct in everything they claim. Nothing like throwing out the Fifth Ammendment, here...

 

They continue to call, using phony CallerID, which is a violation of Federal CallerIDAct of 2009, and the generic, "This is a call for xxxx, if this is not xxxx, please hang up..." type of voice mails.

 

Just wondering, how should I respond to these?

 

You need to post your question in the HIBS forum.

[dave19]

I used this wonderful thread to have NCO remove an erroneous item back in 2010. Now I have moved out of Texas and discover the same erroneous item now being reported by 'Contract Callers' just last month.

 

I need the item off as quickly as possible. I still have the letters to and from NCO from 2010. NCO wasn't supposed to sell this, yet did. Now I have no clue where to attack. I'm tempted to do a PFD as we do want this off ASAP for a refi.

 

Thoughts?