now what

[wyntyrose]

I have been fighting with EQ over a tl they have on my dh's cr. On the EQ report (the only one it is on) they have it listed under the heading of collection, we have accounts, public records and collections this is the only tl under the collection heading. So as I previously posted we contacted the CA and the CA agreed that it was NEVER a collection account and should not be listed as such. This was per the VP of the CA, I did verify that. So both CA and I have sent EQ information stating this should not be under their heading of collection. EQ came back and said it was verified as correct and if I had any issues to contact the CA. What more can we do, the CA admitted it was wrong, they and we have sent documentation to show it shouldn't be under the area/heading of a collection. I am so frustrated i just want to pull my hair out. What can I do?

[cinnamngrl]

make a complaint to the AG.

[creditmonitor2010]

Send a copy of everything with a brief cover letter like your post to FTC

[wyntyrose]

I want to make sure I have this all correct so bear with me as I continue with my questions I want to nail them as I am fed up.

When looking at the eq report I show first public records, then accounts both good and bad and then there is collections which is where this account/tl is found.

As I stated the CA has admitted it should not be a collection account, and it does show on the trade line as iib, but the CA said it should not be listed under collections.

I have the letter from the stating the account should never have been a collection which was FAXED and mailed CMRR. So I should now just skip dealing with EQ and go straight to the FTC and AG? And which AG where EQ is or my states?

[hegemony]

what means did you employ for the dispute with EQ?

[wyntyrose]

I disputed the information as incorrect as it was never in collections before being IIB, it came back confirmed. Then my dh called the CA who said they had never been contacted by EQ for verification, he gave them permission to speak to me and I ended up speaking with the VP of the company. He also reviewed the information and agreed it was not nor should have been a collection account. He has emailed and snail mailed me a signed and dated letter saying this. We then faxed and cmrr this letter to EQ and they still verified it.

[hegemony]

so you did not use snail mail for your dispute?

[wyntyrose]

Yes we used both snail mail sent cmrr and fax as we needed this gone to help with our scores.

[cinnamngrl]

Yes we used both snail mail sent cmrr and fax as we needed this gone to help with our scores.

 

I would report this to the AG. Have you sent a Method of Verification?

 

what fax number did you use and where did you get it?

Edited February 9, 2010 by cinnamngrl

[wyntyrose]

We used a fax number given to us by the rep from Equifax. I am not sure what you mean by method of verification? It has been verified by EQ numerous times in disputes.

[cinnamngrl]

We used a fax number given to us by the rep from Equifax. I am not sure what you mean by method of verification? It has been verified by EQ numerous times in disputes.

 

A MOV letter is a request to know how exactly they verified. Who they contacted and what was received. This is in the FDCPA.

 

Have you been escalated to special investigations with EQ? That was the only time I got a usable fax number.

[wyntyrose]

no cinnamngrl my husband asked how do we get this cleared up and the rep said fax us the letter you received from Seattle Service Bureau and gave him the fax number. I will send out a letter today asking how they verified. and then once I get a response if it isn't satisfactory I will go to AG and FTC. You would think if the Ca said it was a mistake and admitted to it with a signed letter it wouldn't be this hard to have it changed.

[cinnamngrl]

no cinnamngrl my husband asked how do we get this cleared up and the rep said fax us the letter you received from Seattle Service Bureau and gave him the fax number. I will send out a letter today asking how they verified. and then once I get a response if it isn't satisfactory I will go to AG and FTC. You would think if the Ca said it was a mistake and admitted to it with a signed letter it wouldn't be this hard to have it changed.

 

I would send a letter CMRRR asking how EQ is verifying the tradeline if the creditor says that it should be deleted.

[ShadyCredit]

no cinnamngrl my husband asked how do we get this cleared up and the rep said fax us the letter you received from Seattle Service Bureau and gave him the fax number. I will send out a letter today asking how they verified. and then once I get a response if it isn't satisfactory I will go to AG and FTC. You would think if the Ca said it was a mistake and admitted to it with a signed letter it wouldn't be this hard to have it changed.

 

I would send a letter CMRRR asking how EQ is verifying the tradeline if the creditor says that it should be deleted.

 

 

I must have missed this part?

 

So this "Seattle Service Bureau" you refer to as a "CA" is reporting an account on your report as a "collection account". I might be missing something, but if a "collection agency" is reporting an account that's in "collections".....doesn't that make it a collection account? If this is not a collection account, what should it be listed as?

 

Forgive me if I missed an important section that explains this.

[fdj]

I must have missed this part?

 

So this "Seattle Service Bureau" you refer to as a "CA" is reporting an account on your report as a "collection account". I might be missing something, but if a "collection agency" is reporting an account that's in "collections".....doesn't that make it a collection account? If this is not a collection account, what should it be listed as?

 

Forgive me if I missed an important section that explains this.

You and me both.

 

I read over the OP 3 times just to make sure I didn't miss something and I sure can't find it if it's there.

 

Cinn, I've never heard of an MOV request is or where anything like this is referenced in the FDCPA, but it sounds like a PR (Procedure Request) from the FCRA. Are you sure it's not that?

[wyntyrose]

the account was sent to collection one month AFTER we included it in our Ch 7 BK. the TL reads IIB but when you look at it on the EQ CR it is listed as/under collection account, the only one we have. The CA Seattle Service Bureau acknowledged in writing to us that it was improperly listed and would have EQ remove it as it was NOT in collections, nor should it be listed in collections. Our bk was march 1 the CA got the account on march 28. So the OC sent the account post bk to the CA. EQ re-verified the account as a collection account after we sent them the letter from the CA and the CA contacted them.

Edited February 10, 2010 by wyntyrose

[hegemony]

if there is a violation of the BK discharge order CC: the court as well as file an FTC complaint against EQ

[ShadyCredit]

the account was sent to collection one month AFTER we included it in our Ch 7 BK. the TL reads IIB but when you look at it on the EQ CR it is listed as/under collection account, the only one we have. The CA Seattle Service Bureau acknowledged in writing to us that it was improperly listed and would have EQ remove it as it was NOT in collections, nor should it be listed in collections. Our bk was march 1 the CA got the account on march 28. So the OC sent the account post bk to the CA. EQ re-verified the account as a collection account after we sent them the letter from the CA and the CA contacted them.

 

 

I'd tend not to believe the CA's word....."VP" or not. I find it hard to believe that they're basically begging the CRA to stop reporting a specific TL and the CRA for whatever wild reason refuses to update/delete information that the supplier is giving. Doesn't that seem kind of odd? What reason would Equifax have to continue to report this when nobody is asking them to report, AND the "creditor" is supposedly asking for it to be deleted? Sounds kinda fishy to me....maybe I just don't trust the "word" of a CA.

[wyntyrose]

I understand what you are saying Shady but EQ has been sent the letter from the CA stating the account is incorrect and needs to be changed as it should NEVER have been a collection account to begin with.

[ShadyCredit]

I understand what you are saying Shady but EQ has been sent the letter from the CA stating the account is incorrect and needs to be changed as it should NEVER have been a collection account to begin with.

 

 

That information is coming from the CA who are known to lie and be completely dishonest people 99.9% of the time. I'm not saying that is definitely what's going on with your situation, but unless you know for a fact(and not just going by what the CA says) I'd have to question it.

[fdj]

I understand what you are saying Shady but EQ has been sent the letter from the CA stating the account is incorrect and needs to be changed as it should NEVER have been a collection account to begin with.

 

 

That information is coming from the CA who are known to lie and be completely dishonest people 99.9% of the time. I'm not saying that is definitely what's going on with your situation, but unless you know for a fact(and not just going by what the CA says) I'd have to question it.

Well, CRAs have been known to be lazy in their "investigations", but in my experience with EQ, they did their part (albeit the bare minimum required by the FCRA) and it was the data furnisher that was screwing the pooch.

 

Whoever is to blame, no one is going to admit it so if you can't get the action you need with directly contacting the CRAs and data furnishers, you gotta raise the stakes. Start filing complaints with your AG, the CA's AG the CRA's AG, the FTC, the BBB, the ABC and the 123.

 

Or you could give your BK lawyer a call and have them send a letter and be done with it in a week.

[wyntyrose]

I just wanted to update this situation. I spoke again with the CA VP yesterday, he phoned me to see if it had been deleted. I told him that EQ was still not deleting the tl. He had a few choice words and said he would get it off asap how ever he could so this evening I got an email notification of a change to my EQ report. The Seattle Service Bureau was completely DELETED as was another account I have been disputing. Thank you everyone for all your advice and help. I don't know what this has done to the scores yet but can not wait to see. What I have learned from reading and rereading all the knowledge within these web pages has helped us and now I am helping my friends and referring them here. WOO HOO two more baddies gone. Best early Valentines I could have gotten.

Edited February 13, 2010 by wyntyrose

[cinnamngrl]

[bonusmom]

I had this happen as well with a CA for a cable account and finally filed a complaint with the BBB to get it resolved. My complaint, same as OP, is that the matter wasn't in collections or turned over to a CA until 6 wks post BK.

 

I just filed the complaint with the BBB so don't know the outcome as of yet

 

I would contact the OC (via mail) and ask them to ask the CA to delete the account as it wasn't reported until after the BK was filed. If that doesn't work, call in the BBB. This was successful for me with another account.