Jump to content




Welcome to CreditBoards!


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to CreditBoards! Like most online communities, you must register to post in our community, but don't worry - this is a simple process requiring minimal information for you to sign up. Be a part of CreditBoards by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Read These Items!

  • If you're getting an Authentication mismatch error: Clear your cache. Log out of CB. Delete your cookie. Close your browser. Open your browser and log back in.

Photo

"Previously Investigated" (Fraudlink Added)


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#26 Q

Q
  • Members
  • 4,574 posts

Posted 09 August 2004 - 11:58 PM

Now ain't that some bull right there. Wonder if some creditors will testify to that if you sued over that?



#27 sundara

sundara
  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 10 August 2004 - 12:11 AM

The person who corrected it was very mad at Exeprian - with a major corporation (ACS_ student loans)....she was assigned my complain by the CEO - after I threatened to sue them..Her letter points the finger at Experian.

#28 GEORGE

GEORGE
  • Members
  • 81,453 posts

Posted 10 August 2004 - 12:13 AM

I have been fighting an error with Experian and found out today from the creditor that Experian changed their computer codes without telling the creditors...and has led to over one million mis-reports.

They use to code the reports as paid in full with a code "M" and now they deleted "M" altogether..so when the creditor reported paid in full, Experian reported as "closed at credit grantor request".

So that is why PENFED is reporting "CLOSED AT CREDIT GRANTORS REQUEST"

#29 sundara

sundara
  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 10 August 2004 - 12:20 AM

I am told the change in codes was not passed on to the reporters and it wasn't until I complained high high up, that they figured it out....they assigned a new code which gives the account this remark.

now, over 10 hours and months later it is fixed.....I am so pissed at Experian who reports no knowledge - more like no accountablity.

#30 Tinker_Bell

Tinker_Bell
  • Members
  • 781 posts

Posted 10 August 2004 - 12:59 PM

Just got another "previously investigated" letter today... interesting part is that one of the accounts was last disputed last September... almost a year ago!! And they won't investigate it. Sheesh!!!

I will be sending you my stuff... just gotta get it all together and stuff. Is there a certain deadline that you need this all by?

#31 CargoJon

CargoJon

    CB Jedi Master

  • Mod Squad
  • 10,110 posts

Posted 10 August 2004 - 04:59 PM

I have been fighting an error with Experian and found out today from the creditor that Experian changed their computer codes without telling the creditors...and has led to over one million mis-reports.

They use to code the reports as paid in full with a code "M" and now they deleted "M" altogether..so when the creditor reported paid in full, Experian reported as "closed at credit grantor request".


Holy Crap, this would explain why a littel while back I disputed a Cap One account that was "paid/closed, was 30 days" and it came back "closed, was 30 days"

my score crapped.

Do we have any documentation to support this?

#32 ljayatl96

ljayatl96
  • Members
  • 293 posts

Posted 10 August 2004 - 07:01 PM

Willy,

Does this also pertain to there inability to correct wrong addy's on our CR's.



Lj


:bike:

#33 sundara

sundara
  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 10 August 2004 - 07:05 PM

I have a ltr from ACS which point the finger at Experian for the error.

#34 willy2004

willy2004
  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 02:08 PM

Count me in, now I've got to start digging through the letters....

Can I suggest you pick a date to mail them out?

That way this won't be delayed and everyone that wants to participate will be reminded

Short...
:bus:


bcgp, any suggestions? # of consumers? # of notices? I will update below as soon as I go thru responding to other posts.

#35 willy2004

willy2004
  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 02:12 PM

Just got another "previously investigated" letter today... interesting part is that one of the accounts was last disputed last September... almost a year ago!! And they won't investigate it. Sheesh!!!

I will be sending you my stuff... just gotta get it all together and stuff. Is there a certain deadline that you need this all by?


Tinker, I will post prior to sending them out....say 20 days prior.

#36 willy2004

willy2004
  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 02:16 PM

Willy,

Does this also pertain to there inability to correct wrong addy's on our CR's.



Lj


:bike:


LJ, this is a separate animal I think. I posted on this subject and am following up on it right now with complaints, etc... http://www.creditboa...false addresses

#37 willy2004

willy2004
  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 02:22 PM

Update Count (not including me)

2 consumers

5 notices

9 "PI" items

#38 00ws6ta

00ws6ta
  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 11 August 2004 - 05:36 PM

I have been helping several friends out with their credit and ALL of them have received the exact letter...I have lots of friends also...how many do you want. I am pissed about this...my friends are also pissed...

Thanks for this venting


Matt

#39 Murano902

Murano902
  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 13 August 2004 - 09:54 AM

willy,

I am mailing you 3 PI letters and 1 letter stating they couldn't use my info I sent - went out in today's mail.

Thanks! and pet your cat for me!!


#40 willy2004

willy2004
  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 13 August 2004 - 11:40 PM

http://www.creditboa...p=375379#375379 This is a fraud game.

#41 willy2004

willy2004
  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 15 August 2004 - 06:20 PM

Your payment history is stored in the records of credit reporting agencies. If you believe the information in your personal credit report is inaccurate, then we will investigate and correct or remove any inaccurate information or information that cannot be verified. Accurate information cannot be deleted.


Has the bold faced language been abandoned by Experian since December 2002. I am guessing that it has.

#42 Jugador22

Jugador22
  • Members
  • 737 posts

Posted 17 August 2004 - 07:28 AM

I've got one of those "we can use your info" letters...I'm willing to send it out. Let me know.

#43 willy2004

willy2004
  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 17 August 2004 - 06:03 PM

5 consumers

11 notices

Some of the notices do not expressly say "Previously Investigated" though they are equivalent.

#44 Murano902

Murano902
  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 18 August 2004 - 04:18 AM

Hang in there...I sent you 3 that did.

#45 mark

mark
  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 18 August 2004 - 09:21 PM

Just got another "previously investigated" letter today... interesting part is that one of the accounts was last disputed last September... almost a year ago!! And they won't investigate it. Sheesh!!!

I will be sending you my stuff... just gotta get it all together and stuff. Is there a certain deadline that you need this all by?


tink, my experience with a TL that is frivilous in EXP eyes is that they will never investigate it again, _ever_..i've got one that has been there for 2+ years and still to this day I get 'previously investigated' even though it shows 0$ balance, $0 original amount, and has had a status of 'consumer disputed' for over 2 years. How could that be accurate?

procedures requests gets me a standard form letter with just the CA's mailing address..nothing more. I actually just gave up on it..too much stress..probably doing what EXP wants me to do, but oh well.

#46 rocasakesa

rocasakesa
  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 11:10 PM

I also received a "previously investigated" letter.

#47 mark

mark
  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 20 August 2004 - 12:16 AM

I've got 2 different letters from them that says "WAS PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED" as the reason, with some blurb beneath it about how they do their verification.

it is for 2 different accounts (2 bad ones that they only disputed once and will never dispute again)

both are from November of 2003.

#48 JessicaRabbit88

JessicaRabbit88
  • Members
  • 4,110 posts

Posted 20 August 2004 - 03:39 PM

Not rain on the parade ... but ...

My lawsuit against Experian consist of 10 claims against them and part of this is the "previously investigated" portion. This by itself is not enough to warrent a lawsuit, but coupled with the other violations and I have a strong case. This will move towards compensation and injuctive relief.

A class action will get you all maybe $.10 each if you win -- the one who gets the most money in a class action suit is the Lawyer who might net $100,000 for the suit. Plus it may force Experian to change their procedures, and include the words "frivilous" when they send out their automated letters.

Do you get what I am saying?

*shrugs*
Jessica

#49 willy2004

willy2004
  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 05:39 PM

Not rain on the parade ... but ...

My lawsuit against Experian consist of 10 claims against them and part of this is the "previously investigated" portion. This by itself is not enough to warrent a lawsuit, but coupled with the other violations and I have a strong case. This will move towards compensation and injuctive relief.

A class action will get you all maybe $.10 each if you win -- the one who gets the most money in a class action suit is the Lawyer who might net $100,000 for the suit. Plus it may force Experian to change their procedures, and include the words "frivilous" when they send out their automated letters.

Do you get what I am saying?

*shrugs*
Jessica


A frivolous or irrelevant determination is required to be accompanied by a notice that generally describes the information that the consumer is required to submit in order to prompt reinvestigation. The notice is absent from the PI form letters. You suggest that failure to provide a notice (that is expressly mandated by the FCRA) is not sufficient to warrant a lawsuit. I didn't know that CRAs reserve the option to intentionally not comply with certain FCRA provisions, including notice provisions.

I would readily pay 10 cents or 10 dollars in order to stop the unfairness. If I get paid 10 cents, that is a great result. I eventually got my disputes resolved after the furnisher contacted an Experian Manager by telephone. This was AFTER Experian failed to take into account the documentation that I submitted in accompaniment with my dispute. I am looking at similar letters from consumers right here on my desk. It is upsetting to me to see this unfairness. A letter from the furnisher is disregarded.

Updates from the furnisher are disregarded. A letter from the furnisher confirming that they have updated the account to show "Never late" is disregarded. This describes unfairness that I have personally experienced and other consumers continue to experience. It is not about 10 cents or 10 dollars, not for me anyway. I can't begin to tell you how disheartening it is to see thread after thread after thread regarding the PI notice. Some are aware of what I have described above and in the related link: Experian IGNORES updates from furnishers. I am speaking about the month to month updates. I did not believe it myself and I can understand why one might have to experience this on his/her own to believe it.

This particular CRA, Experian, does not respect furnishers or consumers. Their goal is to report derogatory information whether true or false. This product http://www.experian....ts/instant.html is not "evidence" of it, but it is consistent with the policies that I have come to learn first hand and by learning of others' virtually identical experiences. Not only is there no comparable product to "instantly" report non derogatory credit information, Experian will ignore updates that are non derogatory.

The magnitude of the problem far exceeds a failure to state "frivolous."

CRAs would love to have each consumer pursue his/her own cause of action such that the CRA bears no risk of paying any fees. The attorneys that handled the single class action that I have been involved in donated half of their fees to NACA. I don't know that this is the norm.

The 2nd paragraph of your post suggests that a consumer might be able to recover more by pursuing an individual cause of action. This might be true, I dunno. What does that say about the next consumer? What does that say about a consumer who doesn't even know that the FCRA exists?

#50 mark

mark
  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 12:50 AM

I'd personally never joing a class action suit for cash..i've never seen one where I got more than a few pennies.

you join it in the hopes of keeping what has happened, or is happening to you from happening to other people.




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© Copyright 2003 - 2013 Creditboards.com. All rights reserved. No portion of this site may be reproduced without explicit permission from the owners. The content of creditboards.com is subject solely to the personal whim of its admins. We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to remove any and all posts or comments, at any time, for any reason which takes our entirely capricious fancy, or for no particular reason whatsoever, without restriction. Comments or questions regarding the site may be addressed to admin@creditboards.com.