LizaW

Here's me "causing trouble" that started all of it: http://creditboards....5 I helped someone, they thanked me, and that was too much. Everything that happened is a result of that "crime" on my part. Seriously, show me a single incidence of me causing trouble. All I did was describe my experience, answer questions and defend myself when attacked.

Don't you dare pretend like I'm being a troublemaker here. I responded politely even after Why started calling me names. When it became too much, rather than responding in kind I reported the post. Only to have moderators show up and refuse to respond to the issue at hand honestly. You can say anything you want, but you can't change the facts of reality-- unless you start going to censor past posts, they are all there in black and white, if you will read them. So, don't expect me to pretend like your accusation is acceptable. You have just impeached your integrity in full. I just wanted to talk about my experiences here. Period. If you and why never enter this thread again, that's fine by me. Since you're obviously not going to enforce the rules, will you leave me in peace?

I've had doctors send me bills-- not collections, but the first bills-- with a remittance address completely across the country in another state. I think many medical establishments outsource their billing process. But you never can be too sure. I've found that googling unknown addresses often comes up with the name of the company, especially when it comes to CAs.

Well, for the record, I've been getting things removed from credit reports for more than twice as long as this forum has been in existence. I really don't understand why you feel the need to attack me like this. In fact, earlier I drew a conclusion from what you said and asked you a question. I was being polite to you. It seems you've taken offense that I was able to provide some useful advice to someone else. Please stop lying about me engaging in your HIPAA process-- I don't have a time machine, I had never heard of you, and you have yet to give a single bit of concrete evidence that I've done anything wrong. Further, what is the point of making things personal like this? Even if we disagree, can't we discuss the matter reasonably? Why all the personal attacks and disparagement? If you're going to accuse me of saying something is wrong, you need to provide an exact quote of what I said wrong, with sufficient context, and a citation in law, that supports your claim, and an exact, and detailed, logical, coherent description of exactly how I am wrong. Otherwise, you're just calling me "wrong" the way kids call each other names on the playground.

If the initial dispute letter has legal teeth, why would it matter whether it was read by a human or not? No doubt getting a human to read it makes the program faster, but it shouldn't change the legal basis, right? I worked in OCR technology in the past. The ability to OCR hand writing has existed since the late 1970s, believe it or not, and in the 1980s it could be done at the rate of thousands of items a minute. Your website doesn't explain the legal basis for your program very well (The "Legal Basis" link goes to a lot of citations of the laws but no explanation) so its very confusing to me, and apparently to a lot of people (given the questions that people are asking on this forum.)

The really funny thing is, this "misinformation" is the same advice you gave her, only you gave her a sample letter. I was backing up the mechanism by which that sample letter works. However, one should be aware that your letter involves disclaiming knowledge of the account. You don't need to do this to ask for verification, you can simply ask for the information you ask for later in the letter. If the line simply said "Regarding account XXXX on credit report XXXXX dated XXXXXX".... it would have the same effect.

It's too early to expect the CRAs to have responded. They're built to respond to correspondence within 30 days. If you followed Why's advice about writing in purple ink on purple paper and watermarking it with your photo and otherwise trying to make it harder to OCR, then if that happens to be successful and they can't OCR it, then that will add time as a result of the manual processing of the letters. This makes the 30 day period even tougher for them. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 45 days or so before you get a response, but anywhere between 30-45 seems likely. Regarding your earlier question about the OC. In my experience OCs' always will claim that you have to deal with the CA, and that stuff like what she told you. This is why I'd deal with the OC in writing only. I would think that you could address correspondence to the "HIPAA Compliance officer" at the OC and it will reach the right person. I doubt you need an actual name.

What I really want to know is how you feel about his name calling, and his disparaging comments?

I never said otherwise. However, since you're an admin weighing in publicly, please show me exactly which statements of mine justified his personal attacks, disparagement and name calling. Further, since you are not addressing these personal attacks, your post sounds like an endorsement of them. If this is a forum where this kind of activity is accepted, then I'm now aware of it. If this kind of activity is not accepted, then the rules should apply to everyone equally, correct? Or am I to read between the lines and gather that the inner circle can act with immunity but us peons must be obsequious at all times?

I think it sometimes depends. One thing-- don't ever DV a positive line just because it has some derogatory info (e.g.: a closed card with one 30 day late) you're likely to get it knocked off. Do Triage each of the items as Psychdoc recommends. Figuring out as much as you can about them will help. If its marked as paid already then DV seems relatively safe since there is no incentive for the CA to deal with the hassle, but remember the 1-2 punch. For the ones that are owing take them step by step. If most of these accounts were opened at a previous address and that address is incorrectly listed on your reports it might be worth getting that off your reports first before you DV them as address is one of the things used to verify the info.

In the past when disputing incorrect info resulted in a change, or when it didn't and they "verified" the data, their response would include a credit report. Today, I just got a letter from EQ noting they had deleted some incorrect info (personal info, not a trade line) and verified another TL. They didn't include a report. I haven't gotten my free annual reports (since I've been getting them from a monitoring service) but I'd really much rather they were sending me the corrected or updated reports so that I have official report IDs to refer to when I write them. I've been "saving" my free reports for the final check when the monitoring service indicates everything is good. I also wasn't denied credit in the last 30 days, but I was in the last 6 months. Think if I write them and cite that denial they'll send me one (Even if they don't have to.) Open to suggestions here.

Your hostility is uncalled for. Further, you repeatedly put words in my mouth and then use them to attack me. I sent the letters in question a month before I even registered for this board, and as I stated in the very first post, before I'd ever heard of your HIPAA process. I have stated this fact in every single post I made in this thread. I find it amusing that you would characterize PFD and DV and negotiating with an OC as going "into a dead end situation". I did not, at any point, claim some approach was better than yours. I simply answered your questions. It is silly to accuse me of "some sort of stubborn blindness, to the facts and ignorance" simply because I didn't send letters you recommend before I'd ever heard of you. I was supposed to invent time travel? Frankly, there's no reason for you to be offended. I was just stating what I've done, and answering your questions.

Wow, not even in the top ten? Let me tell you, doing that smarts, but good! I've written a letter to the three CRAs asking for specifics on what caused the deletion and a reinstatement if it was an error. I'm not sending them yet, though, taking my time seeing if I can find some details about what might work in this case-- surely I'm not the only one who has made this blunder. I'm not going to let this lie. I have Capital One on willfully reporting false information. May not be enough to sue, but it is enough for me to continue to write them demanding recourse. I know they've been subject to class action lawsuits and I believe FTC, so they may be operating under a settlement agreement that may have teeth here. Still investigating. I'm confused. I thought Capital One stopped reporting the tradeline entirely? They were willfully reporting false information for over 5 years after telling me-- in writing-- that they would report the correct information. When I attempted to get them to fix this, they deleted the TL. They may have the right to remove the TL (but I wonder if giving false info to a CRA to cause a TL to be removed would also be a violation) but they are still on the hook for reporting the false information for those 5 years. This may be a weak argument. I'd be happy to be informed of a better approach.

Service occurred in summer of 2010, so just shy of 2 years ago at this point. The amount being claimed is between $1,000 and $2,000. I do not have the exact correct amount. It is being reported on all three reports. The jurisdiction for all this would be Oklahoma, though the CA is in Florida. I wrote these letters before hearing about the HIPAA program you have on your website, so I wasn't following that program. The OC is in violation of our contract in several ways, and I was pursuing a PFD method with them. At the same time, I wanted MDS to fail to verify the debt while continuing to collect. I just got a letter from EQ saying the item was "verified", so I have MDS on that violation of the FDCPA. My main point there was to start the clock on them so they start racking up violations. Regarding opting out, I do know the reporting CA does have my correct address because they sent a dunning letter to it. Regarding your program-- At this stage I'm waiting to see if MDS sends me proof of the debt that documents a current business relationship with the OC. The OC already has my revocation of authorization for info, though that may be legally irrelevant, they also have a firm offer to settle the debt, and a statement that I will not do business with any CA. I don't know if a firm offer of payment removes the business relationship justification for giving info to the CA. I see three possibilities: 1. They accept my PFD and thus I have a letter from them that should get the account deleted. 2. They refuse my PFD, in which case we negotiate. 3. They outright refuse any possibility of PFD or dealing with me, and insist I have to deal with the CA. As I understand it, the first step of your process is to PIF, and so I may not need it. However, I am quite interested in any letters I can send to the CA or the CRA that will get this item removed, if I'm unable to get the OC to agree to a PFD. If three happens, I'll escalate with them to see if I can get them to see reason, in part because I don't think they are intentionally engaging in fraud, and eventually they must realize that some money is better than no money (And incurring the cost of my regularly arriving letters.) However, at that point I'd want to also pursue avenues that get this deleted without paying the OC. After all, at that point I've engaged in a good faith attempt to resolve the issue, an they are refusing and saying I have to deal with some third party with whom I have no contractual obligation.

Confusing DTI with credit limits to annual income ratio? My unsecured available credit is higher than my annual income. I also have a secured loan. But my DTI is fairly low. I'm not talking about DTI at all. I'm asking about how underwriting works. I was under the impression that they cared about your total credit line as a ratio of your total income. I was under this impression because this is what my bank told me. I know they care about UTI, at least when generating scores, and probably in underwriting as well, but assume your UTI is very low, do they not look at total credit vs total income? Do they only care about your total monthly payments as a ratio of your monthly income? (or annual)? Eg: You may make $50,000 a year and have $100,000 in debt, but because your payments on this debt (plus rent and other expenses) are well below your income, you can afford to service even more debt and thus get another revolving line when you apply? IF they only care about your ability to service the debt, then someone making $100,000 a year, and a perfect credit record, should be able to get $200,000 in credit. ($100k income, minimum revolving payments of %4 for each month or 0.48 over a year, means $100k/0.48=$208,333.) Of course this would be adjusted by taking out housing expenses, etc.