Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sun Diego, CA
  1. "AMERITECH Utilities and Fuel" Inquiry showed up Friday. Anybody have any idea who that is? I know SBC glommed up the baby bell Ameritech, but they only operate in the midwest and I am way out on the left coast. I'm going to call the CRA this morning to get an address, but I'm wondering if anyone here knows who this is. Oh well, my b-day is this week so maybe it's just the FCRA fairy handing me an extra thousand bucks. Credit monitoring -- Ain't it cool?...
  2. Not necessarily. Forgive me PMondo but your outlook is a little bleak and not helping Albernier at all. Albernier - send the letter to First Premier. Tell them that MRS promised you'd get the account deleted, and see what they say. You can send your letters via fax, as you will get mailed responses from First Premier anyway. If they tell you to pound sand, send a letter addressed to First Premier and MRS stating that you are going to sue them, report them to the FTC and the attorneys general in your state and in South Dakota, complain to your congressman about FCRA violations, file a complaint with the BBB and anyone else you can find. Set a deadline of 3 days for them to delete or face suit. If they don't, draft an FCRA lawsuit - just the basics - for the federal court in your jurisdiction and name First Premier and MRS as defendants. Make sure you list yourself as a pro per so they see that they will be coughing up money to defend against you and it won't cost you anything but the filing fee. If it gets that far, trust me, it will work. It's a lot to go through to get a deletion, but it's worth it.
  3. No. You'll need a signed letter from First Premier to get the CRA's to delete it quicker. And just be warned, if you don't do anything and just wait, First Premier will NEVER delete it because I can guarantee you whatever notification the CA sends to First Premier - if they even send one - will get lost and never acted on. They will play dumb and leave the account on your reports as long as they can get away with it. Also, this is all assuming that the CA even had the AUTHORITY from First Premier to agree to delete it. You should get your letter over to First Premier as soon as possible. Premier Bankcard Inc. 900 W Delaware Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Fax: 605-357-3159
  4. (before the recording starts...) ME: Is this call being recorded? EX: Yes we routinely monitor calls for quality assurance. ME: Then you won't mind if I turn my recorder on? EX: No. What... (recording starts...) EX: ...is the first item you'd like to discuss? ME: This is Experian, right? EX: Yes of course. How can I help you? ME: I'd like inquire as to why I cannot get an FCRA compliant response to the several procedural inquiries I've made pursuant to FCRA 605 6 B three. EX: Which account are you inquiring about? ME: Pick one. Any one of the accounts I'm currently disputing. EX: And you haven't received a response from us? ME: I've received your form letters, if that's what you mean. I'm talking about FCRA compliant responses, with the name, address and phone number of the company reporting the account. That's what I'm looking for. EX: We don't send that information. ME: You HAVE to send it. FCRA 605 B three... EX: (cuts me off) You don't need to cite FCRA for me. ME: Apparently I do. You are required to send me a compliant response, with all of the information listed for the company that is reporting the account. EX: We do send that information. It's right in your report. ME: What? EX: The address in your report is all we have for each account. ME: Then why don't you send it in an FCRA compliant response to my procedural inquiries. EX: We fully comply with the law. The responses we sent you detail the procedure used to communicate with the companies that provide us information. ME: OK. Let me quote from your form letter... EX: (cuts me off) I am familiar with the responses we send. ME: Fine. What does it say? EX: Is there another item I can help you with? ME: Why, are you backed into a corner on the issue we were discussing? Why don't you send the information mandated by the statute when you respond to procedural requests? EX: As I said, we fully comply with the law. ME: But you don't -- not even close. You send out form letters that simply say that you send the dispute information to the companies via mail or electronic means... EX: (cuts me off) Again, I am familiar with our responses. ME: Then you'd have to agree that what you send, and what FCRA says you have to send are very different things, correct? EX: Is there another item I can help you with? ME: Hold on, I'm not finished yet. Where in your response does it tell me WHAT company you contact, and at WHAT address and or telephone number. EX: It's right there in your report. We only have the information that is listed in your report. ME: But that's not what FCRA says you have to do. You have to give me the name and address, or the telephone number if you called them. EX: We don't call anyone. That would be impossible. ME: Then how do you contact them? EX: Usually via an automated system. ME: What about reporters who don't subscribe to your automated system, like courts? EX: If they're not automated, they are contacted by mail. ME: And what if they don't share information by mail. EX: All companies that share data with us are either automated or mail. ME: What about courts? What about the public record listed in my report? EX: They would either use automated reporting or by mail. ME: OK, so I've disputed the account information that you have listed for the court, and I've gone to the court to confirm the information, and they've told me that they do not share information with you or respond to requests to verify information. So how does your company claim they've verified the information that you list as coming from the court? EX: The court is contacted by mail. ME: But they told me they don't respond to such requests. EX: Your account shows that the item was verified in October 2004. ME: By the court? EX: Correct? ME: At what address? EX: At the address listed in your report. ME: By mail? EX: Yes sir, I've already stated that. ME: So the court listed in the public record on my report verified the information you have listed by mail sent to the address listed in my report? EX: Yes. Is there another item I can help you with? ME: Nope. You've said enough. I wonder if I can get a pastrami sandwich from that court? EX: Excuse me? ME: Maybe a tuna salad then. The address you have listed in my report for the court that has supposedly verified the information on more than five occasions is the sandwich shop in the lobby of the Schwartz federal building in San Diego. EX: I don't understand. ME: The address, the one you have listed in my report, is the address and suite number of a sandwich shop. I went there to confirm that the information you're reporting is incorrect, and the address you have listed in my report is a deli, a sandwich shop. Would you like their phone number? EX: Mr. XXXXXX, the information has been sent to the court. We don't control who responds. We send the information as requested, and take action based on the reply. ME: So sandwich shop told you the information is correct? EX: Is there another item I can help you with? ME: Nope. I'm all set. At least I'll have a place to eat lunch when I file the lawsuit.
  5. That was the hard part, since I had settled them... Basically, it came down to running up the ladder, from CSR, to supervisor, to manager, to VP's, CEO's... Once you get your message across to enough people, and they realize that they've already got your money, and you're going to call/email/fax/mail them OVER AND OVER AGAIN, they'll delete just to get you out of their hair. Several of the OC's I dealt with were INCREDIBLY nice and a pleasure to work with, several were not, and really made me go through some hoops. NONE of the CA's were nice or easy to work with, but it would appear through a little persistence, you can find an inaccuracy on almost every TL, and call them on it. I could have gone the ITS route, and probably won, but I'm not in this for profit, I just wanted things to be right. Finally, I don't know if it's just plain luck or if it's something I use in my wording, but TU and EQ have never sent me a "prev. Investigated" or "frivolous" letter, and both have deleted inq's immediately upon my stating "no permissible purpose." I did include "By reporting these inquiries without proving they had permissible purpose, you are in direct violation of the FCRA" but never any more detail. Experian??? ARGH... I have had better luck trying to levitate objects than dealing with them. They make it impossible to contact them, they always try to get out of my disputes (previously investigated, send us proof of address, we don't investigate inquiries...), they verify things that I have "delete" letters from creditors, they just suck. TU is better, but not much. Thanks again to everyone! I hope that I can provide some input now after lurking here for a year with only a few posts. I have gathered some great info and finally feel like I am in control of my credit. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent strategy. I employed it many times. Too bad it doesn't work at Crapital One or I'd be 100% clean. Congrats on the scores. Sounds like you've earned it.
  6. Oh, believe me...the CRA's are on my radar. I've already got ITS letters out to all three stooges for the "N/A" and "$0" and "Not Reported" Geronimo they use in key fields of accounts like - oh let's see - AMOUNT OF CLAIM fields in public records. I'm lining up my waves of attack and FCRA §604 and §607 violations are in the tube. I'm just trying to figure out how I can get this judgment on the requestor in question. I need to be able to convince the court that once I claim no permissible purpose, the defendant has to show that it was. Thx.
  7. Soooo who wants to help??? Much appreciated, Jessica <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Christine Baker beat them - twice I think. And there's also info on her CreditCourt forum about another user (Whysper) who settled with them too. I'd check those out to see if there's any help for you. Good luck.
  8. I had a PP hearing last week, and I've won two previous so I was feeling pretty confident. Even when the commissioner took the case under submission rather than ruling at the hearing, I was feeling pretty good. I proved that the defendant pulled the report on the date claimed, and the defendant even stipulated to that. I showed that the account was closed and paid 60+ days before the pull, and the commissioner agreed. I got the decision in the mail today: "Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the case by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, Plaintiff contentds that Defendant, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, either procured Plaintiff's credit report under false pretenses, or procured Plaintiff's credit report knowingly without a permissible purpose. Although Plaintiff produced significant evidence for consideration, that evidence failed to prove Plaintiff's case by a preponderance of the evidence. Judgment for Defendant." In the two previous cases, when the fact was established that I had no open account with the defendant at the time of the pull, the case was over. What didn't this guy see, and what do I send in my request to reconsider to get him over that hump? I just re-read 604, 607 and 616 top to bottom and I parsed the whole text for "permissible", and I could have swore there was language somewhere in there about the burden of proving permissible purpose being on the requestor of the report -- but I can't find it. I also went through all of the FTC opinion letters with no luck. I hate to let this one go, as it's a clear violation and the defendant drove me nuts for 6 months on bad credit reporting issues. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.
  9. Send your initial disputes via fax, and put "VIA FACSIMILE TO xxx-xxx-xxx AND BY CERTFIED MAIL # xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx" just under their address in your letter. Hold on to the hardcopy for 5 business days and if there is no change to the account, send it cmrrr. Faxes are handled much differently than mail at the CRA's. Mail comes in and sits for days in the mail room until it's opened and logged to your file, then on the next run the request is sent to the reporter to verify the reporting and act on the dispute. However when a fax comes in, it's not in a pile of sealed envelopes that they can store for days -- so they can't sit on it -- they have to process it immediately. That's why they try to keep their fax numers so secret (they don't do a very good job though). Faxing is at least a week faster than anything you send them in the mail. Just remember that anything you send them that is not directly from you (i.e. a letter from a creditor telling you they are deleting your account) MUST be signed by the author or the CRA's will simply process it as a normai dispute.
  10. EQ: 866-379-6571 EX: 972-390-3400 TU: 610-546-4606 Let 'em have it!
  11. Ok, so then has anyone taken them to court and won on § 611?
  12. All I get are form letters ("You don't NEED a credit repair company...") generated the day the bureaus recieve my request, and then the now infamous "PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED" reports two weeks later. Has anyone ever gotten a response with the actual details as described in § 611? And it's not for my lack of clarity, either.... To Whom It May Concern: 2ND REQUEST – 15 DAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR “REINVESTIGATION” OF THE ACCOUNT IN QUESTION. DO NOT SIMPLY “REINVESTIGATE” THE ACCOUNT IN QUESTION AND REPORT THOSE RESULTS. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON THE PROCEDURE USED TO “VERIFY” THE ACCURACY OF THE ACCOUNT IN QUESTION AS A RESULT OF A PREVIOUS DISPUTE, PURSUANT TO FCRA § 611(a)(6)((iii) “a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available;” And yet, "PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED" is what I get back. I've gone through the 15 days twice each with all three bureaus in the last 40 days. Is that enough to get it done in court? Thanks.
  13. I'm going down the same road with them. Two days after I mailed and faxed the PR, I started getting generic form letters from them, almost daily. Nothing specific, just the typical cover-their-flowers B.S. Problem is, FCRA is very clear on the required content of their response. The 15 days are up on Friday, and I'm wondering if anyone here has ever been successful in a civil action against them for failing to provide a valid response to a procedural request. Thanks.
  14. I gain older average age of my accounts. Also, I presently have 11 open credit card accounts, and the 7 small limit cards only account for 10% of my available credit. I'm thinking 4 open cards looks a LOT better than 11. And the cards I plan to close are 1st Premier, Orchard etc. -- all high rates and low limits with nowhere to go. Thanks. the accounts you have that are old are closed due to the BK correct? closing open accounts will not help you. No - my oldest, best accounts are 2 high limit cards (25K) over 15 years old, and the third is 4 years old with a 5K limit. The fourth one was opened this year (10K limit). Those four account for 90% of my available credit and calculate to an average age of 8.5 years. Add in the "toy" cards and the average age goes down to 5 years. Thanks.

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
  • Create New...

Important Information