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.


Sign in to follow this  

A new method to disputing

Recommended Posts

Hey folks:

 

I have a DISMISSED BK 13 from 2003 which keeps coming back as VERIFIED on all 3 bureaus.

BK13 files 08/2003, Dismissed 10/2003 no liabilites.

 

 

Do you think using similar tactic as Jack here would work to get this baddie off?? This is my only baddie....

 

If so, how would you phrase the disputes?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to run up their bill. Attorney fees, court costs, and what jury on earth will take a CA's side?

All the scams would be public.

Plus they will more than likely settle.

I have over 30+ pieces of physical evidence to bring in.

Ah ok, thanks.

 

I am still waiting on my final results from this round of disputes that I did using this method. Something I have noticed going on though is that they are taking longer to verify with this method. I hope that I don't get verified on the 29th day. I hate when that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I HAVE POSTED SEVERAL MESSAGES CONCERNING MY CREDIT REPORTS AND AN ORIGINAL CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT I HAD WITH PROVIDIAN. WAY PAST SOL. I SENT THE SOL/FACTORING LETTERS TO PRESIDIO/CM AND MIDLAND MGMT. HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM YET.

 

MY QUESTION IS THIS. NOT ONLY IS PRESIDIO AND MIDLAND REPORTING MONTHLY AND REPORTING FALSE ACCOUNT NUMBERS, THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR PROVIDIAN IS ALSO CURRENTLY REPORTING USING FALSE ACCOUNT NUMBERS. ON MY CREDIT REPORTS IT LOOKS LIKE HAMBURGER. IT LOOKS LIKE I HAVE 3-4 DEROGATORY/UNPAID ACCOUNTS BETWEEN THE THREE OF THEM. EVERYTIME EACH ONE REPORTS, THEY USE A DIFFERENT ACCOUNT NUMBER, DIFFERENT BALANCE, DIFFERENT DATES ETC. IT'S CRAZY. QUESTION IS: I HAVE READ THAT YOU CANNOT DV THE ORIGINAL ACCOUNT. IS THAT TRUE? WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO THEN, IF THEY KEEP REPORTING FALSE INFORMATION?

 

WHAT THIS IS DOING OF COURSE, IS NOT ONLY DESTROYING MY CREDIT SCORE, IT'S PROLONGING DROP OFF DATES. WITH WHAT THEY ARE DOING, I WILL HAVE CRAP FROM THEM ON MY REPORTS FOREVER.

 

I HAVE BEEN READING AND READING (NOT ONLY ON THIS BOARD) AND THERE ARE THOUSAND OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING THE SAME THING. IT'S CRIMINAL AND OBVIOUS THE CRA'S ARE IN CAHOOTS. ISN'T IT POSSIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO COME TOGETHER AND FILE A CLASS ACTION SUIT. HOW AWESOME WOULD THAT BE? I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE DOABLE.

 

 

DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD WORK FOR THE ABOVE. I JUST POSTED THIS TODAY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enable email notification of replies | Enable Smilies | Enable Signature

 

« Next Oldest · Credit Forum · Ne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I HAVE BEEN READING AND READING (NOT ONLY ON THIS BOARD) AND THERE ARE THOUSAND OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING THE SAME THING. IT'S CRIMINAL AND OBVIOUS THE CRA'S ARE IN CAHOOTS. ISN'T IT POSSIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO COME TOGETHER AND FILE A CLASS ACTION SUIT. HOW AWESOME WOULD THAT BE? I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE DOABLE.

 

 

I agree with Northwestnative. It seems the CRA's work for the creditors so that they can corner people into accepting outrageous rates and terms - to identify/build up an entire demographic of people who are likely to make their payments/not default, and either naive or with little other options than to take on bad terms for necessities in life such as transportation and housing - and then KEEP them positioned there to justify the rates & make more money off of.

 

Years ago right out of college, and as a young single parent, my credit was probably in the 400's and when I needed transportation for work, the only credit offered to me by Ford Credit was an auto loan at 32% interest, which I took (and paid back every red cent, thank you very much!) Now my 14% interest rate feels like a steal even though I still fall short of *prime rib* rating.

 

Most times I'm convinced credit scores are the mark of the BEAST and the whole credit thing as it currently works is a simple scam for making money off (mostly) hardworking, honest people who do not have a fat bank account (since those relying on credit most often need payments on terms rather than cash purchasing) - it is a game that for now we all must get better at playing, by their messed-up rules.

 

I for one intend to improve my credit so that if I need loans for the important stuff (homes), I can get it more easily in the future - and also learn to safeguard my family from being someone's cash cow. I'm determined to better our financial standing so that we do not HAVE to use credit for things like cars - but rather use credit/creditors to our advantage as needed, instead of being used by them.

 

Hooray to Jack for being persistent and creative in this process!!

 

Let's beat them ALL at their own game :aggressive: - and when banks/lenders no longer have enough poor saps to charge their heavy interest rates to (for slipping under the table to the CRA's), perhaps we'll see a more level playing field emerge...one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just sent out a dispute CMRRR to all 3 disputing the horrifically inacurate information habitually reported by LVNV. I will let you know how it goes. I am going to do CBNA next. I think I may need to do one TL at a time because of the "similar" dispute problem the CRAs have, and I am wondering if I shouldn't just provide 2 or three reasons per TL per try so that they can't claim redundancy.

 

QUESTION: Can this work with OC TL? and how do you get them to send you copies of cardmember agreements, statements etc?

 

I found out that Providian has an SOL of 3 years regardless of your location, so I may start hounding them until they try to take me to court, then wave the cardmember agreement around in court which says they limit their venue to New Hampshire. I will just put it in with all the other "evidence" during the discovery phase, then pull it out after they get their rant in about how I never paid them back, fees, attorneys, etc, may be let it go on for a bit.. then just state real dryly, "If your venue is New Hampshire which has an SOL of 3 years, why are you wasting this judges time? I move for dismissal." Of course I should set it up with a nice countersuit that makes them pay for all the postage for CMRRR, credit monitoring, and finally demand they remove all record of the debt including the CA records.

 

Sound fun?

 

 

When it comes to DV, i always leave one part of it out. For example, i NEVER mention a terms of agreement from the OC. This way if it goes to court, you can claim that the balance is not accurate, as it is impossible to know the financial rates from the TOA.

 

Always keep an ace up your sleeve. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be careful and make sure your state will allow the statutes from another state. Also make sure you have the credit agreement.

 

If I am reading this correctly, it says that Oregon will honor the SOL for the state of NH provided it is specified in the written contract. Anyone with experience interpreting law, feel free to chime in. I included the referenced statures as well so that the "full picutre" can be seen.

 

The conflict of laws ORS 81.105 primarily concerns if I was an Organian when I signed the contract, I was not. I think I am safe from Providian aka LVNV's paws.

 

 

 

12.410 Definitions for ORS 12.410 to 12.480. As used in ORS 12.410 to 12.480:

 

(1) “Claim†means a right of action that may be asserted in a civil action or proceeding and includes a right of action created by statute.

 

(2) “State†means a state, commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a foreign country or a political subdivision of any of them. [1987 c.536 §1]

 

 

 

Note: 12.410 to 12.480 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 12 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

 

 

 

12.420 Purpose. ORS 12.410 to 12.480 shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of ORS 12.410 to 12.480 among states enacting it. [1987 c.536 §6]

 

 

 

Note: See note under 12.410.

 

 

 

12.430 Claims based on law of other states; limitation period. (1) Except as provided by ORS 12.450, if a claim is substantively based:

 

[a] Upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies; or

 

Upon the law of more than one state, the limitation period of one of those states, chosen by the law of conflict of laws of this state, applies.

 

[2] The limitation period of this state applies to all other claims. [1987 c.536 §2]

 

 

 

Note: See note under 12.410.

 

 

 

12.440 Application of statutes and rules governing conflict of laws. If the statute of limitations of another state applies to the assertion of a claim in this state, the other state’s relevant statutes and other rules of law governing tolling and accrual apply in computing the limitation period, but its statutes and other rules of law governing conflict of laws do not apply. [1987 c.536 §3]

 

Note: See note under 12.410.

 

 

 

12.450 When limitation period of another state not applicable. If the court determines that the limitation period of another state applicable under ORS 12.430 and 12.440 is substantially different from the limitation period of this state and has not afforded a fair opportunity to sue upon, or imposes an unfair burden in defending against the claim, the limitation period of this state applies. [1987 c.536 §4]

 

 

 

Note: See note under 12.410.

Edited by BC1972

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be careful and make sure your state will allow the statutes from another state. Also make sure you have the credit agreement.

 

If I am reading this correctly, it says that Oregon will honor the SOL for the state of NH provided it is specified in the written contract. Anyone with experience interpreting law, feel free to chime in. I included the referenced statures as well so that the "full picutre" can be seen.

 

The conflict of laws ORS 81.105 primarily concerns if I was an Organian when I signed the contract, I was not. I think I am safe from Providian aka LVNV's paws.

 

 

 

12.410 Definitions for ORS 12.410 to 12.480. As used in ORS 12.410 to 12.480:

 

(1) “Claim†means a right of action that may be asserted in a civil action or proceeding and includes a right of action created by statute.

 

(2) “State†means a state, commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a foreign country or a political subdivision of any of them. [1987 c.536 §1]

 

 

 

Note: 12.410 to 12.480 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 12 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

 

 

 

12.420 Purpose. ORS 12.410 to 12.480 shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of ORS 12.410 to 12.480 among states enacting it. [1987 c.536 §6]

 

 

 

Note: See note under 12.410.

 

 

 

12.430 Claims based on law of other states; limitation period. (1) Except as provided by ORS 12.450, if a claim is substantively based:

 

[a] Upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies; or

 

Upon the law of more than one state, the limitation period of one of those states, chosen by the law of conflict of laws of this state, applies.

 

[2] The limitation period of this state applies to all other claims. [1987 c.536 §2]

 

 

 

Note: See note under 12.410.

 

 

 

12.440 Application of statutes and rules governing conflict of laws. If the statute of limitations of another state applies to the assertion of a claim in this state, the other state’s relevant statutes and other rules of law governing tolling and accrual apply in computing the limitation period, but its statutes and other rules of law governing conflict of laws do not apply. [1987 c.536 §3]

 

Note: See note under 12.410.

 

 

 

12.450 When limitation period of another state not applicable. If the court determines that the limitation period of another state applicable under ORS 12.430 and 12.440 is substantially different from the limitation period of this state and has not afforded a fair opportunity to sue upon, or imposes an unfair burden in defending against the claim, the limitation period of this state applies. [1987 c.536 §4]

 

 

 

Note: See note under 12.410.

 

I wish you luck on this, it seems pretty clear. When each of my wifes cases are resolved with Providian I will make sure everyone is aware of the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i WAS HOPING SOMEONE WOULD RESPOND TO MY QUESTION ABOVE. CAN YOU DV THE ORIGINAL ACCOUNT? PROVIDIAN WAS MY ORIGINAL ACCOUNT AND THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTING FALSE ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND DATES. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE HELP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok folks, Here's the scoop. Due to trolls, i havent given out certain info til now.

 

LVNV has officially deleted from 2 of the three CRA's!! I now have paperwork to support my claim.

 

I used this dispute method, and also 2 other tradelines with it. They were shorter, but no change. Still verified.

 

I am going to the LVNV thread i created, and make a link to this thread.

 

Thanks to everyone who helped along the way. This board has saved my butt on more than one occassion.

 

Oh, and thanks to Kid Rock for the Musical Motivation, lol. :(

 

 

Jack1212

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok folks, Here's the scoop. Due to trolls, i havent given out certain info til now.

 

LVNV has officially deleted from 2 of the three CRA's!! I now have paperwork to support my claim.

 

I used this dispute method, and also 2 other tradelines with it. They were shorter, but no change. Still verified.

 

I am going to the LVNV thread i created, and make a link to this thread.

 

Thanks to everyone who helped along the way. This board has saved my butt on more than one occassion.

 

Oh, and thanks to Kid Rock for the Musical Motivation, lol. :grin:

 

 

Jack1212

 

Congrats on your loooooooooong journey Jack and finally getting these scum deleted!!! :yahoo::yahoo:

I'm about to start my journey with them and they are going down!! :cry2::wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i WAS HOPING SOMEONE WOULD RESPOND TO MY QUESTION ABOVE. CAN YOU DV THE ORIGINAL ACCOUNT? PROVIDIAN WAS MY ORIGINAL ACCOUNT AND THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTING FALSE ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND DATES. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE HELP.

 

I just have to get this out of the way first. Please do not type in all capitals, it makes it difficult to read and implies you are shouting. People would rather see all small letters. It's easier on the eyes.

 

With that out of the way...

 

Here's my advice:

 

You can't DV an OC or they will just laugh at you or send you a letter essentially calling you silly. What you need to do IF you want to know the information, is write them a nice letter explaining how you are investigating this account because you are uncertain about the information being reported. Make it real vague, don't admit it is yours, maybe mention there "might" be something "fraudulent" somewhere, but don't blame them or the CRA. I like to make it read as if the fraud could be their reporting, or it could be someone stole your ID but be very vague as to how or what the "fraud" is. But be careful not to get an involuntary fraud freeze put on your account. If the debt is within the SOL back away and leave it alone for as long as you can. (at least until it is out of SOL)

 

ALSO under NO circumstances send a LIE written down on a sheet of paper that can be easily proven false. I have worked with lawyers and I have seen this used as if it were gasoline on a defendant that was metaphorically on fire. Judges HATE lies. Just had to get that upfront, just because the CA lies doesnt mean you have to. A little misunderstanding, or vagueness goes a long way and actually the more you get them to clarify to you "the one playing stupid" the more of a chance you can get information that will cause them to incriminate themselves.

 

I highly suggest you read read read this site. Write down words you dont understand and punch them into the search tool at the top of the page (dont forget to uncheck the "Search this topic only" box.

 

Dont just dive into credit repair or you will get the same results as if you dove into rebuilding a car engine with no experience. Expensive and messed up beyond repair. You might even get yourself sued and lose. I know you are anxious to repair your credit, but if you start out wrong it messes up your chances of getting a "hole in one" later which simply put means you sent a DV and it gets deleted.

 

Don't cut and paste the letters from this or any other site. LEARN what the letter is saying then write it in your own wording and suited to your context. If the CA or CRA senses any cookie cutter or mismatched info they will immediately acuse you of using "credit repair kits" and quit taking you seriously. If you end up in court it also looks better if you know about what you were writing to them. There's nothing more embarassing than a judge asking you to elaborate on a letter and the only thing you know is that it is a validation letter and nothing else.

 

I hope this helps, and I appologize to Jack1212 for hijacking his topic to explain "newbie" stuff.

 

BTW congrats Jack on deleting LVNV. If fireballs rain from the heavens I want them to land on each of their offices so I can die knowing they got it first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Folks, LVNV is now is HISTORY.

 

Gone from all three CRA's!!

 

Im doing a happy dance now. Im not sure if it was my dispute method, or the fact that i made them dread coming into work every day.

 

But wait folks!! There's more!! Jacks Story Is far from over. LVNV may try to run and hide, but i got em by the neck collar, and dragging them into federal court, hopefully with a jury trial. Just because they delted does NOT sheild them from the law.

 

You can beat them too, but you MUST stay on em. This is a post i have looked forward to making for almost 2 years.

 

The smoke has cleared, and by god, Jack is still standing!!!!

 

Jack

 

My goodness Jack. Not sure how I missed this thread but I must try this. Subscribed for future reference :rofl:

 

And I can't agree enough with BC, never ever lie! PsychDoc's seminar really teaches you how to use FDCPA/FCRA/FCBA/HIPAA to your advantage (+ Jack's method now lol), not make up a story & hoping to get a deletion.

Edited by sidehop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i WAS HOPING SOMEONE WOULD RESPOND TO MY QUESTION ABOVE. CAN YOU DV THE ORIGINAL ACCOUNT? PROVIDIAN WAS MY ORIGINAL ACCOUNT AND THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTING FALSE ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND DATES. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE HELP.

 

I just have to get this out of the way first. Please do not type in all capitals, it makes it difficult to read and implies you are shouting. People would rather see all small letters. It's easier on the eyes.

 

With that out of the way...

 

Here's my advice:

 

You can't DV an OC or they will just laugh at you or send you a letter essentially calling you silly. What you need to do IF you want to know the information, is write them a nice letter explaining how you are investigating this account because you are uncertain about the information being reported. Make it real vague, don't admit it is yours, maybe mention there "might" be something "fraudulent" somewhere, but don't blame them or the CRA. I like to make it read as if the fraud could be their reporting, or it could be someone stole your ID but be very vague as to how or what the "fraud" is. But be careful not to get an involuntary fraud freeze put on your account. If the debt is within the SOL back away and leave it alone for as long as you can. (at least until it is out of SOL)

 

ALSO under NO circumstances send a LIE written down on a sheet of paper that can be easily proven false. I have worked with lawyers and I have seen this used as if it were gasoline on a defendant that was metaphorically on fire. Judges HATE lies. Just had to get that upfront, just because the CA lies doesnt mean you have to. A little misunderstanding, or vagueness goes a long way and actually the more you get them to clarify to you "the one playing stupid" the more of a chance you can get information that will cause them to incriminate themselves.

 

I highly suggest you read read read this site. Write down words you dont understand and punch them into the search tool at the top of the page (dont forget to uncheck the "Search this topic only" box.

 

Dont just dive into credit repair or you will get the same results as if you dove into rebuilding a car engine with no experience. Expensive and messed up beyond repair. You might even get yourself sued and lose. I know you are anxious to repair your credit, but if you start out wrong it messes up your chances of getting a "hole in one" later which simply put means you sent a DV and it gets deleted.

 

Don't cut and paste the letters from this or any other site. LEARN what the letter is saying then write it in your own wording and suited to your context. If the CA or CRA senses any cookie cutter or mismatched info they will immediately acuse you of using "credit repair kits" and quit taking you seriously. If you end up in court it also looks better if you know about what you were writing to them. There's nothing more embarassing than a judge asking you to elaborate on a letter and the only thing you know is that it is a validation letter and nothing else.

 

I hope this helps, and I appologize to Jack1212 for hijacking his topic to explain "newbie" stuff.

 

BTW congrats Jack on deleting LVNV. If fireballs rain from the heavens I want them to land on each of their offices so I can die knowing they got it first.

 

<_<:dntknw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful. Thank you BC 1972. The debt is years past SOL. Providian, Presidio CM and Midland attack people's credit reports and each company takes turns reinventing the accounts and reporting on people's credit reports over and over and over. I keep reading and reading about this same scenario happening to hundreds of people. Everything I have is legit and would stand up in court. I will follow your good advice. It's confusing because there are three of them all reporting the same account making it look like new accounts. It sounds to me like if you cannot make the original creditor follow through with providing information on the fake account numbers, the only option would be to sue. Anyway, thanks for the advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wonderful. Thank you BC 1972. The debt is years past SOL. Providian, Presidio CM and Midland attack people's credit reports and each company takes turns reinventing the accounts and reporting on people's credit reports over and over and over. I keep reading and reading about this same scenario happening to hundreds of people. Everything I have is legit and would stand up in court. I will follow your good advice. It's confusing because there are three of them all reporting the same account making it look like new accounts. It sounds to me like if you cannot make the original creditor follow through with providing information on the fake account numbers, the only option would be to sue. Anyway, thanks for the advice.

 

The least you can do is figure out among all the lies which one is ACTUALLY contracted to collect currently, then attack the other two using 1-2 punch for sure and then send the CMRRR info to the CRA and demand a delete. Then focus like a laser on the remaining one plus OC. If you are out of SOL you are in absolutely no danger of becoming lliable for the debt by using standard DV (just don't ever make payments or admit it is yours always pay in lump sum in responde to agreement in terminal PFD letter). Just NEVER send them money without an agreement that specifically states that there is no further obligation, and they will delete completely. There is a ton of info on arranging PFD. The dispute method in this thread works in theory and is being tested at the moment, and so far the results look better than vanilla (not mine) disputing. I am looking forward to the results of my recent try using it. I am trying a little spin on it by breaking the dispute to the CRA up into one letter per TL so that there is alot of paper flying back and forth. The more work for them the better and distributed among more people takes more resources. The idea is to bleed their precious resources and become too expensive mentally and economically for them to deal with you. The CRA and CAs all operate on labor budgets that can easily be upset by complications. I recommend exploiting them when you can.

 

I think we should have national dispute week and every american should take a sunday to review their credit report then send out those disputes the following monday. The letters would arrive by the truckload that friday and imagine the sight!

 

 

 

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think we should have national dispute week and every american should take a sunday to review their credit report then send out those disputes the following monday. The letters would arrive by the truckload that friday and imagine the sight!"

 

It would be nice if Americans would join together like this more often. But unfortunately you've got a better chance of getting your car to run on pizza crusts. Americans love to complain, but never act on their complaints, which is sad considering we have the fredom to do so. But if someone decides to do it, count me in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, just some clarification.

 

Did you write ALL those problems in the same letter concerning the tradeline? Or did you write a separate letter for each "problem"?

 

 

Did you say at the end of the letter, "If you can't fix these, please remove this tradeline" or did they just remove that tradeline on their own?

 

 

I just want to make sure I handle that correctly. I have a "previously investigated" with EX and want to give this a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack, just some clarification.

 

Did you write ALL those problems in the same letter concerning the tradeline? Or did you write a separate letter for each "problem"?

 

 

Did you say at the end of the letter, "If you can't fix these, please remove this tradeline" or did they just remove that tradeline on their own?

 

 

I just want to make sure I handle that correctly. I have a "previously investigated" with EX and want to give this a shot.

 

I listed it all in one letter. It's a win-win situation. Either they correct (or delete) or they verify the violations.

 

The TL was removed on it's own.

 

However, it might be a good idea to leave one or two things out. So if it gets frivolous, open a new dispute based on something else.

 

 

I had a seperate CA years ago i was fed up with. It was past the SOL. I had nothing to lose. I told them it was past SOL.

 

I sent a letter and said, are you going to sue me? Yes, or no?

 

Deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a seperate CA years ago i was fed up with. It was past the SOL. I had nothing to lose. I told them it was past SOL.

 

I sent a letter and said, are you going to sue me? Yes, or no?

 

Deleted.

 

Jack is easily identified by his distinctive walk -- caused by his huge balls.

 

Jack = my hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BC1972. Thank you very much.

 

Yes, national dispute week. Thanks again for taking the time. The three companies all reporting one account had my head spinning.

 

Yes, I agree, Jack is very creative and I look forward to giving this style of dispute a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, i decided in my next dispute to stay FAR away from "not mine", or "no records."

 

Something like this........

 

This is Not a Data Factoring account. Please remove this.

 

It is reported as an “Open†account, which is false. Please remove this.

 

It reports a One Month term which is false. Please remove this.

 

The Estimated date of removal for the CA does not match the date that the original creditor, reports. The Original creditor is reporting 9/2010. Please correct or remove this.

 

The Date of First Delinquency with the Original Creditor is not provided Please provide this.

 

The Date of First Major Delinquency with the Original Creditor is not provided Please provide this

 

It has never been 120 days late Please remove this.

 

It is listed as a loan. They have never provided me a loan. Please remove this.

 

No payment was made in 2/2007. Please remove this.

 

It is listed as an installment account, which is false. Please remove this.

 

The Balance is not correct. Please correct or remove this.

 

The end of the seven year reporting period should be listed as 09/2010. Please correct or remove this.

 

 

Can someone clear this up for me... does each line refer to a different account, or was this all the information that was incorrect for one single tradeline? Or is this a list of potential disputes, i.e. each line could be used alone for a single tradeline?

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

 

Never mind, I read through the thread again and realized my question was already asked. I just missed it.

Edited by Cliff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a seperate CA years ago i was fed up with. It was past the SOL. I had nothing to lose. I told them it was past SOL.

 

I sent a letter and said, are you going to sue me? Yes, or no?

 

Deleted.

 

Say what? You said that to the CA or the CRA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. A CA.

 

It was out of the SOL, and i had proof. I notified them that it was a time barred debt.

 

So i asked if they were going to sue. I had it planned out. if they said yes, It would be a violation.

 

"Taking or attempting to take action that cannot legally be taken. "

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      179,064
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Blackhawk04
    Joined

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

Guidelines