How to clean up IIB accounts...

[dixiedrifter]

I've seen tons of posts the last month or so talking about all the violations OC's and CA's commit post BK. There needs to be a thread regarding such issues, how to fix them, and possibly how to make some money in the process.

 

Ok so i've decided to a come up with a not-so-in-depth guide to cleaning up IIB accounts and suing OC's and CA's who step out of line.

 

HOW TO CLEAN UP IIB ACCOUNTS:

 

The easiest way to get OC's off your reports is to try to entrap them into verifying false info with the CRA’s and send ITS then if they want to play ball, file suit. This is accomplished via:

 

1. Dispute the IIB accounts as "not mine".

 

This should be the first thing done. You might get lucky and have them delete on the first go around. However, there seems to be a trend going with OC's wanting to remove the BK status and change it to a charge off when a TL is disputed as "not mine".

 

Technically, there is nothing illegal about this practice. Yes, it screws your credit, but nothing under the FCRA requires a furnisher to provide any information to a CRA, and they can remove information as they choose.

 

2. Dispute any accounts not marked as IIB (after going thru step 1.) or any changed accounts as "IIB".

 

Now then OC’s, being the arrogant bastards they are, will probably verify that the TL is NOT included in BK, or else the CRA will probably not investigate. Easy violation if they verify. Skip to step 4.

 

3. If the OC does update the TL to IIB, it should not be too hard to find something else wrong with the TL.

 

OC’s like to add stuff such as charge off’s, late payment notations, and pull inquiries on IIB accounts. All of these are actionable, and the inquiries are an “easy” $1000 a pop.

 

4. Send ITS to OC.

 

Here is a sample letter to use for verifying an account IIB as not IIB. You can also add any other violations the OC has committed.

 

Dear OC,

 

I am writing in this letter in regards to account xxxxxxxxx which was discharged via chapter x BK on xx/xx/xxxx.

 

During xxxxx, I disputed the above referenced account as “included in Bankruptcy” with the consumer reporting agencies Equifax/Experian/Transunion.

 

In the case of disputed accuracy of information contained in a consumer report, a furnisher of information shall after receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency shall conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information, review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.

 

Enclosed for your review are copies of the consumer reporting agency reinvestigation results indicating that your company failed to comply with 15 U.S.C § 1681s-2( by furnishing the consumer reporting agencies with inaccurate information after receiving a dispute relating to the account in question on x separate occasions, 1 for each consumer reporting agency. Also I have enclosed copies of my Bankruptcy petition as evidence that the account was indeed discharged thru Bankruptcy.

 

I consider OC name’s actions to be flagrant willful and malicious violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act due to the repetitious nature of their occurrences and as such I am preparing to instigate litigation against OC name to recover statutory, punitive, and actual damages as provided pursuant to 15 U.S.C §1681n.

 

In addition, I may seek additional relief as provided under my State’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices statutes and sanctions as provided by the Bankruptcy Court.

 

However, I would like to provide you an opportunity to settle this matter out of court, as I do not wish to have to go thru the trouble associated with re-educating an attorney that thinks that he/she can bully and/or intimidate a Pro Se plaintiff such as myself into folding, or wasting a bunch of time going thru the trial process with the necessary motions, interrogatories, depositions, and other related court filings.

 

That being said, I am willing to accept a sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or deletion of the TL in lieu of a monetary settlement, and upon such receipt of such settlement I will consider the matter to be closed and no further action will be taken. This offer is only good for 14 days after the confirmed receipt of this letter, after which time such offer will become null and void and I will proceed with filing.

 

Be advised, if OC name wishes to reject my offer and take this matter to the courts, it can be realistically expected that OC name’s legal fees will easily exceed the amount I am demanding above, and even if OC name should win in court, it will cost your company a lot more in the long run to prove a point than it would have to just gone ahead and settled in the beginning.

 

I look forward to an amicable solution to this matter.

 

Best regards,

 

5. Sue the OC.

 

Since there is no financial incentive for the OC to fight you in court, if they don't want to accept your ITS offer, it is very likely that they will be singing a much diffrent story once served.

 

As Lbrown59 would say….” *THE END*”

[breana902]

Question for you. I have about 3 or 4 TL that were IIBK, but don't state as such on my reports. I have disputed them every way, except for - this account was IIBK. I haven't done that because I was able to have the BK deleted from my reports. Should I dispute them that way anyway? I don't want to see the BK show up again. I have looked up the info on pacer and nothing comes up under my name or ss#. Could I send this letter anyway, just stating that I questioned the TL? This past weekend I sent out the below letter to the OCs to see if I could get the TLs deleted.

 

 

 

Letter I sent:

 

Dear First USA,

 

You are inaccurately and incompletely furnishing information regarding the above-referenced account to the CRA's in violation of the reporting requirements of the FCRA, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information, and for which you are responsible.

 

I dispute your information in its entirety and request evidentiary documentation that substantiates the information you have furnished and its reporting.

 

Should you not be able or willing to provide me with the substantiating documentation as verification to cure this violation, within 15 days of receipt of this letter, please have the information deleted from each of the CRA's you initially furnished it to or I will have no recourse but to consider legal action as a resolution

[owiebrain]

Dixie, you are my hero! Thank you!!

[droopyt]

You must be reading my mind dixie!

 

I had just made up a letter almost EXACTLY like this one to send regarding my IIBs.

 

Thank You!

[dixiedrifter]

Question for you. I have about 3 or 4 TL that were IIBK, but don't state as such on my reports. I have disputed them every way, except for - this account was IIBK. I haven't done that because I was able to have the BK deleted from my reports. Should I dispute them that way anyway? I don't want to see the BK show up again. I have looked up the info on pacer and nothing comes up under my name or ss#. Could I send this letter anyway, just stating that I questioned the TL? This past weekend I sent out the below letter to the OCs to see if I could get the TLs deleted.

 

The only way the BK could be reinserted would be for the CRA to obtain a certified copy of your BK paperwork. I seriously doubt the CRA would go thru the trouble and expense of obtaining such.

 

 

Letter I sent:

 

Dear First USA,

 

You are inaccurately and incompletely furnishing information regarding the above-referenced account to the CRA's in violation of the reporting requirements of the FCRA, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information, and for which you are responsible.

 

I dispute your information in its entirety and request evidentiary documentation that substantiates the information you have furnished and its reporting.

 

Should you not be able or willing to provide me with the substantiating documentation as verification to cure this violation, within 15 days of receipt of this letter, please have the information deleted from each of the CRA's you initially furnished it to or I will have no recourse but to consider legal action as a resolution

 

The letter's language is weak, and so is its content. Whenever I try to write an ITS, I try to imagine myself as being a sue happy blue shirt that is just about as likely to go ahead and file as finish writing the letter.

 

The ITS letter I wrote above is pretty tame. Generally I like to include a courtesy copy of the complaint I'm about to file, the evidence of my position, and some more legaleze. The tone I want to convey to whomever is recieving the letter is one of myself being a valid threat that can, will, and is able to cause damage and must be dealt with, i.e. a "hot potato". If your letter cannot do that, your just wasting paper.

[crofttk]

Very good post Dixie.

 

The only criticism I would offer concerns the following:

....there seems to be a trend going with OC's wanting to remove the BK status and change it to a charge off when a TL is disputed as "not mine".

 

Technically, there is nothing illegal about this practice. Yes, it screws your credit, but nothing under the FCRA requires a furnisher to provide any information to a CRA....

 

...and sanctions as provided by the Bankruptcy Court....

1) IMO, this practice IS illegal. It constitutes further collection activity as barred by the permanent statutory injunction granted along with discharge, reference item (a)(2): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/usc...ection_524.html. That points out the ILLEGAL part. In addition, it is potentially at variance with this FTC opinion letter to Lovern: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/lovern51.htm

 

2) I would be a little more explicit about which part (reference my first of two links above).

 

Good job ! I'll add it to my and DW's list of options to follow after some "not mines" turn out in first half of August.

[Daniel123]

Dixie...I just used the letter with a few minor modifications. Sent it to Citicards. Thanks so much.

[Andreas]

Dixie,

 

What a great piece -- this is the information I was looking for. Here's my dilemma. I have already had creditors verify the inaccuracies on a few of the accounts. :roll:

 

How realitic is the expectation that a letter such as the sample you included will hav results? If I do sue a OC, what is the procedure here, or should I get a lawyer at this point?

 

Thanks,

Andy

[breana902]

Thanks for the input Dixiedrifter. I sent a letter to fleet today (not an IIBK TL) I used the letter from this post, changed a bit of the wording added some from your CYA letter. You are right - the one I used sounded alittle weak!

[breana902]

Question. Even though I sent out the letter I posted, would it hurt to send out Dixis' letter now, even though I don't have a reponse to my first letter? I am wondering if different people in the company get the letters to take care of, so it is possible if I send another letter someone different will see it.

[dixiedrifter]

Go for it. The your letter was threatening possible legal action, my letter is threatening legal action.

[breana902]

Go for it. The your letter was threatening possible legal action, my letter is threatening legal action.

 

Might as well go for it! Haven't got anything to lose, only can gain from it. I have also noticed that the CRAs have a different address for some OCs. I sent a letter to Fleet the other day, then noticed that Equifax had a different address(different state also). So - I sent the other letter off to the other address. I will look tonight to see if the rest have different addresses. Ya never know who might be having a bad day at work and hating the boss - they see my letter and help me out cos the boss is a jerk. :wink:

[breana902]

The addresses do differ amongst the CRAs. I wonder if that explains why an item gets verified with one CRA and deleted by another.

[screwedbysears]

I think it is a great letter but I would not send in paperwork proving that it was included in BK I did that and I regreted it because I didn't exhust all my other options. but I guess it would be ok if this was the final straw. I was just refereing to one of the sticky's. "don't send proof of bk"

 

 

But it is a good letter and I will be using it soon with a few modifcations

[SassyinAz]

Please see this thread before using the letter, it isn't so cut and dry on whether BK-ers have a cause of action against furnishers at all, the only recourse may well be BK Court, adversarial and contempt of court proceedings:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...opic.php?t=8136

 

This too to research for yourself:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...ight=sassy+sino

 

Sassy

[owiebrain]

Please see this thread before using the letter, it isn't so cut and dry on whether BK-ers have a cause of action against furnishers at all, the only recourse may well be BK Court, adversarial and contempt of court proceedings:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...opic.php?t=8136

 

This too to research for yourself:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...ight=sassy+sino

 

Sassy

 

Can I ask a silly question? How does the first thread affect letters sent to an OC or CA who was IIB? I've read that thread 4 times now and I'm just not getting the point as it applies here. (Although, it is chock-full of info on the public records aspect of BK!) I've been known to miss the obvious before.

 

I'm working on my version of this letter now and want to make sure I take all trains of thought into consideration before I finalize it. Thanks!

[SassyinAz]

Because the letter says it is a violation of the FCRA and/or FDCPA and threatens suit for the same -- that is not necessarily a cause of action that a BK-er can pursue; it is better to pursue the CRA's directly since they refuse to play by the rules.

 

It is addressed with a link and there is a reference to this specific letter being recommended for use.

 

Sassy

[owiebrain]

Because the letter says it is a violation of the FCRA and/or FDCPA and threatens suit for the same -- that is not necessarily a cause of action that a BK-er can pursue; it is better to pursue the CRA's directly since they refuse to play by the rules.  

 

Okay, I see why you referenced the first link now. Thanks! However, I don't understand why you say it's not necessarily a cause of action for BKers because:

 

In the second link, in which you and sinobueno discuss/debate under which laws BKers are protected and/or can file complaints/suit, I came away with the following understanding:

 

1) Walls vs. Wells Fargo = wacky people. Contempt, BK court only way. FDCPA excluded in BK issues. No reference to FCRA, though.

 

2) Wagner v. Ocwen Federal Bank. Both BK and FDCPA can be violated at the same time.

 

3) BK court can provide "injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys fees."

 

4) Small claims, other courts can provide only for FCRA, FDCPA, etc, *not* BK violations.

 

Based on the above, I then believed I could do one of the following:

 

1) Sue in small claims (or where ever) for FCRA and possibly FDCPA violations (depending on whether the Walls case or Wagner case was more credible/applicable).

 

2) Also, or instead of #1, file through the BK court for sanctions separately.

 

3) File though the BK court for BK sanctions, as well as FCRA and/or FDCPA (again, depending on the Walls case or Wagner case). (The South Carolina case sinobueno mentioned using BK court for all violations.)

 

Or were you just saying that no one is sure because of the conflicting cases? And is there something somewhere I missed that excludes the FCRA in BK cases? I know the Walls case did that with the FDCPA but have seen no mention of the FCRA in my searches.

 

Thanks very much for taking the time to answer all of these questions!! I want to be completely sure of what I'm doing before I do it.

[owiebrain]

After tossing and turning in bed, unable to sleep because of this stuff swimming around in my head, I'm back to answer myself and ask another question.

 

Okay, the Wells case says BK court is it.

 

Wagner case says, nope, that BK and FDCPA violations can be at the same time.

 

Wehrheim case agrees with the Wells case.

 

So, here's a question that relates directly to me:

 

Filed BK, discharged debts. OCs and CAs that were listed have further continued collection activities which are violations of FDCPA and BK code. This is only remedied through BK court, according to the majority of opinions from cases listed above. What about FCRA violations?? Before I go sticking my foot in my mouth on that issue with a creditor, does anyone have an idea about that? For example, non-PP violations and furnishing knowingly inaccurate information to the CRAs post BK. Will my case hold water if I were to send a letter saying something like:

 

"You've violated this, this, and this of the BK code.

 

You've violated this, this, and this of the FCRA, which penalizes you with this amount of $$.

 

I can take this to BK court where I can/will be granted injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys fees for both the FCRA and BK code violations or we can settle this out of court for deletion of ___ (instead of suing for BK code violations) and $____ (instead of suing for FCRA violations)."

 

Then they can always counteroffer for deletions only but I figure it's better to start out with an demand for deletions and allowable $$ so I have something to work down from.

 

Another question: If you, for some reason, sue for only BK code violations in BK court, can you still sue for FCRA violations in small claims or other courts? Or do you have to do it all at once if you're doing it (assuming the violations are separate issues)? Can you just sue in small claims (or other court besides BK court) for just FCRA violations if you leave out the BK violation issues (not hide the fact that you filed BK but just not pursue them)?

 

I really, really, really don't want to have to do court but will if I have to. In the meantime, I'd like to know all of the possibilities when it comes time to play hardball with these guys.

 

I promise I'm going to bed now!

[SassyinAz]

Owiebrain,

 

I'm soooooooooo impressed with you doing your homework, I nearly can't stand myself, LOL, I do hope you got some sleep. I understand absolutely how that goes when you've something in your head that isn't resolved.

 

I'm sending you something via pm for your brain-bashing, see whatcha think!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sassy

[jeni]

Just what I needed! thank you for making current again!

[SassyinAz]

Please do the research first before using, Jeni

 

Sassy

[jeni]

don't worry ... everything I'm doing right now is homework even though it feels like a full-time job! And I'm still very hazy about a couple of things but I'm sure the more I read here the more I'll learn. I've already made some mistakes and am taking the next appropriate action :arrow: learning everything I can!

 

You people are amazing with the amount of help and advice you give. Thank you!

[owiebrain]

Owiebrain,

 

I'm soooooooooo impressed with you doing your homework, I nearly can't stand myself, LOL, I do hope you got some sleep.  I understand absolutely how that goes when you've something in your head that isn't resolved.

 

I'm sending you something via pm for your brain-bashing, see whatcha think!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sassy

 

Had it open on my screen all day but everything is just now getting quiet. Got toothpicks keeping eyelids open, caffeine in hand, commencing reading...

 

(Sleep?? What is this thing you speak of??)

[Andreas]

After the ITS is sent and the CR does no respond, even after 30 days, it looks like I need to take action. I'm sure there is a thread somewhere that talks about the next step to take after the ITS doesn't resolve anything. Can someone reply and give me some good reading material?