MBNA: Charge-Off-->Pays As Agreed-->Charge-Off

[letterhound]

Hello all,

 

I have a quick question. I'm helping my sister with her reports and she has a stubborn TL for MBNA on all 3 of her reports. This has a DOLA of 4/2000, so it is still a ways away from dropping off but she is out of SOL.

 

She sent a DV letter to MBNA last Fall and NEVER heard a response. This account has been disputed by her on several occasions and they continue to update it.

 

Now my question: She disputed this ~2 months ago and MBNA positively updated her TL to read "PAYS AS AGREED", "NEVER LATE" and listed it as an "OPEN ACCOUNT," which obviously helped her score.

 

However, they most recently CHANGED it back to read "CHARGE-OFF" and "CLOSED" and "BAD DEBT."

 

Can anyone advise us on if this 'change' is anything that she can use to get MBNA to REMOVE the ENTIRE TL or at least make it report positive? The fact that they reported it 'incorrectly' previously would infer that MBNA can make 'mistakes.'

 

Thank-you...she and I appreciate your input of suggested letters, strategies, etc.

 

[brn5150]

I am quite interested in this as well. I have the exact same situation, just a different bank.

 

Thanks!

[pryan67]

so you disputed it...

 

the CRA changed it...

 

then changed it back?

 

 

that's reinsertion...and illegal

[soldiergurl74]

Good luck getting anything changed with MBNA... they are evil!

 

I still have 4 late pays with them that they refuse to change.

[letterhound]

Is it actually 'reinsertion' if they never removed it? She disputed it as "NOT MINE" and they updated it to a positive status, then later on reversed it to a NEGATIVE status.

 

Any advice on what kind of letter to write/how to approach this? I would think that they couldn't legally 'flip-flop' on the reporting of this...negative-positive-negative, especially when this alleged account has been 'charged-off' for ~ 5 years and is allegedly in 'default.' How could an account in 'default' be brought CURRENT and PAYS AS AGREED, then put BACK into default?

 

Or would this be something better to attack the CRA about? (e.g. change it back to positive or DELETE!)?

 

Thanks for the advice!

Edited March 7, 2005 by letterhound

[letterhound]

bump for the Tuesday crowd for help...please?

 

Thanks for the strategies, advice, letters, etc.

[pryan67]

Is it actually 'reinsertion' if they never removed it?  She disputed it as "NOT MINE" and they updated it to a positive status, then later on reversed it to a NEGATIVE status.

 

yep...it's still reinsertion...they deleted the negative information...then reinserted it...

 

Any advice on what kind of letter to write/how to approach this?  I would think that they couldn't legally 'flip-flop' on the reporting of this...negative-positive-negative, especially when this alleged account has been 'charged-off' for ~ 5 years and is allegedly in 'default.' How could an account in 'default' be brought CURRENT and PAYS AS AGREED, then put BACK into default?

 

send off a basic reinsertion letter...there are lots of samples around...I just recently sent one to EQ...I don't have a copy handy...but it was pretty basic

 

 

Or would this be something better to attack the CRA about?  (e.g. change it back to positive or DELETE!)?

 

Thanks for the advice!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Go after the CRA...THEY are responsible for the reinsertion

[SassyinAz]

so you disputed it...

 

the CRA changed it...

 

then changed it back?

 

 

that's reinsertion...and illegal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pryan,

 

That's not reinstertion, the information was updated incorrectly. Reinsertion is when the information is deleted based on a dispute (not verifiable).

 

I'd send a PR request to the CRA and send a verification letter to MBNA.

 

Sassy

[letterhound]

Hello Sassy and pryan,

 

Thank-you for the replies. She actually already sent a "PR" letter to the CRA and they just sent the generic response letter that everyone seems to get.

 

So what is the actual 'definition' of reinsertion? Is pryan correct b/c she disputed this account and it was changed to positive, THEN subsequently 'updated' back to a negative status?

 

I wonder b/c the actual tradeline was never completely removed but the negative notation sure was.

 

Any further help would be most appreciated.

[letterhound]

bump for the evening crowd for clarification...please?

[cotterpin]

She sent a DV letter to MBNA last Fall and NEVER heard a response.  This account has been disputed by her on several occasions and they continue to update it. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Original creditors are not required to respond to DV's, those are only applicable to CA's under the FDCPA

 

Send them a verfication letter as Sassy suggested

 

OC mother thread

 

Validation vs Verification

 

Sassy is correct, since the TL wasn't DELETED, it's not reinsertion. Simply updating the account status isn't reinsertion.

[pryan67]

She sent a DV letter to MBNA last Fall and NEVER heard a response.  This account has been disputed by her on several occasions and they continue to update it. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Original creditors are not required to respond to DV's, those are only applicable to CA's under the FDCPA

 

Send them a verfication letter as Sassy suggested

 

OC mother thread

 

Validation vs Verification

 

Sassy is correct, since the TL wasn't DELETED, it's not reinsertion. Simply updating the account status isn't reinsertion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I have to disagree here....the FCRA states:

 

Requirements relating to reinsertion of previously deleted material.

(i) Certification of accuracy of information. If any information is deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may not be reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency unless the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate.

(ii) Notice to consumer. If any information that has been deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A) is reinserted in the file, the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency.

(iii) Additional information. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under clause (ii), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing not later than 5 business days after the date of the reinsertion

 

 

 

I've got to disagree with Sassy and Cotterpin here...

 

where in the FCRA does it say that the ENTIRE TL must be deleted in order to fall under the reinsertion protections? It says "any information"...and late pays, etc would fall under "information", would it not?

 

 

As part of their "investigation" previously, the CRA determined that the account was in good standing....I assume that the OP has the dispute letter stating that the CRA investigated and the results of their investigation was that it is now "never late"...

 

therefore, either the CRA didn't investigate before, or information was reinserted (the late pays, etc)

[SassyinAz]

Hello Sassy and pryan,

 

Thank-you for the replies.  She actually already sent a "PR" letter to the CRA and they just sent the generic response letter that everyone seems to get.

 

Keep that as part of your papertrail, it itself is a violation.

 

So what is the actual 'definition' of reinsertion?  Is pryan correct b/c she disputed this account and it was changed to positive, THEN subsequently 'updated' back to a negative status?

 

I wonder b/c the actual tradeline was never completely removed but the negative notation sure was.

 

Any further help would be most appreciated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Always confirm all advice received with the source (Sassy or Pryan said, won't get you very far, that I can promise you), in this case the FCRA:

 

(5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information.

 

(A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall--

 

(i) promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation; and

 

(ii) promptly notify the furnisher of that information that the information has been modified or deleted from the file of the consumer.

 

( Requirements relating to reinsertion of previously deleted material.

 

(i) Certification of accuracy of information. If any information is deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may not be reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency unless the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate.

 

(ii) Notice to consumer. If any information that has been deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A) is reinserted in the file, the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency.

 

(iii) Additional information. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under clause (ii), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing not later than 5 business days after the date of the reinsertion

 

(I) a statement that the disputed information has been reinserted;

 

(II) the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available, or of any furnisher of information that contacted the consumer reporting agency, in connection with the reinsertion of such information; and

 

(III) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer's file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the disputed information.

 

© Procedures to prevent reappearance. A consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to prevent the reappearance in a consumer's file, and in consumer reports on the consumer, of information that is deleted pursuant to this paragraph (other than information that is reinserted in accordance with subparagraph ((i)).

 

Importantly, for reinsertion to be an issue, you would have the results from a previous CRA reinvestigation showing that the information was deleted -- do you have that?

 

Sassy

Edited March 8, 2005 by SassyinAz

[pryan67]

sassy,

 

I believe she DOES have that...not sure though...if so, then even though the entire TL wasn't deleted, wouldn't also be reinsertion (see my above post)

 

you KNOW I love you Sassy (you too Cotterpin), but this is one time I have to disagree

[cotterpin]

Always confirm all advice received with the source (Sassy or Pryan said, won't get you very far, that I can promise you)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you saying I should stop beginning my letters to EX:

 

Dear Satan:

 

Sassy said that........

 

 

sassy,

 

I believe she DOES have that...not sure though...if so, then even though the entire TL wasn't deleted, wouldn't also be reinsertion (see my above post)

 

you KNOW I love you Sassy (you too Cotterpin), but this is one time I have to disagree

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't like being in parenthesis

 

OK, lemme pick yer brain then

 

How would you word a letter the CRA's based on your interpretation?

[pryan67]

Always confirm all advice received with the source (Sassy or Pryan said, won't get you very far, that I can promise you)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you saying I should stop beginning my letters to EX:

 

Dear Satan:

 

Sassy said that........

 

 

sassy,

 

I believe she DOES have that...not sure though...if so, then even though the entire TL wasn't deleted, wouldn't also be reinsertion (see my above post)

 

you KNOW I love you Sassy (you too Cotterpin), but this is one time I have to disagree

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't like being in parenthesis

 

OK, lemme pick yer brain then

 

How would you word a letter the CRA's based on your interpretation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

but being in parenthesis means you're even MORE loved...like infamous...it means MORE than famous...*grin*

 

and yep...you shouldn't start your letters with "Dear Satan", anymore than people should use my letters starting with :"Dear subhuman equivilent of a poison ivy thong"...

 

this is the EXACT letter I sent to EQ concerning the same thing that happened to me....it was gone within a week

 

 

 

 

Greetings:

 

In a recent review of my credit report,  I noticed that an item that I had previously disputed and had corrected  on or about November xx, 200x (report number xxxxxxxx) has been reinserted into my Equifax credit file.  The account information is below:

 

ANB/BPAmoco Account number xxxxxxxx

 

 

After your investigation at that time, it was determined that it was reporting incorrectly, and you changed it to “paid as agreed”.  Recently, it has been reinserted as “Included in Bankruptcy”.  I was not sent the required notice concerning this reinsertion.  Please change the information BACK to “paid as agreed” or delete and block this account from my file.  Please note that I am NOT requesting a reinvestigation of this account.  It was investigated in November of 2003, and was found to be incorrect at that time, and was corrected then.  Please take care of this within the next 10 days.

[cotterpin]

but being in parenthesis means you're even MORE loved...like  infamous...it means MORE than famous...*grin*

 

and yep...you shouldn't start your letters with "Dear Satan", anymore than people should use my letters starting with :"Dear subhuman equivilent of a poison ivy thong"...

 

this is the EXACT letter I sent to EQ concerning the same thing that happened to me....it was gone within a week

 

 

 

 

Greetings:

 

In a recent review of my credit report,  I noticed that an item that I had previously disputed and had corrected  on or about November xx, 200x (report number xxxxxxxx) has been reinserted into my Equifax credit file.  The account information is below:

 

ANB/BPAmoco Account number xxxxxxxx

 

 

After your investigation at that time, it was determined that it was reporting incorrectly, and you changed it to “paid as agreed”.  Recently, it has been reinserted as “Included in Bankruptcy”.   I was not sent the required notice concerning this reinsertion.  Please change the information BACK to “paid as agreed” or delete and block this account from my file.   Please note that I am NOT requesting a reinvestigation of this account.  It was investigated in November of 2003, and was found to be incorrect at that time, and was corrected then.  Please take care of this within the next 10 days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Main Entry: infamous

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: shameful

Synonyms: abominable, atrocious, bad, base, caitiff, contemptible, corrupt, degenerate, despicable, detestable, disgraceful, dishonorable, disreputable, egregious, evil, flagitious, foul, hateful, heinous, ignominious, ill-famed, iniquitous, loathsome, miscreant, monstrous, nefarious, notorious, odious, offensive, opprobrious, outrageous, perverse, questionable, rotten, scandalous, scurvy, shady, shocking, sorry, unhealthy, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked

 

So that's how you feel about our love?

 

I do see your point on the reinsertion, though I don't agree on the interpretation. But, hey, if it worked

[pryan67]

*grin* Yeah....that's it...that's what love is too...isn't it? *grin* but OURlove...it's REAL man....like...it's REALLY REAL....

 

 

 

 

 

how would you interpret the FCRA in this case? Isn't the payment history an "item of information"? Or do you think that it only applies to TLs as a whole? If so, then where does that leave address reinsertion?

 

This might be better for a new thread though...I'd like to discuss this in more detail, because to me it's clear-cut...and if I'm wrong, I wanna know that too...just cuz it worked for me doesn't mean it's right...God knows I've pulled some weird stuff and gotten things deleted in "unorthodox" ways before...

Edited March 8, 2005 by pryan67

[pryan67]

bump for cotterpin and Sassy's comments

[letterhound]

Thank-you pryan, Sassy, and cotterpin for your well-thought replies...I suppose that at this point she has nothing to lose by sending a letter similar to that which pryan posted above. They cannot make it report any worse (legally) than it already is, right?

 

We both appreciate your time and expert insights...thanks again!

[Slappified]

Just to maybe inspire more comments.

 

Would adding that the account was "paid/paying as agreed" and removing the "CO" be considered reinsertion? Thus when they changed it from "paid/paying as agreed" back to "CO" they were fixing their mistake. I would read reinsertion as removing an entire item or information part (address, TL, SSN, DOB, names, etc. things that are stand along items) and then adding them back to the file. Changing just one part of a "stand alone" item would be updating not reinsertion.

[pryan67]

Just to maybe inspire more comments.

 

Would adding that the account was "paid/paying as agreed" and removing the "CO" be considered reinsertion?  Thus when they changed it from "paid/paying as agreed" back to "CO" they were fixing their mistake.  I would read reinsertion as removing an entire item or information part (address, TL, SSN, DOB, names, etc. things that are stand along items) and then adding them back to the file.  Changing just one part of a "stand alone" item would be updating not reinsertion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So let's say you weren't late in October, 2003 on your Citibank card...but they're reporting that you WERE...

 

you dispute it...and the CRA changes it to "never late"

 

 

3 months later, Citi changes it BACK to "late" for October 2003...

 

 

you'd just say "oh well, they can do that without notifying me...since they didn't delete the ENTIRE TL...."

 

I stand by the idea that "item of information" would be ANYTHING that was deleted...including late pays, etc...nowhere in the FCRA does it say anything about an entire TL being deleted being the only thing that the reinsertion applies to....

[letterhound]

Obviously I sure hope pryan is right...it certainly would benefit us!

 

P.S. Should my sister include the relevant sections of the FCRA in her letter as well or just send in the general letter that pryan posted above (modified for her needs, of course)?

 

Thank-you again!

[pryan67]

They know (or should know) the FCRA...I wouldn't include the actual text of the FCRA, nor would I put the sections in...

[letterhound]

Thanks for the tip, pryan...I'll tell her to leave that info out. Thanks again, everyone!