Equifax deletes CA debt from credit report

Just got the letter today! I couldn't believe it myself so got a copy of the report from them and they are all three gone!

Less than 30 days since I reported them as fraud in a dispute form. I have been trying to get them off for years and the CRA would not budge.

Instead of just disputing that they are not mine, and they were not, I called them what they were, fraudulent accounts created by each collection company that bought the (over 10 year old) debt. Only one more to go that I previously just said was not mine. Just submitted to Equifax that the last one is fraud as well.

Maybe I can open that state charted non-federal reserve bank account after all.


Keep the faith!

Ken

[suijuris]

I just got to say - congrats!

[seeker]

Is it not amazing how mentioning that little word creates the attention stance we have been seeking from the CRAs for so long? In my original letter to the CRA, I always say this is not a dispute, but an attempt to validate that which you are reporting so as to ensure that a fraud has not been commited and if it has, to take the appropriate steps for remedy. They always promptly put a "fraud alert" on the file and investigate! Now I just have to get them beyond the whole "verification documents not available" -- I have been having some interesting thoughts regarding this and the best way to "attack" the premise.... others?

Way to go Ken!!

Seeker

[iamfreeru2]

Seeker,

I see you are back up and running again. Welcome back.

Kenrs,

Nice job!! I too am working at getting the CRAs to delete some fraudulent items.

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Seeker,

I see you are back up and running again. Welcome back.

Kenrs,

Nice job!! I too am working at getting the CRAs to delete some fraudulent items.

iamfree,

I want you to PM me so I can give you something.

Congrats Kenrs!!!! The wins are building up member by member. thanks for trusting in what we speak of, learning for yourself, and applying what you understand. That brings tears to my eyes!!!

[Livefire]

sounds like they wanted to avoid another dirty little word in their vocabulary.......litigation!!! So ken, did you notice them in your letter that they were a party to fraud by reporting an unvalidated, alleged "debt"? Im dealing with a few issues myself, I think I might alter my verbiage somewhat in future written correspondence. Congrats on your victory!!!

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by Livefire

sounds like they wanted to avoid another dirty little word in their vocabulary.......litigation!!! So ken, did you notice them in your letter that they were a party to fraud by reporting an unvalidated, alleged "debt"? Im dealing with a few issues myself, I think I might alter my verbiage somewhat in future written correspondence. Congrats on your victory!!!

Livefire,

It is very heplful to have someone read your correspondences for you and then you re-read them later. What you want to avoid is threats of lawsuit, accusations of fraud or party to fraud, testimony or inadvertent admittance of something you yourself cannot prove, and dictating to them how to do their job. If you can avoid these few things, you should be okay. These avoidances will help you structure a brief, concise, precise, direct, non-argumentative piece of correspondence that will get results.

Good luck.

[Livefire]

Jerseee,

All I've done so far is ask collectors and CRA's to "validate" the alleged debts and defined what constitutes validation according to FDCPA, FTC Opinion letters, & legal decisions. Also stated that all correspondence with me was to proceed via US Mail.(no phone calls please).

One collector didnt respond to my request so about 35 days after their non response, I sent a letter of estoppel and requested they remove any negative listings with the CRAs.(I have all the green postal cards as proof).

Second thing to report is that one of the other collectors actually left a msg on my machine saying they received my letter (funny thing...I asked them not call me! LOL...Im thinking possible FDCPA violation there!) and want me to call back to discuss this matter. These collection accounts are small potatoes compared to most people, but its a great learning experience. This site is right on the money and Im glad its here. Again KUDOS to kenrs and I hope to add a few victories myself in the near future!

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by Livefire

Jerseee,

All I've done so far is ask collectors and CRA's to "validate" the alleged debts and defined what constitutes validation according to FDCPA, FTC Opinion letters, & legal decisions. Also stated that all correspondence with me was to proceed via US Mail.(no phone calls please).

One collector didnt respond to my request so about 35 days after their non response, I sent a letter of estoppel and requested they remove any negative listings with the CRAs.(I have all the green postal cards as proof).

Second thing to report is that one of the other collectors actually left a msg on my machine saying they received my letter (funny thing...I asked them not call me! LOL...Im thinking possible FDCPA violation there!) and want me to call back to discuss this matter. These collection accounts are small potatoes compared to most people, but its a great learning experience. This site is right on the money and Im glad its here. Again KUDOS to kenrs and I hope to add a few victories myself in the near future!

Livefire,

I guess I read your post wrong. You are doing a great job using small alleged debts as practice. I did the same with my VOD. I read, I studied, I researched, I benchmarked other processes, and then I executed what I learned and dissected other processes best practices to come up with my method.

Godspeed.

Originally Posted by kenrs

Maybe I can open that state charted non-federal reserve bank account after all.


Keep the faith!

Ken

Ok getting lots of questions on this one. As I understand it, and I did ask the bank. A state charted bank is backed by the state and is not a federal reserve bank. i.e. not a member of the federal reserve. Any input on this would help clarify it.

Thanks,
Ken