Score one for the good guys.

Well I have been using the verification of debt technique illustrated by Jersee to eliminate some things off the old credit report. Trans Union is still playing games , but today Experian sent me an updated copy with all the items in question removed including a FORECLOSURE that had plagued me for the last three years. Have not heard back from Equifax yet, but guess what, their 30 days are up! Correct me if I am wrong but is'nt their some law or staute that says what one report states, that all must state? If so , maybe that is the angle I need to take with Trans Union, because those guys seem to be idiots. In the mean time , score one for the good guys.

[suijuris]

Boxter, great work! I have moved this post to the success stories.



I am not aware of any law that says what one reports, all must report. But why not use the deletion by Experian as evidence that the others are reporting innaccurate info. Reporting innacurate info is a violation of the FCRA, and grounds for a suit.



Also, if you dispute an item they are required by law to notify you of the outcome within 30 days of reciept. Otherwise, that is grounds for suit as well.



Make'm pay!

[Jerseee]

Boxter,



Congrats and thank you for your success story. We get more of these rather than complaints!!! You stayed the course and never left your remedy!!! I am very proud of you right now. Most folks are impatient and run from the process. You didn't and look at your results.



Okay enough gloating!!



As far as Trans Union goes, I will tell you 2 things and the light will come on again......ready?



1. All CRAs abide by the same code. therefore, all should be reporting the same thing. It is not the investigative process that matters--it is the result. If one cannot verify the debt, then the others should not be able to either. You now have evidence from a CRA that can be used against the other CRA. You can sue for "Willful non-compliance."



2. Remember Honor? Well would you be more honorable if you allowed Trans Union an additional 30 days to cure its wrong or are you a stickler to the code and rush right down to sue them on the 31st day?



Think about it.....

Boxter,

You deserve this success. Good job.



Sara-Jane

Thanks guys , I feel like a cancer has been lifted off of me right now. I only wished I had known this before I bought my last house a year ago , of which I am in the process of dissolving. It ticks me off to think , that there are millions of people in the same situation. Paying higher interest rates with longer terms, and higher insurance over issues that cannot even be validated. Its like doping a third grader up on drugs because he came to school one morning slighty disruptive having missed breakfast, so from here on out , he is a labeled as a "problem child" the same way consumers are labled as "high risk " in terms of credit approvals and spend the next 7 years either being turned down for credit they deserve, or made to pay twice as much as they should. I think it goes back to what Montana ( Sara Jane ) was saying. Unitl you assert your rights, you have none. I will follow you guys advice and use the deletion from Experian to "strong arm" Trans Union into removing the item the same way a lawyer uses one verdict to win another.

Good news again guys , just came back from the old mail box and guess what. Equifax has jumped on the band wagon, "foreclosure removed". Now I have two arsenals against Trans Union. Whats else can I say , knowledge is power.

[gregtu]

Boxter,



Congrats!!!! I'm waiting to hear from the CRA's myself.

O.K guys Trans Union is still playing hard ball. The last letter I have from them says they do not provide dispute verification resonses from creditors, and that if I want verification of the information provided, I need to contact the creditors directly. Correct me if I am wrong, but since they accept the responsibilty of making this information available to whomever ask to see it, is'nt the verification process their responsibilty?

[seeker]

I think that you have the right to know what process they use for "verification". The one think I learned from reading that Johnson v MBNA case was the shoddy way verification is handled via the CC -- they check the CIS and if your name, address and phone number are correct, they type in the amount that they say you owe them (from the last statement, I assume, and send it off the the CRA as "verified". Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is NOT verified! I could go to a phone book and do that kind of "verification" all day long!

When I received info back from one of th eCRAs, they included the name of the COMPANY, the address of the COMPANY and the Phone number, again of the COMPANY, to enable ME to verify the debt. Now first, it ain't my job to verify the info THEY are reporting as true and correct. Seccond, this is not what I requested from them. I requested the name of the living soul who verified the information -- who looked at the contract and my signature and then requested that soul's contact info -- name, reachable at what address and what direct phone number. I also requested knowledge of the PROCESS used to obtain the verification. The law states the certified verification is required or the entry is to be deleted. Check Black's for verification --



Verified Copy: means- “Copy of document which is shown by independent evidence to be true. A copy, if successive witness trace the original into the hands of a witness who made or compared the copy. See: Nu Car Carriers v. Treynor, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 125 F.2d 47, 48.”



Verification; means- “Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party. See Sheeley v. City of Santa Clara, 215 Cal.App.2d 83, 30 Cal.Rptr. 121,123. Sworn or equivalent confirmation of truth…In accounting, the process of substantiating entries in books of account.”



Hold their feet to the fire. I had very favorable response from TU, but the other two just sent a copy of the report -- one did a short investigation on items I specifically highlighted as questionable entries -- but I did NOT state that I disputed them. Only said these entries were questionable and should be verifed or removed. If they were verified, I should be provided with the verification in order to take the next necessary step in case fraud was found to exist.

Now I have Fraud alerts on all accounts and they have supposedly sent dispute letters to all listed on their reports. At no time did I say I wished to dispute any of the entires, only that I wanted them (CRA) to verify the entries that they were reporting as true and correct.

What do you suppose the ramifications are for the CRA generated Dispute letters? I suddenly have two CC calling me with "important matter to discuss. call back immediately." Yeah, I'm all over that!



Just my wooden nickel's worth of input!



Seeker

Thanks Seeker. They are not really saying they have verified thevitems in question. They are saying they dont have verification documents, which to me is by their own admission saying it must be removed.