Hello Paul,

I recently got a free copy of my credit report as we are in the process of purchasing a home and found a few items to be inaccurate. 

I disputed those items and today got a phone call from one of the collection agencies to see if they could “help me”. 

This particular debt (of which I had no clue of why I would owe any monies) was for an apartment complex that we lived in about 5 years ago.  When I spoke with the gentleman he told me this was for cleaning the apartment and a reletting fee. 

I assured the man that when we left that complex we were in good standing (ie. my family members had come and helped us move and clean the apt., we had the carpet cleaned and I gave my 30 day notice, we actually moved out earlier than anticipated Feb.2 instead of Feb.28, mind you our rent was paid up, we owed them nothing and they even had the apt. paid and could have rented it out and gotten more money for the rest of the month) and that the info he had was incorrect.

He of course asked me to provide paperwork of the last walk through and the 30 day notice, to which I replied “that was 5 or 6 years ago, we left the place in good standing why would I still have any of that paperwork?!?”. 

I am thinking this is something I will be fighting with these people over.  I asked this guy if he had anything documenting the apartment was a mess or that I had violated our lease contract, such as oh I don’t know pictures, documentation, etc and he told me that as I have stated it was quite a while ago and more than likely these things have been archived and that he wasn’t going to provide me with any of it. 

I guess I’m trying to find out how I can go about taking care of this.  He said I have to provide proof but isn’t it suppose to be the other way around?!?!?

Thanks in advance for any responses!

Sincerely,
Tosh (more…)

My husband and I were approved for a 179K mortgage back in October based on a Credit Report reading then.  We received a formal letter of approval; however now, as we reach the closing of our newly built home – the latest credit report has lowered our scores. 

We have not obtained new credit but we are being told than (1) unknown inquiry lowered the score and several accounts that were originally showing in collections (stagnant of years) have now increased their balances! How? Can they do that?

A majority of these were over 7 years old.  Our approval is being re-reviewed. 

When we were originally were approved we went and reduced some of our current debt to obtain a more attractive rate, but that that didn’t hasn’t helped.  The increases on collection balances hurt us more. What can we do now?

You’re blog has been very interesting to read. Thanks for helping so many people with your information.

Veronica (more…)

Mine is twofold: Testimonial and attempt to stump the experts!

First, the testimonial. My credit score was doomed until I stumbled upon this site about 10 months ago. I used the abundant advice on this site and have repaired my credit so much so that I’m well within reach of approval for a mortgage to purchase my first home!! The pay for deletes, references to consumer rights using exact verbiage, and the ever helpful green cards, have been a credit-saver. I CANNOT THANK YOU ENOUGH!

Now, for the question. I had a vehicle on my report for about $12,000 that went into default back in February of 2002. It was repossessed, but wasn’t reported as such. Additionally, GMAC reported the debt twice on my report, with 2 different account numbers, for different amounts, AND they were not reporting the payments I was making on the account. It simply read that the account was seriously delinquent. It goes without saying it wasn’t difficult to get it removed from my credit file since even I didn’t know what account was valid, and GMAC couldn’t verify (sounded like a failure on their part records wise). Also, the statute of limitations shown on my credit report showed the debt would be removed in October of 2008 anyway. So, it is gone.

This past week I received a letter from a collection agency for the full amount of this account attempting to settle for less than the amount owed. Up until now I’d never received a letter from any collection agency regarding this account. I’ve scoured BrokenCredit.com for answers on what to do in this case, but I can’t find anything. I’d like to send the collection agency a letter citing what my rights are and their wrongful collection practices (if they’re wrong at all).

Even more on this issue is the IRS. I received a letter from them back in September stating I would have to pay taxes on the full amount of the debt because GMAC has reported it as income to me. So, I am also paying the IRS. I stopped making payments to GMAC once I received this letter. I sent a letter to dispute this with the IRS along with copies of my payments to GMAC (how can I owe taxes for income on a debt that I’m still paying on?), but the IRS still says I owe taxes on the amount. I don’t want to mess with the IRS!

Can the collection agency really collect on this debt? And am I really up against the wall with the IRS on this?

Oh…if I may add…today, while sending off my final letters and proof to the credit reporting agencies, my local post office informed me of a new way of receiving proof of receipt without the need for the green card. The clerk said to send via Certified mail. On the receipt is the tracking number. Within 3 days of mailing check the tracking number on the USPS website and simply print out the signature. I tried this with one of the past letters I mailed and sure enough! There was the address, date and time of delivery, and the printed name and signature of the recipient. She assured me it was just as good as the green card. Saved me about 20 bucks today! This should be enough…right???

Dana (more…)

I just filed a lawsuit against my lender for fraud and 10 other actions including sold note and I would like to know what law governs mortgage servicers to report my payment as disputed and not late since I am not behind in payments, the servicer and lender is countrywide.

Tim (more…)

Hi Paul.

First of all I want to say thank you for the blog. The seminar has helped me a lot.

A few months ago I found some inaccuracies on my credit report. I disputed the issues, all came back unverified except for one from a CA named Midland Credit Management (a.k.a. MCM). they claimed I owed over a thousand dollars to a company that I had never even heard of.

Following the CRAs telling me that the debt came back verified (after the dispute, MCM increased the balance owed by 20 dollars), I sent a debt validation letter CMRRR to MCM (One week after they received the letter they increased the balance owed by another 30 dollars). Once I received the green card back, I sent a request for reinvestigation to all three CRAs with a copy of the green card and the debt validation letter .

Today I received correspondence from MCM and it was not a debt validation, but instead a request that I send them a copy of any documentation that I may have that supports my “dispute”(even though in my letter, I fully stated that it was a request for debt validation), including “cancelled checks, paid letters, police reports, or any other documentation”.

It seems weird to me that I asked them to validate the debt and their response was to ask me to validate the debt (I don’t have that information since I never dealt with the original creditor). To me it seems like they realized that they have the wrong person and they don’t want to admit it (I checked the white pages and there are 40 other people with my full first name, middle initial and last name in my state).

Anyway I don’t think that sending me a debt validation letter in response to my debt validation letter is fully legal. What do you think? Any ideas on what my next step should be?

Tim (more…)

Judgment on my credit report but the original credit company went bankrupt and sold loan to Capitol One and they can’t find my file. What can I do?

Myra (more…)

I’ve seen Experian ‘update’ a fresh date of status as a response to a consumer dispute all too often and here’s a case where it backfired on them.

Consumer did a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure in May 2002.  The Experian report listed the following prior to his July 2006 dispute:

“Status: Creditor received deed/Foreclosure proceedings started. $8,702 past due as of Oct 2002. Account history: Creditor received deed as of Oct 2002. Foreclosure proceedings started as of Sep 2002, Aug 2002, June 2002, 120 days as of May 2002, 90 days as of Apr 2002, 30 days as of Mar 2002” (emphasis added)

Dispute then gets filed with Experian in September 2006 and as a result HSBC informs Experian that the deed-in-lieu was May 2002.  Not only did HSBC verify the May 2002 date, but the customer sends in a copy of the deed-in-lieu as verification!  Doesn’t matter to Experian; they provide an updated ‘date of status’ for the consumer (IMO as a special thank you), as evidenced by the following after the dispute:

“Status: Creditor received deed/Past due 180 days. $8,702 past due as of Sep 2006. Account history: Creditor received deed as of Sep 2006, 180 days as of Sep 2002, Aug 2002, 120 days as of Jun 2002, 90 days as of May 2002, 60 days as of Apr 2002, 30 days as of Mar 2002. This account is scheduled to continue on record until Dec. 2008” (emphasis added).

Experian was taken to Court on this one and there’s a possibility that there could be punitive damages awarded in this case.  There’s a lot more going on than what I’ve typed (particularly that Experian loves the ACDV system and claims “we don’t do any other independent investigations”), but all in all, this opinion and order is a solid smack on Experian’s behind. 

Maybe the credit bureaus will get the message, and maybe they won’t.  Punitive damages are awarded for willful violation of the FCRA which per the Supreme Court includes “reckless disregard”.  Gorman may be entitled to punitive damages for Experian’s reckless disregard.  In my opinion, that would help them get the message.

Gorman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al (07 CV 1846 (RPP), S.D.NY, 2008)

Hi Paul,

I recently filled out an apartment application and was told that I owed another apartment complex. 

I was surprised because I paid this former apt complex and the new apartment complex called the former and was told they have no record of anything because they are under new management and records were destroyed.

After more investigation, this complex has me listed on all 3 credit bureaus but the account is now with a CA. 

If the OC has no record of this then how can I get the CA to take this off?

Any advice would be awesome.

Dee (more…)

Hi Paul.

First I would like to say thank you for all your help with this blog. It has really come in handy.

My question is when does the 30 day clock start on any request for investigation from a CRA?

I sent a dispute letter CMRRR. It was received about a week ago, but there is no information from the CRA that there is a dispute yet.

Does the 30 day time limit start once they received the dispute request or does it start once they enter the information?

Tim (more…)

There are two ways in which Plaintiffs can recover damages for a violation of §1681i.  Plaintiffs can recover actual damages for negligent noncompliance under §1681o or statutory and punitive damages for willful noncompliance under §1681n.

Defendants claim that Plaintiffs are unable to prove actual damages because their alleged injuries were not caused by Defendant’s inaccurate reporting, but rather by other accurate derogatory items that were also reported.  However, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that Plaintiff’s injuries, including an inability to obtain financing, resulted from numerous inaccurately reported items.  Defendant’s argument necessarily fails.

Additionally, Defendant’s argue that Plaintiffs cannot show Defendant’s behavior was “willful” as required to recover statutory or punitive damages.  The word “willful” in this context includes conduct that shows a “reckless disregard of a statutory duty.”  Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 127 S. Ct. 2201, 2208 (2007).

Defendant’s argument here again ignores the possibility that Plaintiffs provided them with notice of their disputes as early as January of 2004.  A reasonable trier of fact could find that Defendant’s alleged failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ phone calls over almost one and one-half years constituted action taken in “reckless disregard of that statutory duty.”

Defendants Equifax and Trans Union’s Motions for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiffs first cause of action (UCL), third cause of action (Negligent Misrepresentation), fourth cause of action (Negligence), fifth cause of action (Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), seventh cause of action (FCRA), thirteenth cause of action (Defamation), fourteenth cause of action (Invasion of Privacy – False Light), and claims for Punitive Damages are DENIED.

Roybal v. Equifax et al. (E.D. CA, 2008)