what to do next re bad crt address on EQ & BK

BayouLou · 12-21-2006, 07:22 PM

EQ shows no name in the data field for the courthouse for the 1998 BK record for my brother. The address they give googles to a beer distributor in West Memphis Arkansas.

Is that wild?

How can this be verified? What would be best if aiming for a delete? What should he be doing right now to get it deleted?

I have not previously dealt with public records, so need any advice you can give.

Thanks all.

hannah · 12-21-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayouLou

EQ shows no name in the data field for the courthouse for the 1998 BK record for my brother. The address they give googles to a beer distributor in West Memphis Arkansas.

Is that wild?

How can this be verified? What would be best if aiming for a delete? What should he be doing right now to get it deleted?

I have not previously dealt with public records, so need any advice you can give.

Thanks all.

Has he disputed this tradeline yet? If not, that should be the first thing. Dispute first as not mine...Yeah I know guys, but it does work occasionally...

Pale Rider · 12-21-2006, 09:30 PM

Yes, dispute first. If they verify, then you start working on them with a procedural request. If they come back with they verified with the court, then they are toast. You have a bogus address to show they could not have possibly verifed with the court. Most, if not all, courts do not respond if by some miracle they ever received a dispute from a CRA. And, in most, if not all, cases the court is not the furnisher, but rather a company like Lexis who pays contractors to gather public records at the court house.

BayouLou · 12-21-2006, 10:06 PM

Thanks all.

I don't see how anyone gathered any records at all at the address provided. I don't think it is even the right town/city. Not the same as on the other rpts anyway.

His dispute to the 3 CRAs went out today CMRRR. It was afterwards that we realized the address reported for the court on EQ was a wholesale beer distibutor.

EQ did not include a name for the court on the report, so we googled the address only to discover it belongs to this beer business.

His was a simple dispute: "There is no record of a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy for the dates or amounts you are reporting bearing my name with the number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

Hope that was sufficient. On Exp and TU, he named the court but as mentioned, no court listed on EQ.

I advised him to write to "Court House" at the address and hope for a return undeliverable, in event it is needed, should the BK be verified.

Pale Rider · 12-21-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayouLou

I advised him to write to "Court House" at the address and hope for a return undeliverable, in event it is needed, should the BK be verified.

If it is close by, drive over and take a picture showing the address and building.

BayouLou · 12-21-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

If it is close by, drive over and take a picture showing the address and building.

That would be nice. However, it's waaaay across the state from him.

He's never been there, but according to mapquest, it's over 330 miles from his town to the one EQ reports.

It's not in the same state as I am, so I can't help him out either.

I think driving over is out of the question.

apexcrsrvc · 12-22-2006, 01:33 AM

Just a quick question but, is there any authority out there wherein Lexis had a 1681s-2(b) claim alleged against it.

I don't remember seeing any but then again, I've never really thought about them with respect to furnisher liability.

Pale Rider · 12-22-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

Just a quick question but, is there any authority out there wherein Lexis had a 1681s-2(b) claim alleged against it.

I don't remember seeing any but then again, I've never really thought about them with respect to furnisher liability.

That is a good question. I can't remember any either, but you would think there would be some. You could also dispute directly with Lexis if you find they are the furnisher, but then they may get the info right and update the report.

BayouLou · 12-30-2006, 10:09 PM

The letter to the court house, addressed with the address provided by EQ on the CR, was returned undeliverable. We expected as much. The dispute to EQ is currently ongoing, within its 30 days.

If EQ comes back with its standard "verified", is the next step just a copy of the returned letter and a demand for deletion, or do we go the PR request route first?
Can EQ just change the court's address during the present 30 day dispute and consider everything a-ok?

Pale Rider · 12-30-2006, 10:18 PM

I would do the Procedural request asking for information on how the tradeline was verified, and who verified it including name and address. See if they put the same bad address as verification.

Be sure to keep the returned letter, unopened, as evidence.

Pale Rider · 12-30-2006, 10:22 PM

Also, if they do say they verified with the court at that address. The next step is to contact the court clerk and ask for a written statement showing their correct address, the fact that they were not contacted by the CRA for verification, and the fact that they do not reply to verification requests as a matter of policy if they were contacted. In most cases that is standard procedure of the court, as they do not have the time or the inclination to respond, especially since they are not the real data furnisher.

hannah · 12-31-2006, 12:05 AM

I'm with Pale Rider on this one. Do the correct steps with the paper trail to ensure that if you have to sue later, you have all your ducks sitting sedately on a pond.

mtnair · 01-01-2007, 12:58 PM

With a bad address on CR, I've been able to send copy of returned envelope to CRA, and say how could you have verifed?? Please delete. And Poof it was gone.

BayouLou · 01-02-2007, 09:42 PM

Again, thanks all. Gonna follow through and keep fingers crossed for the delete.

BayouLou · 03-02-2007, 12:19 AM

As of today, EQ has "verified" this BK again .... by which I mean they have added yet another BK with bogus address info.

As the report now stands, there is not one, but three BKs reporting. Each of these show one address on the reinvestigation results page (the address at which they tell you to now "contact the source"), and another address on the actual bk TL.

Neither of the addresses are correct.

If you recall, one is to a beer distributing company in another city. The alternate address is in the correct city but with a wrong address. Both addresses are undeliverable per the post office.

Last CMRRR to EQ included copies front and back of returned mail, green card, and cert mail receipt. That letter demanded deletion based upon unverifiable info. All they did was verify again and add the third BK.

Going from bad to worse. sigh.

Now what???

Pale Rider · 03-02-2007, 12:27 AM

Did you do a "procedural request"? In other words, asking them how they verified, and with whom?

It is not possible to have 3 BK's as it is impossible to file a new BK within 6 years if I remember correctly. They are clearly in violation. But, what are the damages? Higher interest rates, credit denials, other adverse actions...?

BayouLou · 03-02-2007, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Did you do a "procedural request"? In other words, asking them how they verified, and with whom?

It is not possible to have 3 BK's as it is impossible to file a new BK within 6 years if I remember correctly. They are clearly in violation. But, what are the damages? Higher interest rates, credit denials, other adverse actions...?

Thank you for responding so quickly!

Right, it is not possible to have three BKs and naturally, he doesn't have.

It is my brother's report. Based on my conversations with him, I would say all of the above, and currently, he and wife are trying to refi their house due to the awful terms they have and are having a time finding a lender.

In any case, must there be damages or isn't it enough to be a violation?

hannah · 03-02-2007, 01:09 AM

A timely sued upon violation will only net up to $1k unless damages can be proven.