Rate-Jacked Due to Reinsertion

stargazer0725 · 03-21-2007, 12:43 PM

Well guys (and gals), I've been officially rate-jacked by Household (a card I've been meaning to get rid of as soon as my tax refund came back).

I got a notice on Monday that they were raising my APR to 26.99 on purchases due to "in whole or in part" a review of my EQ credit report.

Well, for the past 5 weeks I've been biding my time on a "collection" account that was reinserted on my credit report after it was deleted in response to a dispute a year ago - I was waiting to see if I would get notice of reinsertion from EQ or not. And you guessed it - no way jose.

It's an account that's being held by Palisades and you all know how they like to report - an open credit account that is currently past due 120+ days.

My report is in good condition - no late pays over 12 accounts. I have one other SMALL collection on my report that has been there for years (and is reporting correctly, if you can believe it). So the only big baddie is this Palisades Account.

And just to top it all off, I recently got declined for a Home Depot credit card due to a recent delinquency with my creditors. I have no late pays, period.

I wrote EQ and Palisades just over a week ago telling them to delete the reinsertion, etc., but have gotten no response. It's especially frustrating since EQ has me in special handling due to my recent litigation against a JDB and won't take my calls.

jlynn · 03-21-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer0725

I wrote EQ and Palisades just over a week ago telling them to delete the reinsertion, etc., but have gotten no response.

You're in Texas. Send a letter to Palisades bonding company regarding your issue and the potential for litigation, and what it has already cost you, and will continue to cost you at 26.99% rates.

That in all likelihood will get Palisade's attention. IMHO, if they originally deleted based on an unanswered validation request - they are in violation of TFC for not responding to said request.

EQ is another story - but if you want the easy road - attack the CA.

jlynn · 03-21-2007, 01:05 PM

On another note, Business & Commerce Code Chapter 20 deals with CRA's. I haven't reviewed it in a long time. Check to see if it has any reinsertion rules. I think it may just reference the FCRA. But if memory serves me correctly, if you had to go to court under TX rules, I believe there are daily penalties.

Worth a looksie.

FixinThings · 03-21-2007, 01:33 PM

Rate Jack = Real Damages. Admittedly small, but real.

stargazer0725 · 03-21-2007, 01:55 PM

Thanks guys. My next planned step was to talk to my consumer attorney and find out what she would prefer I do next.

In pre-attorney times, I would have immediately taken the bonding company route with an ITS letter (and attached complaint). However it's easier to deal with an attorney when you've forewarned them what's going on (when the CA's decide to ignore your letters).

I can honestly say that I haven't dealt with a single collection agency over the last 2 years that has followed the law: Asset, Arrow, DIF Services, Portfolio, Palisades, LVNV, West Asset.

I've had to threaten to sue 6 of the 7 of them (the standout one I'm just too tired to deal with right now). Five got to the stage where I mailed them a copy of the complaint and demanded settlement for actual and statutory damages, and 2 of the 5 have actually had to go to court (with another one possibly on the way).

It drives me crazy that consumers have to resort to this stuff in order to get these companies to comply. I get tired of having to play chicken with these guys all of the time. But the fatigue and frustration just makes me want to push back all the harder.

***steps down off soap box***

neil5623 · 03-21-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer0725

I've had to threaten to sue 6 of the 7 of them (the standout one I'm just too tired to deal with right now). Five got to the stage where I mailed them a copy of the complaint and demanded settlement for actual and statutory damages, and 2 of the 5 have actually had to go to court (with another one possibly on the way).

Of the five, did you actually file with the court also, or just send the complaint with the threat/warning that you WILL file?

stargazer0725 · 03-21-2007, 03:54 PM

No, when I sent the complaint to the CA, it was with the warning that I would file by "such-n-such" date if they did not comply/settle beforehand. So if you choose to make this type of threat, make sure that you're ready to follow up.

roybean · 03-21-2007, 04:13 PM

I agree with FT and JLynn...you're in Texas buddy! Great consumer laws!!!

stargazer0725 · 04-02-2007, 12:56 PM

Okay, as of this morning, I can not access my newest Equifax/CSC credit report via my Equifax Gold subscription service that I've been paying for over the last 2 years. They have obviously blocked my access in retaliation for the letter I sent them demanding they delete the reinserted account. They really don't tolerate a consumer that demands accuracy on their credit report, do they?

This severely hampers my ability to monitor the accuracy of my report. Any ideas?

jlynn · 04-02-2007, 01:33 PM

Did you threaten to sue in the letter? Its SOP for them to remove online access if they receive such a threat.

stargazer0725 · 04-02-2007, 01:42 PM

Sure didn't. This was my letter to them....

Upon reviewing my credit report, I have noticed that you have allowed the reinsertion of an account that was previously deleted in response to a dispute investigation completed by your company on
November 17, 2005.

Not only have you allowed this account to reappear on my report without notice of reinsertion as required by the FCRA, you are also allowing a debt collector to inaccurately report an “open” and “currently past-due” account with a pay history.

I expect the following account to be deleted within ten (10) calendar days from the date you receive this letter, as evidenced by your signed receipt:

PALISADES
Account Number: XXXXXXX
Amount Past Due: $XXXX

Immediately upon deletion, please forward a copy of my corrected report to the address above.

I didn't threaten to sue, but definitely let them know that I knew that what they were doing wasn't kosher.

I actually just spoke to customer service, then consumer affairs, then the legal department who finally told me they would have to contact CSC to try and get my file cleared (to whom I actually wrote the letter as I'm in Texas).

They actually asked me twice if I had filed a lawsuit against EQ and stated specifically that the only reason they would limit access of my file through the legal department was in response to a lawsuit.

jlynn · 04-02-2007, 01:48 PM

It was probably that "you have 10 calendar days..." remark.

stargazer0725 · 04-02-2007, 01:59 PM

IMHO, it was probably the entire letter that let them know that they had screwed up and could potentially be held liable, at which time they shut down access to my report to keep me from verifying whether or not they had complied with my deletion demand. All they have done now is force me to file suit in order to get them to follow the law.