[rubyruby27]

First of all Hannah, I just read you were hurt and I am sorry to hear that. I hope you are doing well.

In my other post all I need is for someone to pick one of the TL's and show me the best way to dispute--

Engima showed me what to write on one. Which will help with others that are similar.

I really don't know if any of them are reporting with serious violations.

I have my EQ now and it appears there are many errors and I think when you have a blank its a violation as its not accurate if its blank.

My questions are if anyone is willing to help:

Cap One

balance amount xxx

date of last payment -blank

acturral payment amount---blank

Date of last activity 6/2002

Date Maj del 1st reported 12/2003-------how can this be accurate if you never made a payment on the account and it was opened 6/2002----isn't the sol 7 yrs from the first deliquency

Is this reaging.

These dates are total different on EXP

Everything else is blank


OC---P (mycode for me)

date opened--- 8/2000

high credit--blank

credit limit---xxxx terms---blank

terms/freq----monthly

activity ----transfer/sold/paid

items as of date of reported 11/2006

balance amount ---0

amount past due---blank

date of last payment---11/202

Act Payment amount---xxx

Scheduled amount xxx

date of last activity---3/2003

Date maj del 1st reported---BLANK

rest is blank

OC---PJ

Date opened 7/200

Credit limit---xxxx

terms frequency-monthly

months review---65

activity--transfered/sold

items as of date reported---12/2005

balance amount ---0

date of last payment---2/2005

scheduled payment amount---xxx

date of last activity---3/2005

date of maj del lst reported 9/2005

everyting else is blank

[rubyruby27]

JDB-A

has on the :

High Credit

Items as of date reported :

Balance xx,xxx

Past due amount---xx,xxx

Date of last activity---3/2002

No date of major del 1st reported

It has consumer disputes

All of these are on my report, mix matched with the good credit, you have to read through the reports to find the collection ones--is that a violation

On page 3 it has my personal ID info explanation of account info and then there is a section ofr Collection agency info

COLLECTION AGENCY INFORMATION (THIS SEION INCLUDES ACCOUNTS THAT CREDIT GRANTORS HAVE PLACE FOR COLLECTION WITH A COLLECTION AGENCY)

Cavarly Portfolio Services: Collection Reported 07/2007

Assigned --04/2004

Creditor Class--Banking

Client--OC

Amont-xxxx

Status as of 07/2007---Unpaid

Date of 1st delinquency ---12/2002

Bal as of 07/2007---xxxx

ADDITION INFORMATION---Consumer Disputes this Account

Information: Arrangement Made to Make Partial Payment---SO UNTRUE

Any help on the blanks or if there is reaging going on or any violation that anyone sees will help me know what to dispute and how to dispute it.

Thanks

[rubyruby27]

Engima, I found one of Tower's threads and he said that if a OC/CA/JDB has not updated the account to reflect new data for more than 2 yrs then its OK to use not mine.

What do you think, I know I have tried it and it didn't work for me, any thoughts.

I think I remeber reading in place of not mine you would use I never opened an account with any during the month they have.

How does this sound:

I never opened an account with any creditor in the month of Dec 2006. This account is inaccurately reporting as a charge off as of Sep 2006. Further the creditor is incorrectly reporting the date of first delinquency.

If the date of first delinquency can't be verified you must delete this trade line.

Would I also write pursuant to FCRA (I have to look up) you are required to report accurate information

[Enigma]

There is no such critter as a minor inaccuracies. The report is either correct or it is not.

Since you are dealing with Capital One, it has been my experience that they only way to have the account reported accurately is suing them. Capital One in my opinion does what Capital One wants to do even if it has knowledge it is possibly in violation of the law.

To save yourself considerable hassle and frustration, call the attorney I referred you to. She is damn good at what she does, let her work her magic.

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

Engima, I found one of Tower's threads and he said that if a OC/CA/JDB has not updated the account to reflect new data for more than 2 yrs then its OK to use not mine.

What do you think, I know I have tried it and it didn't work for me, any thoughts.

I think I remeber reading in place of not mine you would use I never opened an account with any during the month they have.

How does this sound:

I never opened an account with any creditor in the month of Dec 2006. This account is inaccurately reporting as a charge off as of Sep 2006. Further the creditor is incorrectly reporting the date of first delinquency.

If the date of first delinquency can't be verified you must delete this trade line.

Would I also write pursuant to FCRA (I have to look up) you are required to report accurate information

If the account is actually yours and you use a "not mine" dispute, then you run the risk of having your disputes flagged as frivolous.

Why would you say you never opened an account in Dec '06 then in the next sentence claim it was not charged off in Sept '06? Unless this is two different accounts. Then I would do one account per letter.

IF the DOFD cannot be verified they are not required to delete the reporting. Read section 623(a)(5).

[roybean]

Originally Posted by Enigma

There is no such critter as a minor inaccuracies. The report is either correct or it is not.

Since you are dealing with Capital One, it has been my experience that they only way to have the account reported accurately is suing them. Capital One in my opinion does what Capital One wants to do even if it has knowledge it is possibly in violation of the law.

To save yourself considerable hassle and frustration, call the attorney I referred you to. She is damn good at what she does, let her work her magic.

that damn sure is the truth about Cap1....even when they are obviously wrong, it's like they don't care. I mean so obvious Ray Charles can see it.

I guess they must be getting too big for their own good.

[rubyruby27]

According to Metro 2, what they use it says they must use the date the account was opened if unable to verify. I thought I read if they can't verify they have to remove somewhere else. I wanted to know how to word to get it removed --- or at least make sure when I dispute they continue to violate.

I will read 623

I am going to call her, but I want to be able to be concise and know what I am talking about. If she ask me if it was reaged I couldn't answer that question with confidence or any other question.

I am reading to the point I am crossed eyed.

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

According to Metro 2, what they use it says they must use the date the account was opened if unable to verify. I thought I read if they can't verify they have to remove somewhere else. I wanted to know how to word to get it removed --- or at least make sure when I dispute they continue to violate.

I will read 623

I am going to call her, but I want to be able to be concise and know what I am talking about. If she ask me if it was reaged I couldn't answer that question with confidence or any other question.

I am reading to the point I am crossed eyed.

She will not expect you to know all the answers, that is her job.

Get all you papers in order, jot down some notes about each one, what you have done, etc. Then give her a call. Let her worry about the minutia.

[hannah]

Thank you, Ruby, for your concern. Jlynn should answer this as she is the VERY BEST at analyzing credit reports.

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

All of these are on my report, mix matched with the good credit, you have to read through the reports to find the collection ones--is that a violation

Dispute these as incomplete. You have discovered these are collections, and there is no DOFD; no Creditor Class; and whatever else is missing (when compared to a Collectio Agency tradeline). There is usually something misleading in the TL for it to NOT be in the Collection Section. Look to see what Account Type they are reporting, and see if they are reporting as a Factoring Company.

COLLECTION AGENCY INFORMATION (THIS SEION INCLUDES ACCOUNTS THAT CREDIT GRANTORS HAVE PLACE FOR COLLECTION WITH A COLLECTION AGENCY)

Cavarly Portfolio Services: Collection Reported 07/2007

Assigned --04/2004

Creditor Class--Banking

Client--OC

Amont-xxxx

Status as of 07/2007---Unpaid

Date of 1st delinquency ---12/2002

Bal as of 07/2007---xxxx

ADDITION INFORMATION---Consumer Disputes this Account

Information: Arrangement Made to Make Partial Payment---SO UNTRUE

Any help on the blanks or if there is reaging going on or any violation that anyone sees will help me know what to dispute and how to dispute it.

Thanks

Ruby, we can't tell you if it has been reaged. Is the DOFD accurate? You might dispute that you have never had an account with XXX that you have made payment arrangments with.

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

I have my EQ now and it appears there are many errors and I think when you have a blank its a violation as its not accurate if its blank.

You can dispute the tradelines for incomplete reporting. Be specific and list each line item that is blank.

Date Maj del 1st reported 12/2003-------how can this be accurate if you never made a payment on the account and it was opened 6/2002----isn't the sol 7 yrs from the first deliquency

Read the title of the line again. Its not the Date of First Major Delinquency, its the Date First Major Delinquency Reported . Basically its as useful as Experian's Status Date. It is not reaging.

[rubyruby27]

What is reaging on EQ?

On EQ there is only one account that is Cavarly that is in a box that says collection agency information, all the other TL's are mixed with the good accounts.

Does that mean they are reporting as open?

[rubyruby27]

Originally Posted by jlynn

Dispute these as incomplete. You have discovered these are collections, and there is no DOFD; no Creditor Class; and whatever else is missing (when compared to a Collectio Agency tradeline). There is usually something misleading in the TL for it to NOT be in the Collection Section. Look to see what Account Type they are reporting, and see if they are reporting as a Factoring Company.

Ruby, we can't tell you if it has been reaged. Is the DOFD accurate? You might dispute that you have never had an account with XXX that you have made payment arrangments with.

No the dofd is the date of last payment on some, on some its the date they bought the account not when the account went late the first 30 days. I believe there was a discussion on AOC or DB. Not sure who made a point to say that the first 30 days late would be the dofd since the following month they made demand for payment.

5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action.

We were also discussion SoL for Florida along with this.

I have an old cr from TU (2002) it shows that the OC stated the first deliquency occured 4/2001 the account was closed in 8/2001 but if you do the math on the past due amount and monthly payment it was 8 months late then so the dofd was 12/2000. The OC is no longer reporting they deleted on my last dispute, for the cavarly one. The dolp (partial) was 10/02--this is the date the are using.

the other biggie didn't buy the account until 2004, I don't have a credit report until 2006 so I have nothing to compare.

[rubyruby27]

I beleive this is 605 (c)

1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) ** of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

Any case law in 11th district on this---collections internally or any other similar action----so I have to call the OC and say when did any of these go to internal collections or when did they close the accounts.

It still doesn't matter they are reaging since they are using the date of last payment when the accounts were closed 1-2 years prior to that.

Am I correct on this assumption.

[Pale Rider]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

Any case law in 11th district on this---collections internally or any other similar action----so I have to call the OC and say when did any of these go to internal collections or when did they close the accounts.

You want to ask them for the date of the delinquency that led to the charge off, collection, or similar action. That is the only date you need to calculate the 7 year period. They had 90 days from the time they started reporting to provide that date to the CRA. If they do not have that date, then the Metro 2 says to use the date the account was opened to avoid the possibility of reporting an obsolete account.

It really doesn't matter when they started collections or charged off. The only date you should ever be concerned with is the Date of First Delinquency where the account never became current again. The similar action is merely items that are similar to a charge off. A repo would be one example.

[rubyruby27]

Thank you Pale Rider, that's what I thought it was from the first 30 days late and never brought current.

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

What is reaging on EQ?

On EQ there is only one account that is Cavarly that is in a box that says collection agency information, all the other TL's are mixed with the good accounts.

Does that mean they are reporting as open?

Look at the Loan Type, Comments, and everywhere else on the TL to see if they are reporting as an Open Type Account.