[Enigma]

It's been awhile since I have disputed an item listed on my credit file.

EQ wrote: We have researched the collection account. Account # XXXXX. The results are: Equifax verified that this account belongs to you.

Should it not read "NAME of CA verified that this account belongs to you?"

The account has been marked as "in dispute."

This account is truly not mine. So the question is, to whom does the liability fall upon for the unlawful reporting and verification, Equifax, the CA, the OC or a combination thereof.

[apexcrsrvc]

The liability is to both parties. While you already know this I am sure, a Complaint would cite 1681s-2b as to the furnisher (Johnson v. MBNA) and cite Equifax for failure to employ reasonable procedures to maintain maximum accuracy (Cushman v. Trans Union). You name them both and let them fight it out (presuming you have sustained some damage). Typically, the furnisher settles lower than the cra however, insofar as this a "not mine" style action . . . who knows. Those go for more.

Ideally, you would want to settle out with the party which first gives you an AUD which shows fault by the other party; i.e., furnisher provides AUD which shows they requested deletion or conversely, a form received by Equifax that shows the furnisher verified. These can pin down opposing counsel. If you've requested re-investigation twice or more, you can show intentional or reckless conduct. In that respect, it is worth pursuing.

[Enigma]

Damages yes - higher interest rate on a new vehicle.

I'll have to ask for a reinvestigation.

[apexcrsrvc]

Certainly will to hook Equifax and the CA under 1681s-2b.

I'm guessing that this a JDB here? If so, there are a few fail safe ways to remove the tradeline from Equifax and I'm referencing certain data fields.

[roybean]

When Equifax has verified trade lines in the past for me, they always put the name of the furnisher and their contact info.

[VexatiousLitigant]

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

Certainly will to hook Equifax and the CA under 1681s-2b.

I'm guessing that this a JDB here? If so, there are a few fail safe ways to remove the tradeline from Equifax and I'm referencing certain data fields.

Let's not be coy here.

[apexcrsrvc]

Mkay . . . dispute the account "type." Cannot be reported as "open" or "installment." Dispute the fact that the account lists no date of major first delinquency as incomplete. Dispute the fact that the account cannot be past due thus, challenge the account "status."

Throw in the fact that the debt purchaser isn't a "data factoring company" insofar as they do not service current accounts rather, they purchase defaulted accounts.

I think that's clear enough.

However, none of the above is necessary here. Dispute as not mine because it isn't. They verify, you suffer damages, you sue. Not a heap of money for just a higher interest rate but, it could be if you suffer it on a mortgage.

[neil5623]

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

Mkay . . . dispute the account "type." Cannot be reported as "open" or "installment." Dispute the fact that the account lists no date of major first delinquency as incomplete. Dispute the fact that the account cannot be past due thus, challenge the account "status."

Throw in the fact that the debt purchaser isn't a "data factoring company" insofar as they do not service current accounts rather, they purchase defaulted accounts.

Hmmmm.... Every time that I do this, they come back saying the data furnisher verified as correct. LVNV is one of them.

[apexcrsrvc]

Originally Posted by neil5623

Hmmmm.... Every time that I do this, they come back saying the data furnisher verified as correct. LVNV is one of them.

And then . . . did you file a Complaint?

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

Mkay . . . dispute the account "type." Cannot be reported as "open" or "installment." Dispute the fact that the account lists no date of major first delinquency as incomplete. Dispute the fact that the account cannot be past due thus, challenge the account "status."

Throw in the fact that the debt purchaser isn't a "data factoring company" insofar as they do not service current accounts rather, they purchase defaulted accounts.

I think that's clear enough.

However, none of the above is necessary here. Dispute as not mine because it isn't. They verify, you suffer damages, you sue. Not a heap of money for just a higher interest rate but, it could be if you suffer it on a mortgage.

Enigma, since this is on EQ, is it in the CA section of your report? If not, they are misrepresenting other items to avoid reporting a DOFD, name of the OC, and other sections as well.

[neil5623]

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

And then . . . did you file a Complaint?

I assume you mean with FTC? No. I filed one many years ago against one of the big three, FTC's response to that was more or less "we don't care."

On another note, our EQ reports (through CSC) are not broken into sections. Derogs are jumbled in with everything. But then we do not have entries from Collection Agencies, just OCs.

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by jlynn

Enigma, since this is on EQ, is it in the CA section of your report? If not, they are misrepresenting other items to avoid reporting a DOFD, name of the OC, and other sections as well.

I'll have to look.

I called the OC and spoke to in-house counsel. He cannot locate an account with the account number the CA is alleging is mine. He did ask for a couple of days to investigate, which is reasonable. I've contacted EQ directly and I am waiting a reply.

[apexcrsrvc]

Originally Posted by jlynn

Enigma, since this is on EQ, is it in the CA section of your report? If not, they are misrepresenting other items to avoid reporting a DOFD, name of the OC, and other sections as well.

I doubt it . . . and that's another angle : )

[apexcrsrvc]

Originally Posted by neil5623

I assume you mean with FTC? No. I filed one many years ago against one of the big three, FTC's response to that was more or less "we don't care."

On another note, our EQ reports (through CSC) are not broken into sections. Derogs are jumbled in with everything. But then we do not have entries from Collection Agencies, just OCs.

No, I mean did you institute a civil action. You have a slew of FDCPA violations and one 1681s-2b, FCRA, violation per each credit reporting agency.

[neil5623]

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

No, I mean did you institute a civil action. You have a slew of FDCPA violations and one 1681s-2b, FCRA, violation per each credit reporting agency.

Not yet. I have a couple O months before SOL becomes a factor. I have some other complaints to file first. Stay tuned, campers.

[Enigma]

Update - the entry is gone from my CR and the CA will be contributing to the down payment on my new car, ummm should I say my DW new car.

[Hedwig]

Way to go!! I hope your wife enjoys her new car.

[roybean]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Update - the entry is gone from my CR and the CA will be contributing to the down payment on my new car, ummm should I say my DW new car.

Details, details, .....