Equifax practices with BK accts

[humdinger]

Equifax has the practice of showing all my accts that were discharged thru BK as "OPEN". None of the other bureaus do this. I'm suspect of this practice, I've called and asked about it but they say,"that's just what we do", I asked "do you mean I can use these accounts?" they say "no their closed, but technically they are open".

Anyone have success getting these accounts to show accurately? I have 8 of them this way.

[humdinger]

Just to add, I have two letters from 2 of the accounts in question that state the accounts are closed. Can I use these to my advantage in anyway?

Julie

[LadynRed]

If the creditors have, in fact, closed those accounts ( and most do), then for Equifax to report them as OPEN is a breach of the FCRA. The information is INACCURATE. Definitely take the letters you have from the creditors nd dispute those entries with EQ as INACCURATE - ACCOUNT xxxxxxxxx CLOSED and send a copy of the letter.

I'd start calling the creditors, ask them about the actual account status and get letters from them. If the creditors are reporting as 'open' when the acount is actually CLOSED, then you have a beef with them as well for FCRA violations.

Some creditors DO leave accounts open, even thru bankruptcy, so you need to verify with EACH ONE exactly what the status is.

[crofttk]

Yup. I noticed this seems to hold mine and DW's scores down relative to our TU and EX scores (at least I think that's what it is) even though the DLA's/closure dates are correct.

Lady, thanks. When the current online "not mine" disputes are done on these, I think I'll try a CMRRR letter based solely on the BK code and FCRA (on the "remaining" TLs, of course).

I don't want to spend cycle time on the OCs, myself. However, I will also keep that step in mind.

[humdinger]

Croft,

do you think the fact that EQ and Exp report all these accounts as closed is of some help?

is their a "legal" definition of "closed". They are obviously not available for my use. What else or who else would they be open to?

Lady the BK was discharged 2 years ago, did you mean some leave the accounts open after BK ?

[crofttk]

Croft,

do you think the fact that EQ and Exp report all these accounts as closed is of some help?

is their a "legal" definition of "closed". They are obviously not available for my use. What else or who else would they be open to?...
I take it you meant to say "...fact that TU and EX report..."

That COULD be of some help but I would'nt bank on that in the beginning as an arguing point that EQ will give any credibility. After all, they're the competition, hence wrong !

As I'm still on the learning curve, I won't wade into an area that I'm sure Lady is much better able to answer but my thought is that showing an IIB account OPEN could be construed as a continued attemp to collect a debt that was discharged. That attempt would be in contempt of the permanent statutory injunction against such efforts granted along with discharge. Some relevant BK code here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/11/chapters/5/subchapters/ii/sections/section%5F524.html

[humdinger]

I sent off letters yesterday to the remaining accounts asking if they were open or closed.

I'll let you know what happens.

[crofttk]

Thanks, I'll be watching !

[humdinger]

UPDATE

I haven't received any response from the letters I sent to the OC's. I tried calling Discover and they said "yes the account was closed due to bankruptcy", when I asked if I could have a letter to that effect they said "NO."

So today I sent off letters to the Attorney General, the Office of comptroller of currency, and Federal trade comm.

[humdinger]

Well, I'm still floored by this one, yesterday I thought what the heck, I'll try PFB, one of the accounts was capitol one. Today I get a phone call from Mr. Cooke ! He'll take of the problem, he'll send me the letter that the account is closed and he'll contact Equifax !!!

[humdinger]

Another shock, Bank of America called. Now if they would just fix the rest of the stuff !! But one thing at a time I guess. Getting these accounts to show closed is a good start.

[crofttk]

What did BoA say ? My BoA is in the same state now, as a result of my early July dispute.

The "funny" thing is mine came back CO w/ DLA 4/97 and DW's came back verified IIB w/ DLA 5/97. I disputed both at the same time. This was a joint account included in our 1/97 filing and 7/95 discharge.

I ask what they said to you just to get a feel for them.

I have a couple of ideas how to go at it with them but would be grateful to hear how they answered you !

I disputed SEVERAL accounts of mine and DW's and am planning to post the outcome in the thread about BK docs to CRAs or not (which you started).

[humdinger]

Croftkk

I wish I could be as positive about BOA as I am about the Cap One call from the saintly Mr. Cooke.

A gal by the name of Heather called from BOA, she had read my correspondence that I had sent early in July, and claimed that they sent me a response with the documentation I needed Aug 7, she said what I needed had already been sent to me, but I haven't received it yet. She assured me the account was closed and laid the blame on Equifax. I'll just have to wait and see what happens. But you know how when you listen to someone, and the words don't quite match the inflection in their voice, I got an inkling of something not to my liking.

Anyway, I'm glad I contacted all the agencies I did because the most damning information I supplied was on BOA (and I do believe they are a national bank) so hopefully OCC will put a little pressure there.

I'll keep you posted.

[crofttk]

Thanks. Still watching. Funny, I didn't get an e-mail for the thread response. Good thing I looked !

[humdinger]

I'm not getting email notices to responses from threads either crofttk. I noticed that the last couple weeks.

[humdinger]

just looked at EQ in the new format. All the IIB accounts now show as closed, but they are ALL showing "currently past due"

[LadynRed]

That's STILL inaccurate ! If they've been IIB, they can NOT be "curently" past due !!

[humdinger]

I did get a reply from my AGI today... only problem is, with EQ's new format they now show the accounts as closed ( not sure what inspired them to do that) , but now they are 'CURRENTLY PAST DUE". So I replied to the AGI ( Attorney General of Indiana)explaining the new blanket problem, and this was a continuing problem with EQ making a general sweeping change to all accounts.

In the AGI letter they stated there is nothing they can legaly do but they are willing to mediate the problem for me.

In my response I asked that they report be reported accts accurately: Closed, $0 bal., in BK and never late. I sent copies of EQ's "currently past due" list, copies of EQ's and TU CR from 5/2001 (proving I was NEVER LATE) and my automatic stay. [/i]

[crofttk]

You know they'll weasel out of it if the Balances Due are $0 and the Past Due Amounts are $0, are they are on all of mine. Even though they are grouped in the Past Due Category, which I agree is misleading, I think you've got a tough row to hoe there.

[humdinger]

Croftkk, is it your feeling that the AG's office won't be able to help much by "mediating" the problem for me?

I've started my reply to the AGI but haven't mailed it yet, I'd like to present some strong evidence why these should be corrected to read as I stated, these people (AGI office) are lawyers, should I site references to the FCRA and the laws of BK?

Any thoughts may help here

I also found out Bank of America is governed by the OCC.

[crofttk]

Croftkk, is it your feeling that the AG's office won't be able to help much by "mediating" the problem for me?...
Not at all. I'm merely speculating on EQ's behavior in response to being challenged about grouping them in the "Currently Past Due" category. "Well, yes we have a little glitch in our new formatting, but we're making a good faith effort to fix it and it's not really hurting anyone's scores, yahda, yahda."

I won't presume to critique the AGI's legal abilities and I think it's cool to get whatever help you can from them.

But, and I hate to put it this way, I think it's going to be hard to force immediate change on the basis of mediation, especially unless you prove beyond doubt that it's negatively effecting your FICO score and also if that could be backed up by actual $ damages as a result of the score lowering due to the data EQ have transmitted.

That being said, it could actually motivate EQ to get on the ball and fix things up, just due to the attention it may get, regardless of any official action or sanction that takes place. That's a good and helpful outcome for all of us.

I don't want to discourage anyone trying any of this. I'm just trying to offer as logical, cold, and factual a viewpoint as I can which would aid the logic of a legal argument.

So, yes, I think it's good to construct your argument for the AGI sharks based on FCRA and BK codes. I would make sure it's logical and devoid of emotion. Assuming their involvement is sincere, they should be able to pick up on your argument and make hay out of it.

Even if it results in no action against EQ or fails to force EQ's hand in any way, you, hopefully, would at least have the benefit of some legal guidance (by "osmosis" if nothing else) and be better educated on how to stand up for BKers protections. Hopefully, you'd be willing to come back and share what you pick up with us. :wink:

Well, maybe that was a wordy post without much substance but those're my thoughts right now !

[humdinger]

croftkk,

thank you for this well thoght out reply. I can only hope that the AGI giving EQ a little "spank" will help more than just myself. You may be receiving an email to proof my reply, I hope you don't mind but my emotions get in my way and I would truly appreciate your input.

[crofttk]

:shock: Oh, so now you're going to hold MY feet to the fire !

:lol:
OK, fair enough !

[humdinger]

Ok, before I sent the letter to AGI, I called EQ to make sure it wasn't a "glitch" in the new program format. Rashead (LOL just looked at that in wiriting! pronounced Rah-shead) gave me the same circular argument I get when I call EQ

me; these accounts are shown as currently past due
rashead; yes
me; but they were included in BK in may 2001
rashead; yes
me: the debt was absolved in BK, there is no expectation of payment
rashead: yes
me: so how can they be past due
rashead; they are delinquent
me: but the debt was absolved
rashead ; yes, that's how we show they were included in BK
me; but you already make that clear under status
rashead; yes
me; you are showing the accounts past, that information is incorrect
rashead; yes
me; so you are posting incorrect information
rashead; no they are delinquent
me; but the debt was absolved the balance is 0
rashead; yes
me so how can i be late with payments
rashead; they are delinquent, that's what we do

[LadynRed]

You know, we have enough people here scrapping with these damn CRA's, on this issue to put together our OWN class action suit against them. They are reporting inaccurate information, damnit ! An account can NOT be delinquent or past due if the debt basically no longer exists due to a BK discharge. How they HELL can EQ get away with saying 'thats how we do it' and also ADMIT that they are reporting INACCURATE information ??

Between CIC and creditboards.com, and many of us are participate in both places, if we put our voices together, we should be able to get someone to push this to the courts ! To say the very least, a definitive interpretation of the FCRA and the BK code needs to be sought on this. Its punishment, pure and simple and it is DEFINITELY harming the fresh start guaranteed by the Bankruptcy code !

[humdinger]

well one starting point may be http://www.edcombs.com.

I'm also having the problem with TU showing current status as "unrated" thus far Experian is the only one that has the decency to show complete accurate information.

[crofttk]

...
I'm also having the problem with TU showing current status as "unrated" ...
You may already know but, for an IIB account, that benefits your FICO score. If you have an underwriter who'll look at your BK docs., that can address how it looks.

[humdinger]

No Kenn, I didn't know that, it is better to say unrated than IIB/never late?

[crofttk]

It may also depend on what's inside the <...>'s for the account description on your TU report, but , yes, scorewise it's better.

See my PM to you.

[Capepuffin]

Just resigned up for EQ and guess what? All of my IIB TL's are now reporting as 'CHARGED OFF'!!!!!!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!

I disputed them today, we will see what happens or NOT! I know I can send in my former CR, but why should we have to go through this and be penalized? :evil:

[humdinger]

Cape

Did you check under "currently past due" on the EQ report?

[Ronalddog]

Yes - the CRA are attempting to punish people that go bankruptcy - someone is going to have to sue in Federal court before this will change. The most egregious violators are MBNA and First USA.

[LadynRed]

FUSA IS being sued in Federal court by a woman out in AZ. FUSA refuses to note accouts included in bankruptcy as such and reports them as charge-offs with balances still owing !

[Ronalddog]

The women that you are speaking about is Christine Baker I believe. Her complaint is legally defective and will eventually be thrown out - Also I believe she will have to pay the legal fees of the CRA's, OC and CA she has sued because the court will find that her case is without merit and was done to harrass.

If we had a chance to put our heads together we could find the person with the best facts that support our arguments, sue in federal court - make is a class and then the real fun begins - I guarantee a lawyer would take the case under those circumstances.

[admin]

With all due respect, my money is on Christine. She is very tenacious. Why do you say that her case will be thrown out?

[LadynRed]

NO, the woman I am referring to is NOT Christine Baker ! The case is listed on her site, Ellen Chase v. FUSA and Christine has NOTHING to do wth that case other than following it.

[crofttk]

...Christine Baker I believe. Her complaint is legally defective...
So why not go over there and show her the error of her ways ?
Good Luck. :lol:

[Ronalddog]

I've written Christine but did not receive a response - also her posts are locked so no one can add to them. That's why I made it over here (by accident I may add).

Moreover, I don't think she can help me in any way (if you look at complaint you would know why). Therefore I wouldn't get anything out of it (gee isn't that the way the world works?)

If you read Christine's complaint it is rambling and fails to state facts to constitute a claim for relief.

I think she will eventually be hit for about $20,000 in attorneys fees for harrassment. She should have had an attorney at least write the complaint to give her some wiggle room.

[crofttk]

...If you read Christine's complaint it is rambling and fails to state facts.
Well, I would differ with "rambling" and characterize it more as long and complex.

As far as "fails to state facts": I've seen this in the objections from plaintiffs. She would certainly differ on this characterization but I won't debate it because I don't have the direct litigation experience to back it up. She has answered these objections as they arose. How effectively she has answered those specific objections, we'll see.

Unless you're a lawyer with experience litigating in this area, however, I can't credit a bald statement from you that her case is flawed and will be thrown out.

Are you qualified to judge her case and/or can you give more specific examples of where she's flawed ?

[Ronalddog]

Where is Ellen Chase's website at?

I looked at Pacer -

5/21/03 29 NOTICE by dft Trans Union LLC of Offer of Judgment to Plaintiff Chase (map) [Entry date 05/23/03]

Then Transunion offered $2,500 to settle on August 30, 2003.

I would like to really see this before they enter into a confidential settlement agreement.

I am thinking of having a messenger pull the complaint, answer and any settlement agreement - I noticed that they tried to pull her into arbitration - good job of getting out of that.

[crofttk]

Where is Ellen Chase's website at?...

I don't know that she has one but Christine has her case documented here: http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/953/953.html...Then Transunion offered $2,500 to settle on August 30, 2003...
The way I read the docket, they offered on 7/31/03.

[Ronalddog]

Hey croftfk:

I'll give the same answer I've gotten from others when I have given specific examples (case sites) of flaws I see in the credit repair scheme on this site: I don't have time (to go page by page)!

I'll ignore that "qualified" remark for what it is - a dig at my competence. Why are you qualified to say that the case has merit? You aren't and the case is in trouble. I wonder how far she has gotten in discovery? Why isn't she publishing the discovery in the case? Why is her forum locked up?

Compare Ellen Chase's complaint versus Christine Bakers. Christine is in way over her head. Her contentions are nonsense and impossible to prove. For one thing she has sued individuals that she has never had personal contact with. Good luck to her though.

Admin - instead of putting your money on Christine you should be giving it to her to the attorneys fees of the CRAs.

[crofttk]

Hey croftfk:
I'll give the same answer I've gotten from others when I have given specific examples (case sites) of flaws I see in the credit repair scheme on this site: I don't have time (to go page by page)!
I didn't ask you about any "schemes", nor have I read any valid criticisms posted by you.
...I'll ignore that "qualified" remark for what it is - a dig at my competence...
You may characterize my question that way, it's certainly you're prerogative. But why can't you simply take it as a sincere question. It's certainly a valid question. You have, as of yet, absolutely no credibility with me. You pop out of the woodwork and have 20+ posts and expect no one to question your credibility ???? GET REAL ! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Me thinks the lady doth protest a bit much... :wink:
....Why are you qualified to say that the case has merit? You aren't and the case is in trouble..
You don't no jacksh-t about me, chief. You're starting to sound more and more like a troll !
...Why is her forum locked up?...
It's not, that's just your ignorance showing.
...
Admin - instead of putting your money on Christine you should be giving it to her to the attorneys fees of the CRAs.
HAHAHAH, ROFLMAO !!! Wooooah, the great Ronaldhog puts admin, the forum owner, book author and experienced litigant in her place !!! :P

Oh my, I'm shakin' like a dog sh-ttin' peach seeds ! :roll:

[Ronalddog]

Croft dyck! You probably are Christine Baker - I saw your posts on her site. You call me a troll - what a jerk.

So you are judged on the number of posts you make - are you kidding? or just stupid? How 'bout all those bump posts? I didn't ask for any credibility from you - I was just making a observation. And of course your simpleton mind couldn't handle that someone had a point and turned into an attack dog. Let me guess - you're a DEMOCRAT!!!

Her complaint is legally defective in the sense it state facts to constitute a claim for relief - this is the legal reason that most complaints are thrown out. My expertise is in litigation and she is going to get a rude wake-up call. And by the way - it is too late for her to pull out!!!!

I certainly don't want to waste my time helping someone for free when she charges for her time to help with credit repair (to people who cannot afford it I might add). If she didn't charge anyone I would be happy to provide my time and my lawyer buddies to her cause.

[Swede]

Croft dyck! You probably are Christine Baker - I saw your posts on her site. You call me a troll - what a jerk.

So you are judged on the number of posts you make - are you kidding? or just stupid?

Ronald, I think we've had just about enough of your insults and uneducated remarks. In just a few days you have managed to offend most of the longtime posters here. Unfortunately for you, their participation is much more valable and if you keep it up, I have no problem banning you from this site.

As far as people calling you a troll....We have trolls visiting us all the time and the other boards around the net whose only goal is to disrupt the conversations. The members are encouraged to keep and eye out for them. So far, your behavior most certainly fits that description.