| Author |
Message |
    
Sassyinaz
Moderator
Username: Sassyinaz
Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 02:38 am: | 
|
Testing and linking the CB thread:
http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=73534#73534 |
Cyana24
Registered User
Username: Cyana24
Post Number: 2
Registered: 08-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 04:30 pm: |
|
Sassy
Something happened to my first post - the attachment appeared to successfully upload but didn't appear in my message (it was a scanned jpeg image). Sent an email to Christine but in case you get a chance to answer first, can you please explain what I'm doing wrong. I send attachments frequently so I'm very familar with the process.
Thanks
Donna |
Sassyinaz
Moderator
Username: Sassyinaz
Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 05:53 pm: |
|
Cyana,
Can you try again, or just do the upload/ attachment seperately?
Click on post this message after preview anyway, it doesn't look the same in preview as it posts.
If it still isn't posting or incorrect, you can delete, I think it's 20/30 minutes or so that you can delete/edit your own posts.
Just play with it a bit.
Sassy |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 06:31 pm: |
|
I just posted some detailed instructions:
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/2144/2143.html
And reorganized. |
Cyana24
Registered User
Username: Cyana24
Post Number: 3
Registered: 08-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 10:19 am: |
|
Thanks Sassy and Christine... I tried again later on Aug.31 and couldn't get my scanned documents compressed (even when converted to jpeg images) enough to meet the 100 Kb limit. Will try alternate approach later today.
Christine I couldn't get your new link to work... kept getting error messages. Will also try again later.
Thanks.
|
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 05:42 pm: |
|
Cyana, what error do you get?
Did you see the posting on Irfan?
I just checked all links here and in the FAQ, checked the permissions, have no idea why everything works for me but not for you. |
Cyana24
Registered User
Username: Cyana24
Post Number: 4
Registered: 08-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 08:01 pm: |
|
Yes, I did. I'm testing it right now. If successful I'll upload my stuff tomorrow.
Thanks |
Cyana24
Registered User
Username: Cyana24
Post Number: 5
Registered: 08-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 08:08 pm: |
|
Initial results look promising... I'll attempt to upload tomorrow.
Thanks |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 09:27 pm: |
|
All right 
I know it's not easy when you've never done this before. |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 05:02 pm: |
|
Cyana, GREAT job!
I moved your postings in your own folder so that it doesn't get mixed up, and I reversed the order and used your first posting for the summary.
Let me know if you want me to make any changes.
Those letters from BankOne/First USA are ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE!
It is totally beyond me how they can CONTINUE to do this while they're already being sued for for their bk reporting in AZ
What are they THINKING?????
|
Cyana24
Registered User
Username: Cyana24
Post Number: 22
Registered: 08-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 06:21 pm: |
|
Thank you, Christine, for the praise. Looks great!I just couldn't move my "commentary" from the attachments. I hope what I stated in my "commentaries" wasn't too casual for any serious legal review.
From my update to the "E. Chase" case, FUSA seems to not want to back down from their position that THIS is "accurate reporting." Perhaps it is... from an accounting standpoint. But I think it's pretty clear that it violates the bankruptcy injunction. |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 07:17 pm: |
|
Cyana, aside from the bankruptcy violation, still reporting the balance, I think it is REALLY important that you order your Fair Isaac Equifax and you SHOULD be able to show that the balance is included in your scores.
I cannot tell from the snail mailed report how this account impacts on your scores, especially since the scores look at ALL data and all accounts on the report.
How hard or difficult it is to prove the impact on the Fair Isaac scores depends on the number of accounts with balances, but it should be doable and is well worth the $13.
|
Sassyinaz
Moderator
Username: Sassyinaz
Post Number: 5
Registered: 06-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 07:56 pm: |
|
Look up, Bandolph, click on your name at the top of the page, under Cyana's sub-topic. |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Consumer disputes the account information
How long has that been on your Equifax?
It could well be that Fair Isaac ignores the account, but the only way to find out for sure it to review that report. |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1329
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 04:36 am: |
|
Here's a link with a little more info on how to read FICO reports:
How to find what kills your scores using the FICO report
This is one of the few ways to establish DAMAGES.
NO DAMAGES = suit dismissed
Almost all attorneys and probably all judges think that filing a Ch. 7 is the worst you can do to your credit.
*I* know that's not true, scores often go up just from the filing, and another 50 or more points once all the reporting has been CORRECTED.
I don't understand why even credit lawyers don't *want* to know that.
If you got your PROMOS ON and you apply for credit and insurance, or you have high rate loans, you've got DAMAGES when your scores are low.
A great way to see how your scores affect you is applying for insurance - get a bunch of quotes and see what kind of results you get.
Insurance inquiries do NOT lower your scores.
|
Ladynred
Registered User
Username: Ladynred
Post Number: 2
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:18 am: |
|
I've been digging around and found this as it pertains to the BK code:
SENATE REPORT NO. 95-989
11 U.S.C. 524 (b), ...and is intended to insure that once a debt is discharged, the debtor will not be pressured in any way to repay it. In effect, the discharge extinguishes the debt, and creditors may not attempt to avoid that. "
So, since the discharge EXTINGUISHES the debt, there can be no balance owing. Clearly Bank1/FUSA is violating the Discharge - but we all already know that. I just wanted to pass this along, you may be able to use it.}
(Message edited by LadynRed on September 04, 2003) |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 09:08 pm: |
|
Thanks, exactly. Do you have a link for that? |
Ladynred
Registered User
Username: Ladynred
Post Number: 5
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:43 pm: |
|
Absolutely
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/524.notes.html
That section also sheds light on the status of debts discharged for non-filing spouses in community property states. |
Sassyinaz
Moderator
Username: Sassyinaz
Post Number: 16
Registered: 06-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Lady,
I don't think I ever gave you this link directly, buried links within links, Christine has it posted here as well.
It is good reading though for anyone fighting the BK battle, not sure if it will take you to the article directly, as it is in frames, click on The Risks of Purchasing and Collecting Consumer Debt, from the ABA -- sino actually found the gem and passed it to me:
http://www.abiworld.org/abidata/online/lawrev/winter02/
Sassy |
Ladynred
Registered User
Username: Ladynred
Post Number: 6
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 10:01 am: |
|
Thanks Sassy
I've read that before, but found I hadn't bookmarked it. I will now though !!!
|
Sassyinaz
Moderator
Username: Sassyinaz
Post Number: 18
Registered: 06-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 09:03 pm: |
|
yw Lady!!!!!!!
wow Cyana and Bandolph, you did great!!!!!
Sassy
Bank One sucks
First USA sucks
Just wanting that to show up for the search engines ;-) |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:41 pm: |
|
I've been really busy, have to serve all my defendants and so much going on.
I took the file # of Bandolph's posted TU reports, you want make sure you delete all the report or ID #s before posting.
Looks like First USA THINKS they still have a permissible purpose to run Bandolph's credit.
I think he should write back to them and ask WHY they are still getting his credit scores.
And ask Experian why the dates are different. How can they ALL be so screwed up? |
Cyana24
Registered User
Username: Cyana24
Post Number: 24
Registered: 08-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 02:22 pm: |
|
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 09:06 pm: (Christine)
"Consumer disputes the account information
How long has that been on your Equifax?
It could well be that Fair Isaac ignores the account, but the only way to find out for sure it to review that report."
==========================================
I assume you mean on the scanned portion of my 8/5 Equifax report.
It just turned up on my last (8/5) report. On my previous EQF online report (7/3/03) it was finally "included in bankruptcy". On prior EQF online reports in early Feb and early may it just said "charge off with $30 past due". I was alerted to the change when I accessed my PrivacyGuard report (PG) on 8/1/03 after a 10 day vacation and it was returned to "charge-off" with a $110 past due balance. I previously had accessed PG for the last time before I left on vacation the evening of 7/19/03 to verify that it was still reported as "included in bankruptcy" on EQF and it was. So I was shocked to see on PG that EQF had returned it to "charge-off" with a higher past due balance. |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 04:08 pm: |
|
Cyana, so are they STILL reporting the account disputed?
Also, I edited your posting to "plain English" - credit reporting is SO complicated as it is, and the purpose of these postings is to provide this info to consumers, attorneys and legislators.
When *I* sit here wondering what it is that's being reported, you can be sure that the target audience would just leave. It's really counterproductive to invent new abbreviations and make things even MORE complicated.
I know you're busy, but so are the attorneys and legislators who I'd like to read here. |
Cyana24
Registered User
Username: Cyana24
Post Number: 26
Registered: 08-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 06:14 pm: |
|
I'm sorry about using the abreviations.
Yes, to answer your question... my Equifax report dated 9-8-03 (but I was only able to access it about an hour ago because of a "glitch" in Equifax's own system) this account remains at "Account charged off" (with a higher balance) and "Consumer Disputes this Account information". This is not what my July 3,2003 Equifax report stated after I sent my bankruptcy paperwork to them. It had this tradeline as "included in bankruptcy" with $0 owed/$0 past due. I'm having some trouble with my scanning software; as soon as I can get it to work again, I'll upload for completeness.
I think you're correct about having an account in dispute having a neutral effect on FICO scores because this FUSA tradeline is NOT in the negatives. |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 10:10 pm: |
|
"because this FUSA tradeline is NOT in the negatives."
It SHOULD not be included for scores, thing is that it could be. Looking at the reporting tells me a few things, but it doesn't happen often enough to say for sure.
The reporting is STILL wrong, whether reported to creditors or not, but your damages become an issue. You don't have "decline" or "rate" damages when it's not reported to creditors.
BUT, unlike after a deletion, you are NOT entitled to notification from the bureaus when the dispute notation is removed. So, you'll have to constantly buy reports and check the reporting. That's crazy.
And, that's more damages. |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1433
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 12:18 am: |
|
Sassy spent a lot of time the other day deleting personal and identifying data off the posted reports and letters, so I moved everything to a new First USA/Bank One topic at the top level for more visibility.
Unfortunately, that means that the LINKS changed.
I also started on "the best of" in the documented violations section for 8/18/03 - First USA/Bank One reporting delinquent balances and pulling credit
Those Bank One letters are just great! Still have to finish that, on a slow day .... |
Mike_chpt13
Registered User
Username: Mike_chpt13
Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 06:37 pm: |
|
OK, I am now a victim of FUSA’s deliberate false reporting to the CRA’s. Like all the other reports of false trade lines, I filed Chapter 13 in January 2001.On that date I had never been a single day late to any creditor including FUSA. Shortly after filing I began to review my credit reports to see the damage. FUSA like most creditors showed the accounts as INCLUDED IN BANKRUPTCY. I fully agree with this reporting.
FUSA was kind of special in my Chapter 13 as they filed there claims 10 days late and my attorney had the claims thrown out…they get nothing from my plan payments.
Now some time after that FUSA decided it was able to make false reports on BK accounts and get away with it. It looks like they found this out in about May of 2003. That is the first time I noticed that they changed one of my accounts to CHARGE OFF and 120+ days late. Disputed this information with Experian and Equifax , and send copies of my BK schedule listing these account, and the objection and rulings showing they get nothing. Eqifax and Experian removed the CHARGE OFF STATUS.
Trans Union on the other hand claims it does not have to verify any information that is sent to them. If you dispute a Tradeline, they claim, they only have to ask the Offending Creditor if they want to keep reporting the information. When the OFFENDING creditor says, “yea, keep showing it that way”, they disregard any proof you have given them. This has got to be a violation of the FCRA para 621.
Now after I wrote FUSA and got the standard letter from them that says they are entitled to show it as a charge off, they decide to retaliate a bit more. They change the CHARGE OFF date to 2 months before I filed BK. During those 2 months they got significantly more than the min payment, as mentioned before..it was never late. Now TU says they will only report what FUSA says, regardless of what information I give them. FUSA says “no, we are not reporting a charge off 2 months early.” I FAX the jerk at FUSA the credit report showing a CHARGE OFF 2months earlier than filed and he says” No we did not report that, so we will not change any thing”. Trans Union says they wont change it because that is what FUSA reports.
Sorry for the marathon post…but this has to stop. FUSA is preying on people they know can’t afford the lawyers to stop them. They have figured they can get away with putting CHARGE OFF and are immune to prosecution. Even actually had one agent of this corrupt corporation answer my question of Charge off 2 months before filing as they were getting payments and INCREASEING my credit limit, say “well that is what you get for filing BK against us. We report it anyway we want to and you can’t do a thing about it.”
We need a class action suit, or someone with some expertise to tell us FUSA is within the law by reporting all BK accounts as CHARGE OFFS.
Good luck to all and may all the workers of FUSA have a good day when they meet the devil in hell.
|
Bandolph
Registered User
Username: Bandolph
Post Number: 23
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 01:06 pm: |
|
That is not a marathon post. You are new around here. I have filed a suit against FUSA. Have they been peeking at your credit file?
""We need a class action suit, or someone with some expertise to tell us FUSA is within the law by reporting all BK accounts as CHARGE OFFS""
Dont hold your breath waiting. Take the bull by the horns. Read the FCRA if you have not already.
Go to creditsuit.org. Go to http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/20/20.html |
Bobtenroh
Registered User
Username: Bobtenroh
Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hopefully not a repeat, BUT
Look at the Opinion files on
http://www.ftc.gov
Bob |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 03:17 pm: |
|
That's a big site, which opinion? |
Louis
Registered User
Username: Louis
Post Number: 1
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 01:56 pm: |
|
I need assistance, I have also been falsely reported by FUSA Bank. I applied for a job and for the moment they have placed my file on hold until I can resolve this matter. I apparently openened a credit card account with FUSA BAnk for 8 - 9 months and I then closed the account. They reported that I was delinquent 20 times. That is impossible. Please help. I don't know what to do. Thank you. |
Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 1833
Registered: 09-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 03:15 pm: |
|
Make sure you document all your "adverse actions" and obviously you have to dispute with the CRAs.
Try to remember some specifics, like WHEN, or at least post what they are reporting. |
Housebuyer
Registered User
Username: Housebuyer
Post Number: 1
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 08:57 am: |
|
My First USA story is much the same. I found a way to fix this.
My wife and I filed a chapter 7 case in 9/03 and was discharged in 12/02. First USA was one the discharged debts. Up to the day I filed my petition, I was current on all payments. My attorney requested that we bring a copy of the most recent creditor statement of each creditor at the petition signing. By chance, I kept this statement that proved that this account was in good standing.
As chance would have it, First USA removed the IIB off the tradeline and then inserted an outstanding balance and a chargeoff statement. After calling them twice, I finally decided to send a letter to them. I included a copy of this statement and a demand of their reasoning as to how this debt was not subject to my discharge and their reason for not reporting the account as IIB.
I got a letter back that stated the following:
"Our records indicate that the above referenced account was charged off as a bad debt to the bank on December 14, 1999 and then was sold to B-Line........We want you to be aware that First USA/Bank One do not report bankruptcies......At the time you filed bankruptcy, you still had an outstanding balance with us. When we received your notice of bankruptcy, we took that balance amount as a loss. Therefore, the account would show a profit loss with that unpaid balance still reporting. As a result of our investigation, we updated your account information with Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union credit services. The account will reflect the following:
Account was transferred to another office
Account is showing a zero balance
Account will show no late pays
Account information disputed by consumer"
Now, this is satisfactory to me now because although is not being listed IIB, it is listed with no derogatory info and is considered an account in good standing now. What a difference a past statement makes. Previously, they were reporting this as a chargeoff right before the bankruptcy. The statement I have proves that to be false and now I have a letter from them acknowledging an error on their part.
|
