Removing last major derogatories

[Anonymous]

Hi all,

I have a few derogatories that are ~6 years old and will fall off on their own within the next year. I'm less worried about these as they don't seem to be impacting my score much, and most underwriters seem to not mind them. These are mostly medical items.

However, just recently 2 accounts from the same doctor's office showed up as collections. One of the accounts lists an account opening date of Dec 2014, which was *over a year after we moved away from the state*, so we were certainly not receiving services at that time. All correspondence to the collection agency requesting debt verification and challenging the authenticity of the debt comes back undeliverable (these were issued by Lexington Law). These items have been disputed with the bureaus but they are still on the report.

The other derog that's bothering me is a 30-day late payment on a car loan from Jan '15. This was due to a clerical error at the credit union, which they corrected. I have the logs that show it was corrected (screenshot of bank interface showing removal of falsely-applied collateral insurance). TU and EQ have removed this but EX refuses to do so. I canceled Lexington Law recently, as they seemed to be at the point of just spinning their wheels, and tried to dispute this one myself. In that dispute, I included the aforementioned logs and also mentioned that the other bureaus didn't reflect it. EX replied and closed the dispute because they said they don't make decisions based off other credit reporting bureau's data. They completely ignored the logs that show the reversal of the CU's error.

I see that there are several ways forward, and I know that credit repair agencies are not looked upon well here, but I would really prefer to pay a real attorney familiar with HIPAA and the FCRA to handle this for me. Does anyone know if there are good ones that specialize in this out there? Everything I'm seeing online looks like it's a Lexington Law-style "firm". I also don't want to pay an attorney $500/hr to do the legwork. Is there a middle ground between the "cheap" fake law firms like Lexington and hiring my standard attorney (rate $520/hr) that does real attorney work and just telling him to fix my credit? The former option is not intelligent/personal enough to get results on these remaining baddies and the latter is (obviously) too expensive, if I could even convince my attorney to do it (and I couldn't).

If there is _no_ recommendation for someone who doesn't want to do this personally, what are my next steps here?

[Anonymous]

I know you don't really want to do the legwork yourself, but if you have already sent DV letters to the collection agency and have proof of that - you should probably file a case with the CFPB.  I would think technically you could probably also file a case with them for the 30 day late as well.

I am still a newbie on the forums, but I have read many people have had success filing with the CFPB - especially when they have proof.

[Anonymous]

For the 30 day late have your credit union remove it they are the ones that placed it their.

[Anonymous]

For the medical collections google the HIPAA Letter Process and follow it exactly as laid out.  If you have any problems finding the website or have questions PM me.  For the account from your CU do as previously advised, contact them and ask that the 30 day late be romoved  if they are the ones who reported it.

[RobertEG]

Once you send a timely DV, there is no requirment for the debt collector to respond.

Provided they dont continue active collection on the debt, there is no violation.

Keep proof of having sent the DV should they resume collection activities without first providing debt validation.

The CRAs are not part of the DV process, and lack of validation is not basis for a dispute of accuracy of their credit reporting.

Rather than or in addition to sending a DV, you can, if you have some documentation that supports a lack of debt obligation, send a direct dispute to the debt collector, which does have a required response of 30'ish days.  Disputes under the FCRA address inaccurate credit reporting, not DV requests under the FDCPA.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the replies so far everyone.

I have refinanced the loan with the CU so I don't know how eager they'd be to help me. I'm also leary of contacting them -- what if they feel that instead of mistakenly reported to EX, they feel the mistake is that it's left off the TU and EQ reports and decide to "fix" the problem by updating both? It seems like a risk to draw their attention to it, rather than furnish the proof I already have directly to the bureau.

On that account, I'm mostly concerned that my next dispute, which won't mention the other bureaus at all, will be ignored because they'll consider it part of the previously-filed dispute.

The two problems with sending a direct dispute to the debt collector is that a) their address comes back undeliverable and b) how am I supposed to document that I did NOT open an account with them in Dec '14? I can show that I lived out of state with utility bills and the like, but that's not really proof. They can just say that we must have visited.

I'd be willing to do a PFD just to make these things go away, but I haven't found a good template for ensuring that they actually follow-up and remove it from the report for good. I don't want to just trust them to do that, and I don't want them to do it for a month or two and then list it as a paid collection. Is there a way to enforce a PFD agreement?

[RobertEG]

As far as the furnisher of the disputed information is involved, there is very little difference on their part between receiving a direct dispute from the consumer, or referral of a dispute from the CRA.

If you choose to file your dispute via a CRA, they are required under the FCRA to foward a copy of the dispute to the furnisher of the information, and the furnisher is required to investigate and reply back to the CRA.  The difference is that they send the results of their investigation directly to yuo as the consumer if you file a direct dispute.

The CRA becomes a processing middle-man.  Howver, the final determination as to verification, correction, or deletion is made by the CRA as their reinvestigation.

The primary advantage from the consumer's point of view is that by filing a direct dispute, you ensure that ALL of your supporting documentation and arguments are recevied by the furnisher, and not sanitized by the CRA electronic e-Oscar referral system.

Your choice.

[Anonymous]

Here is why you should not even CONSIDER using a credit repair company:

By law credit repair companies are allowed to:

1. Send written dispute letters to CRA's on your behalf.

2. There is no "#2", #1 is all they are allowed to do.

You on the other hand are allowed by law to:

1. Send written or online disputes to the CRA's

2. Send Direct Disputes to Collectors and OC's

3. Negotiate with Collectors and OC's for PFD's and fractional settlements.

4. Send FDCPA Debt Validation letters to Collectors

5. Send letters requesting Good Will removal of derogatory reporting.

6. file BBB complaints against CA's and OC's when appropriate

7. file CFPB complaints against CA's and OC's when appropriate

8. file complaints against CA's and OC's with state AG's when they violate state laws

9. send ITS (Intent to Sue) letters to CA's and OC's when they violate FCRA and FDCPA

10. bring suit in court for violations of FCRA and FDCPA.

They have one weapon they can use. You have at least ten, some of them far more effective than their one.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Here is why you should not even CONSIDER using a credit repair company:

By law credit repair companies are allowed to:

1. Send written dispute letters to CRA's on your behalf.

2. There is no "#2", #1 is all they are allowed to do.

You on the other are allowed by law to:

1. Send written or online disputes to the CRA's

2. Send Direct Disputes to Collectors and OC's

3. Negotiate with Collectors and OC's for PFD's and fractional settlements.

4. Send FDCPA Debt Validation letters to Collectors

5. Send letters requesting Good Will removal of derogatory reporting.

6. file BBB complaints against CA's and OC's when appropriate

7. file CFPB complaints against CA's and OC's when appropriate

8. file complaints against CA's and OC's with state AG's when they violate state laws

9. send ITS (Intent to Sue) letters to CA's and OC's when they violate FCRA and FDCPA

10. bring suit in court for violations of FCRA and FDCPA.

They have one weapon they can use. You have at least ten, some of them far more effective than their one.

---

your info is not correct. An email from Lexington Law states,

This representation includes challenging questionable negative items on your credit reports with all three major credit bureaus and specific creditors based on your plan type. In addition, the representation includes access to information regarding how certain negative items and life circumstances may impact your credit reports and credit score. You may access this information through the client website or by communicating with Lexington Law Firm via phone or email.

Another email states,

This email is in regards to our online chat. Lexington Law Firm will work on your behalf to challenge questionable negative items appearing on your credit reports that are inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. In situations where the questionable negative information has been deemed as verified by the major credit bureaus, Lexington offers alternative methods of challenging the questionable negative information through "escalation" letters.


There are five types of Escalation letters:


1. Goodwill Intervention Letter


The goodwill intervention letter is sent on Lexington Law Firm letterhead and signed by an attorney. The letter is available only for payments alleged to be up to 90 days late and requests that the provider of the negative information (e.g., creditor or third party debt collector) redact the item as a matter of goodwill. It is most effective when there is only one late payment with a specific creditor.


2. Full Spread Intervention Letter


The full spread intervention letter focuses on challenging a questionable negative item simultaneously with a major credit bureau and the provider of the information. The intent is that this method will increase the rate of time in which provider of the information reinvestigates the information in question.


3. Heavy Document Letter


The "heavy document" letter includes relevant underlying documentation regarding a specific negative item appearing on a credit report. The intent is to support a defense that the information is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable.


4. Notarized Intervention Letter


The notarized intervention letter is a Lexington prepared letter challenging a questionable negative item with a section that may be notarized. The intent of this letter is to demonstrate that you are in fact the person challenging this information in addition to the seriousness of this request.


5. Stall Letter Response


Sometimes the credit bureaus will send letters that we have termed "stall letters" that ask for additional information prior to the occurrence of an actual investigation involving the challenged negative information. This method provides a way to answer the credit bureaus' request for information so that they then conduct an investigation into whether or not the challenged negative item is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Here is why you should not even CONSIDER using a credit repair company:

By law credit repair companies are allowed to:

1. Send written dispute letters to CRA's on your behalf.

2. There is no "#2", #1 is all they are allowed to do.

You on the other are allowed by law to:

1. Send written or online disputes to the CRA's

2. Send Direct Disputes to Collectors and OC's

3. Negotiate with Collectors and OC's for PFD's and fractional settlements.

4. Send FDCPA Debt Validation letters to Collectors

5. Send letters requesting Good Will removal of derogatory reporting.

6. file BBB complaints against CA's and OC's when appropriate

7. file CFPB complaints against CA's and OC's when appropriate

8. file complaints against CA's and OC's with state AG's when they violate state laws

9. send ITS (Intent to Sue) letters to CA's and OC's when they violate FCRA and FDCPA

10. bring suit in court for violations of FCRA and FDCPA.

They have one weapon they can use. You have at least ten, some of them far more effective than their one.

---

your info is not correct. An email from Lexington Law states,

This representation includes challenging questionable negative items on your credit reports with all three major credit bureaus and specific creditors based on your plan type. In addition, the representation includes access to information regarding how certain negative items and life circumstances may impact your credit reports and credit score. You may access this information through the client website or by communicating with Lexington Law Firm via phone or email.

Another email states,

This email is in regards to our online chat. Lexington Law Firm will work on your behalf to challenge questionable negative items appearing on your credit reports that are inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. In situations where the questionable negative information has been deemed as verified by the major credit bureaus, Lexington offers alternative methods of challenging the questionable negative information through "escalation" letters.


There are five types of Escalation letters:


1. Goodwill Intervention Letter


The goodwill intervention letter is sent on Lexington Law Firm letterhead and signed by an attorney. The letter is available only for payments alleged to be up to 90 days late and requests that the provider of the negative information (e.g., creditor or third party debt collector) redact the item as a matter of goodwill. It is most effective when there is only one late payment with a specific creditor.


2. Full Spread Intervention Letter


The full spread intervention letter focuses on challenging a questionable negative item simultaneously with a major credit bureau and the provider of the information. The intent is that this method will increase the rate of time in which provider of the information reinvestigates the information in question.


3. Heavy Document Letter


The "heavy document" letter includes relevant underlying documentation regarding a specific negative item appearing on a credit report. The intent is to support a defense that the information is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable.


4. Notarized Intervention Letter


The notarized intervention letter is a Lexington prepared letter challenging a questionable negative item with a section that may be notarized. The intent of this letter is to demonstrate that you are in fact the person challenging this information in addition to the seriousness of this request.


5. Stall Letter Response


Sometimes the credit bureaus will send letters that we have termed "stall letters" that ask for additional information prior to the occurrence of an actual investigation involving the challenged negative information. This method provides a way to answer the credit bureaus' request for information so that they then conduct an investigation into whether or not the challenged negative item is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable.

---

With the exception of the good will letter - which you can write far more personally and more effectively than they can, this is all nothing more than various CRA dispute strategies. They are all "weapon #1"  - same gun, just various bullet weights. They are SPECIFICALLY prohibited by FCRA from doing direct disputes with the CA/OC. They will not file BBB, CFPB, or State AG complaints, nor will they send ITS letters or bring suit on your behalf, because they are not Attorneys (despite the statement about "being signed by an Attorney").