IC Systems Removed, inconsistent score bumps (of course)

[Anonymous]

I GW'd IC and they removed, I faxed AND sent copy of letter to CRAs, it took all of three days for it to fall off.

Equifax I gained a whole 3 points to 701, the only baddie on that one now is the Cap1 CO from 2001 and the **bleep** Midland that was ADDED after I DV'd and the OC agreed Not Mine but Midland ignored, I am disputing that up the *edited*.

TU I gained 23 points to 691, that one has the Cap1, the Midland and Professional Collections. I expected more of an impact on the Efax.

Not sure what will occur at this point with Midland; I MOV'd the three agencies, and said that their reported verification, the CA verifying my name and SS# was INSUFFICIENT given the OC investigated as Not Mine and removed and the CA refused to provide documentation. We'll see.

It is really 'interesting' to me that the CRAs can send me a leter and say 'We Can't Use Your Provided Info, Contacting CA' when my provided info was copy of letter from OC with result of investigation, copy of signed Certified Mail receipts from Midland and OC and copy of (ignored) letter from CA from over 60 days ago, BUT they CAN use CA's info which is 'this is his first and last name and SS#'. What a freaking scam!

Next up; Call Cap1 to do PFD for out of SOL CO which is due to drop off in September anyway.

Edited for some language clean-up. As exasperated as you understandably are, please remember that these are public forums, with members from a wide range of backgrounds. Thanks for your understanding.

Apologies for language, it IS exasperating and expensive.

Message Edited by haulingthescoreup on 05-14-2008 05:11 PM

Message Edited by nyccc2 on 05-15-2008 07:44 AM

[RobertEG]

Am I wrong in assuming that the CA is now the legal holder of the debt they purchased from the original debtor, and not the original debtor?  If so, are they not now the responsible party for any CRA inquiry under the FCRA,and not the original debtor?

[Anonymous]

Yes, the CA is the legal holder of the debt. However if the OC cannot provide documentation then the CA would have to and has NOT.  My point to the CRAs was that since i provided docs that the OC has no documentation, that the CA is required to do more then provide my name and ss#.

It is a crazy law that says after the 30 day period after the first notice the CA has no obligation to provide docs.  I checked with a lawyer friend who, while not a Credit Lawyer, has a solid understanding of the law. His point was that that only applies to reporting, that if I sued they would most likely have to provide docs.  I am hoping/guessing they don't have the info since a) they didn't provide it to me upon request b) they didn't provide it to the CRAs c) OC has none d) the account was originally sold to a different CA and has passed hands at least once if not more times before getting to Midland e) MIdland has a reputation for buying accounts that are on their last leg w/o documentation to back them up.

[granny031350]

mine was also removed.  Gained a few points on Equifax but NOTHING on Experian.  I was