Is this letter to Experian ok?

[Anonymous]

Asset Acceptance verified data for a paid collection in December, but updated some critical info incorrectly, specifically that;

1) the account was open (when in fact closed AND paid)
2) That the history shows it to be In Collections as of 9/07 and 12/07 (PIF on 9/01/07)
3) In the 90+ Days Late History it shows both 9/07 and 12/07.

I am drafting a letter to Experian, any thoughts?

To whom it may concern;
This paid collection account was recently verified by the Collection Agency.
Some critical information is incorrect and I would like this tradeline removed as the Creditor had a chance to verify the information and did so inaccurately and to my detriment:

On their official report they list the account as both ‘Open’ and the account history as In Collections as of 9/07 and 12/07 (it was not in Collections as of 9/01/07.

COPY OF REPORT

However this was paid in full on 9/01/07 as you can see b their own report (Paid Colleciton) and by this cancelled check:

COPY OF CANCELED CHECK

And by their letter (though it is dated a month after the fact) enclosed below:

COPY OF ASSET'S PIF LETTER.

As I have taken the time to dispute this information twice and it has been verified both times, I would like the item removed as they are now either intentionally or negligently reporting inaccurate and misleading and damaging information.

[Anonymous]

nyccc, I think the only thing they will do is change it to a "paid" collection....

[Anonymous]

I disputed some stuff with asset which was paid of in Jan 2006 and it came back verified and they also tacked on a 120 late in JAN 2008. They are just terrible

Message Edited by greekjim on 03-05-2008 11:51 AM

[Anonymous]

I could be wrong, but if the CA is reporting incorrect information isn't it grounds to sue? They are affecting your life and credit by continuously reporting false information against you. I would ask the CRAs to provide you with the documentation that the CA provided them. If the CRA can't provide or won't, they have broken the law. If they do provide the information, make sure it is correct DV information. If the CRA just put verified when the CA just provided debt about and late dates, that isn't enough! If the CA provided false information, I do believe you have grounds for suit, as you have proof that you paid and their letter, etc.

If there any of these conditions apply, I recommend getting a credit attorney who is a shark and take them for everything you can.

Message Edited by RSidetrack on 03-05-2008 12:09 PM

[Anonymous]

A credit attorney I contacted said they would not take it, not egregious enough. As far as I see, a CA was given the chance to VERIFY information and updated a PAID COLLECTION with two incorrect pieces of informatiom;

1) That the account was open. THEIR CA account is not open it is closed, and more to the point the ORIGINAL account has been closed for 5+ years.

2) They updated (when asked to verify in December 07) that the History showed 'In Collection' as of 12/07 however it was paid in full on 9/04/07.

3) The Account History line where they show 30/60/90+ Day history they show it as 90+ Days Late in December 07, 4 months after I Paid In Full.

Not really sure how a CA should be allowed to VERIFY information that is so obviously incorrect without penalties, REALLY getting tired of this.

[Junejer]

nycc, I agree with RSidetrack. To knowingly report inaccurate information is a violation and worth some $ to you. I would send a MOV to the CRA and demand to know what methods were used to verify. If no love (I am in the midst of this process now), send by CMRRR. If no love there, I would find a top dog in the CRA and send to them CMRRR (at this point, your letter should be a bit more scathing) and suit should be threatened. If no love, actually take them to small claims court (both the CA and the CRA involved).

[Anonymous]

Thanks Byrdman, here is my latest. I not only have a copy of Experian's own credit report after the validation wherein they report the history as 'Collections as of 12/07' AND a screen shot of the MyFico, updated in 1/08 that shows '90+Days as of 12/07', I have a copy of the PIF from the CA, and a copy of the cancelled check from a month prior to that PIF letter, not to mention their own Credit Report that says PAID Collection.

Does this letter seem better?

MY NAME
ADDRESS
SS #
Report #:

Experian
701 Experian Parkway, PO Box 2002
Allen, TX 75013


March 05, 2008
To whom it may concern;

This paid collection account was recently verified by the Collection Agency.

Some critical information is incorrect and I would like this tradeline removed as the Creditor had a chance to verify the information and did so inaccurately and to my detriment:

On their official report they list the account as both ‘Open’ and the account history as In Collections as of 9/07 and 12/07 (it was not in Collections as of 9/01/07.

MY FICO EXPERIAN REPORT

However this was paid in full on 9/01/07 as you can see b their own report (Paid Collection) and by the cancelled check included with this letter.

And by their letter (though it is dated a month after the fact) enclosed with this letter:

As I have taken the time to dispute this information twice and given Asset Acceptance time to validate the information and it has been verified both times, I would like the item removed as they are now either intentionally or negligently reporting inaccurate and misleading and damaging information and violates the FCRA.

More to the point, please provide you, the Credit Reporting Agency used to verify this information as it is quite obviously inaccurate, and you would be in violate of Section § 611(a)(6) and (7). 15 USC 1681i or FCRA. You have now had two opportunities to verify this information and are now providing blatantly incorrect information, which exposes you to a a lawsuit if I deem that is necessary.

I would appreciate your prompt response to these issues.

Sincerely,

Enclosures:

Highlighed Copy Experian Credit Investigation Report 2/04/08 showing 'Collection as of 12/07' as well as 'Paid Collection'

Copy of Cancelled Check 904 from 9/04/07 for PIF

Letter from Creditor from 10/03 indicating PIF

Highlighted MyFico Online Report from 3/05/08 showing 'Paid in Full' and '90+Days Late as of 12/07'

Copy of My Passport

Copy of my HSBC Bank Statement for Address Verification
"

[Junejer]

Just make sure you spell check and have proper syntax. Other than that, I like it. It should get their attention. Oh, add willful non-compliance to the end of the para with the FCRA info.

[Anonymous]

---

@Junejer wrote:
Just make sure you spell check and have proper syntax. Other than that, I like it. It should get their attention. Oh, add willful non-compliance to the end of the para with the FCRA info.

---

Thanks Byrdman. As in;

"
More to the point, please provide you, the Credit Reporting Agency used to verify this information as it is quite obviously inaccurate, and you would be in WILLFUL NON-COMPLIANCE of Section § 611(a)(6) and (7). 15 USC 1681i or FCRA."

Do I have anything to lose by being so in their face with this?

[Junejer]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Junejer wrote:
Just make sure you spell check and have proper syntax. Other than that, I like it. It should get their attention. Oh, add willful non-compliance to the end of the para with the FCRA info.

---

Thanks Byrdman. As in;

"
More to the point, please provide what method, you, the Credit Reporting Agency, used to verify this information as it is quite obviously inaccurate.  Please do not send me another pointless letter claiming I need to contact the creditor to obtain this information, when in fact it is YOUR responsibility to provide this information to me under the FACTA.  If that happens, then I will have no other option than to extend this matter in a court of law, and obtain legal representation in order to seek a judgment against Experian for willful noncompliance, which is a violation of FACTA and FCRA. 

Do I have anything to lose by being so in their face with this?

---

You have rights and they have an obligation to abide by the law.  See my changes in red.