Anyone have any legal perspective on this

For just about anything you want to get off your chest about credit cards.
13 posts
MemberSince99
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: WI

Anyone have any legal perspective on this

Postby MemberSince99 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:53 am

I had an account with a bank that is no longer in business and was bought out by another bank many years ago that got charged off (almost 21 years ago was last account activity so it's obviously WAY past statute and the date it should be reporting). Another bank bought them, and well past the reporting date, they illegally re-aged it on my reports, apparently in an attempt to get me to pay (or just for spite but there's no money in that....). My credit was trashed then so I really didn't care though it irked me.

Fast forward to today - I got my EXP report last night as a result of the Citi decline, mainly to see who has been softing me (Amex continues to soft over and over and over but that's another topic) and I actually looked at the accounts that report "positively" and that account is STILL there. LONG after it should no longer report, says "closed by credit grantor" which is true, HOWEVER, it should not even be there. They keep re-aging that thing and apparently plan to for all eternity.

Better yet they have it there TWICE - the amounts and high balance and everything are the same, which I noticed many creditors do on charged off accounts - they will be on your reports twice (once would be bad enough). The CRAs love to go before Congress and claim how accurate that info is, but we all know that's totally BS it's filled with fairy tales in reality.

My point is - one of these accounts didn't even exist and is a duplicate and the other shouldn't even be there it's been so long since it was charged off (20 years). I know this is a violation of Federal law (though honestly we all know businesses in the corporate States of America are free to disregard the law at will) so, I disputed the accounts. I want the game to stop. The law says it should have stopped YEARS ago. Would it make sense to get a NACA lawyer and go after them if they don't remove the accounts? Or would I just be throwing money away?

And please, don't bother with the "this isn't hurting you" posts, I just want to know if anyone knows if legally it's worth a shot. I believe that businesses that DELIBERATELY disregard the law should be held accountable for that. And this outfit posted this to my credit a few years ago as a collection account well past when it legally should have been there (illegal re-aging is what it's called) and they continue to do so to this day only it's not as a collection.


craigm1
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:44 pm
Location: toms river nj

credit issues

Postby craigm1 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:57 am

If it were me I would dispute it with the credit agency, state your case and see if they will remove it



Good Luck

Craig
Current Cards: American Express:Grandfathered Blue Cash CL 34k member since 89
Chase Freedom CL 7.5k member since 04
Chase Marriot Rewards Premier CL 20k member since 13
Chase Sapphire Preferred CL 25K member since 13
Bank Americard Cash Rewards Signature Visa CL 14k member since 11
Discover Cashback Bonus $10.5k member since 11
US Bank Cash + Signature Visa 19k member since 12
Citibank Thank You Preffered World Mastercard $16.5k member since 14

trumpet-205
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:51 pm
Location: CA, USA

Postby trumpet-205 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:17 am

It is a bit too early to use lawyer.

Dispute the account, and file complains to CFPB and BBB.
In My Wallet:
Citi Forward (12/2010) | Citi TY Preferred (05/2011) | Chase Freedom (11/2011) | GECRB/PayPal (05/2012)
Discover it (07/2012) | AMEX BCP (09/2012) | TD/Target REDCard (10/2012) | Chase Ink Classic (11/2012)
BofA BBR (04/2013) | FNBO/Overstock.com (02/2014) | Barclaycard Arrival (04/2014) | FIA/Fidelity AMEX (04/2014)

MemberSince99
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: WI

Postby MemberSince99 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:19 pm

Thanks for responding guys.

I did file disputes. I SUSPECT the result of this is going to be that the creditor insists what they posted is accurate and EXP says well they verified it therefore it's true. (That's really all it takes). I would be shocked at any other outcome. I'll give it time to see what happens.

The way I disputed it is I said I did not recognize these accounts. They didn't have an option that says "The creditor created duplicate accounts and the one which is legitimate should have fallen off many years ago but these guys violate Federal law to keep it reporting for some strange reason". So basically I could not find a better dispute reason, and other with an explanation doesn't really give you much leeway as you have only a few characters and they restrict allowing you to do that as well.
Technically it is true as I do not recognize one of them. (It never existed). Well we'll see, disputing with the government may be a next step if this does what I expect as they've started to do some oversight of the CRAs (this is LONG overdue as I'm sure many of you would agree).

I'm surprised no one piped up about the moral implications in regards to the fact I didn't pay the original creditor. That may be a valid point, but it's a separate issue - any moral obligation I may have is not a violation of the law, where re-aging accounts is a violation of the law. I just expected someone to maybe pipe up with that. But then again, I'm considering FICO too where the same fanbois who have burned creditors themselves still pipe up with moral indignation whenever someone else does the same thing. I'm sure you guys or many of you have seen that!

Anyway thanks guys I'll keep you posted on the results and next steps. We should all learn at the very least!

User avatar
djrez4
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:20 pm
Location: United States

Postby djrez4 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:00 pm

I would have suggested disputing is as "obsolete." Saying the account is "not mine" raises some other issues of fraud and ID theft. You may wake up tomorrow with a fraud alert on your report.
[RIGHT][size=100]- Sapphire Preferred - Freedom - Ink - Platinum - Everyday Preferred -[/size]
[/RIGHT]

Moneytalks
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:22 pm
Location: United States

Postby Moneytalks » Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:39 pm

MemberSince99 wrote:Thanks for responding guys.

I did file disputes. I SUSPECT the result of this is going to be that the creditor insists what they posted is accurate and EXP says well they verified it therefore it's true. (That's really all it takes). I would be shocked at any other outcome. I'll give it time to see what happens.

The way I disputed it is I said I did not recognize these accounts. They didn't have an option that says "The creditor created duplicate accounts and the one which is legitimate should have fallen off many years ago but these guys violate Federal law to keep it reporting for some strange reason". So basically I could not find a better dispute reason, and other with an explanation doesn't really give you much leeway as you have only a few characters and they restrict allowing you to do that as well.
Technically it is true as I do not recognize one of them. (It never existed). Well we'll see, disputing with the government may be a next step if this does what I expect as they've started to do some oversight of the CRAs (this is LONG overdue as I'm sure many of you would agree).

I'm surprised no one piped up about the moral implications in regards to the fact I didn't pay the original creditor. That may be a valid point, but it's a separate issue - any moral obligation I may have is not a violation of the law, where re-aging accounts is a violation of the law. I just expected someone to maybe pipe up with that. But then again, I'm considering FICO too where the same fanbois who have burned creditors themselves still pipe up with moral indignation whenever someone else does the same thing. I'm sure you guys or many of you have seen that!

Anyway thanks guys I'll keep you posted on the results and next steps. We should all learn at the very least!


Haha, I thought about it, but didn't want to write anything. Besides, you asked for a "legal perspective" not a moral one
Wallet: Amex BCE & Chase Freedom. (Credit Card dieting since 2014)

MemberSince99
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: WI

Postby MemberSince99 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:28 pm

djrez4 wrote:I would have suggested disputing is as "obsolete." Saying the account is "not mine" raises some other issues of fraud and ID theft. You may wake up tomorrow with a fraud alert on your report.


Thanks for the advice djrez4. If this fails I will try that approach, assuming they know what that means. (EXP).

MemberSince99
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: WI

Postby MemberSince99 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:36 pm

Moneytalks you made me laugh! Hey that's a good thing!

Honestly I don't feel any moral obligation to the bank that purchased the account (years after it was charged off). Obviously there is a moral obligation to the original creditor but they no longer exist. Just in case anyone was wondering.

MemberSince99
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: WI

Postby MemberSince99 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:39 pm

Ok, got the results of the dispute today. The scumbags in question removed one of the accounts (presumably the one they made up out of thin air as they duplicated it) but left the other one still reporting. According to Experian it will remain until 2018, but of course, these jack offs will just continue to re-age for whatever kick they get out of that most likely.

I'm itching for a fight here. Of the legal sort. I want a piece of them. They are DELIBERATELY violating Federal Law and they know that but like most US Corporations they are arrogant enough to figure they can get away with it. They may be right too, but I'd like to test their hypothesis.

All in good time. I first diputed this account using what djrez4 suggested, other with "OBSOLETE". I have little doubt it will come back still on the report.

I guess I'm thinking my next step will be to report it to the government and get that process in place, then I need to find a good NACA attorney. This should not be a difficult case as the last activity on the account was early 1992 and it's been charged off for 20 years now. What these people get out of playing their games, I have no clue, but my intention is to kick for their groin as hard as I possibly can. So, I am hopeful a good NACA attorney can take this on for me. If anyone knows of one who can use some work please let me know. I'll let the dispute process finish then file the complaint with the government, and then I'm ready to talk with an attorney. I'm aware it will cost me money, and I'm cool with that. More of us need to stand up to fascists who violate the law brazenly and show them we are NOT afraid of the bastards. I'm not at ALL afraid of them as this is many many years out of statute, in fact I WISH they'd sue me so it would ease getting them into court.

So call me crazy but yeah I want a fight. I've had enough of these guys. Even the worst of the vultures hasn't illegally re-aged any accounts, but this bank has. I think it's time we find out if the law is the truth and you do have to pay for violating it, or if that just applies to us little guys.

MemberSince99
Centurion Member
Centurion Member
 
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Location: WI

Postby MemberSince99 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:29 am

Still no results on disputing using OBSOLETE I'm curtious to see what the results of that will be (I could guess but we'll just have to see).

One interesting thing I did notice is they do not report this on either TU or EQ - only on EX. Naturally I started wondering why that is. I read (on FICO) that EX is a real pain to dispute with so maybe that's why. But it still doesn't explain why they would even bother with this - putting this account that was CO'd over 20 years ago on my report. I really don't "get" what is in the game for them. There must be a reason (other than random insanity) but I'm not privy to it. It's not even a collection so it's not negative, which I could see them wanting to do that. Just not sure what they get out of this. Maybe I'll never know!



Return to “General Credit Card Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron