Lori sent me the link regarding disputing the address:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...ress#post113694

IMPORTANT: We are talking about PREVIOUS addresses - and only about Experian.

I followed all the links provided by Breeze in the above thread and found NO evidence that this actually worked for anyone.

One posting is about someone who had a collection that's really NOT her account. She sent a validation request several months ago, didn't get a response, and has been at the same address for 8 years. So I can't figure out how it relates at all, and I REALLY can't figure out why people waste their time like that.

She could have demanded that the creditor delete the account, with a copy and demand for deletion to the CRAs. Even if verified previously, the CRAs HAVE to consider documentation by the consumer (FCRA.)

It's a different subject and really has nothing to do with addresses. But, since I took the time to read it, I thought I'd point that out.

Fact

If a collection agency does NOT have your social security number, it MIGHT just work to have that OLD address - that the collection agency has - DELETED, and then dispute the collection AFTER that's done.

Reality check:

1) MOST collectors have your social security #. If you kept copies of your application for whatever account it was (as you ALWAYS should) you'll know what they have on you.

If you requested validation, you'll know even more.

2) If they ever ran your credit (instead of just reporting on your credit) they HAVE your social security number.

3) What about the OTHER bureaus? If you're trying to get a mortgage, all 3 reports will be pulled.

Summary: There will be a few cases when this works, although you'll NEVER know for sure that the address deletion did the trick.

After all, we all know that spam disputes work. About 50% of collections over 4 years old are deleted after the 1st dispute.

But, if you have VALID and CORRECTLY REPORTED old charge-offs and collections, you might as well try that.

Have all your old addresses deleted, once that's done, dispute everything as not yours.

If nothing else, it'll keep Experian busy.

What about the other bureaus?

I always get any old addresses / employment etc. removed from my reports. The less personal info the better. All the collection agencies have to do is match 2 items to access your report. Address/date of birth social/employer previous adress/ maiden name etc. This is known as skip tracing. Get rid of the old information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know anything about skip tracing, any info is appreciated.

So, your NAME isn't one of the 2 items required? It takes your name PLUS 2 other identifying data?

Now that I think about it, I've gotten reports on people by just using their name and current address.

Skip tracing is national identifier software that collection agencies use to locate a consumer and attach a collection to their credit file.

If they have your name, only one other piece of info is required. It can be a previous address, employer, anything. Think for a moment. You apply for a magazine subscription and don't pay. The magazine company didn't have your d.o.b., social, etc. They only had name and address. Now the collection agency calls you. The collection agency has your Name, address, social and date of birth. Go figure!

Scenario 2:
The collection agency didn't yet access your report. They dont have your address and social, just name and date of birth. By quoting this information to you , you think they already have you by the balls so you say o.k. thats me, how much do I owe. Well guess what. You have just validated that this is your account. All previous addresses, D/L #s alias names, etc, associated with the account will likely be added to your report. Old creditors that you owe will now jump on you like vultures through the skip tracing network. I don't know but I would be willing to bet that collection agencies get a commission for linking files to old information.

As far as names, they may not even be required to access your file all the time. You better believe that if somene who has a similar social, the same date of birth, and lives in the same town,
applies for credit, you will get an alias name on your file and possibly an account that's not yours.

The data doesn't have to be exact. I had two collection agency inquiries from CBE and a charge off account added to my file recently. I called CBE who quoted the same first and last name, different address, similar social, and different d o b. I had wondered where that funny address came from that I deleted off my report 6 months ago. Imagine if i hadn't had it deleted. It would have been hell proving the account wasn't mine.

I have seen 9 more collections appear on a clients report after she used her maiden name once again to apply for credit. (she recently divorced.)

Christine: you will notice that your reports with the most collections have the most previous addresses. One of my clients has an experian with 9 derogs and a transunion with only one. The difference - previous addresses.

Rule #1: Never give phone, dl#, full middle name, employment info to a CRA. These are not required to access a report as long as your other info is current in their system. IF you absolutely cannot access your file because they have old addresses and such then you might consider applying for a few things that you can't get. (Date of birth and address frequently get "bumped" when you apply for credit.) Send your denial letters to the CRA for a free report. By now your current info should be in the system and you'll get the report . You could also copy your D/L, authenticly smudge the number and fax it to them. Should work as long as they can read the name, address, dob. Plan#1 will cause a few inquiries but it may also save you from getting "linked" if you have delinquent accounts.

Rule#2:
Regularly delete any and all personal data on your report except your current address, social, d.o.b.

Think maybe we should start a bible on avoiding collections?

A bible on avoiding collectors, hopefully it won't require that many pages!

Have to say that this is not anything I do - I work with people who want to deal with the collections already on their credit. It may surprise some readers how many people WANT to pay their old collections.

Sometimes I can hardly keep people from sending payment in full - and we're talking about people with no other cash for emergencies.

And unfortunately, most of the collections I see are credit accounts, and medical and phone collections - they got the ss#.

The magazine subscription is good example where deleting the old address works well, what else?

While my motivation isn't hiding from collectors, I really irritates me when credit bureaus want my personal data such as driver's license and phone numbers.

It's none of their business!

Of course I aways knew WHY they wanted that data, and I don't think it's right for a credit bureau that's supposedly just REPORTING credit to assist debt collectors. I do KNOW that they have collection divisions, and anything you give them can and will be used against you.

CRAs should have to NOTIFY every consumer, just like DEBT COLLECTORS have to notify debtors in the collection letter -- "any information you provide will be used to collect debts."

It pisses me off every time I see a client's phone # on the credit report.

Now WHY didn't I think of that? Perfect, thank you!

So we'll see what happens with my My Small Claims complaint against TU - now in Civil Court

I thought I wasn't seeing right when I looked at this Experian letter.

They want the attorney to provide them with the addresses for the previous 5 years AND the SPOUSE's SSN and year of birth.

WTF??????

Can you imagine how much damage an attorney can do by providing all this information?

Attached Images

 

[QUOTE] Have to say this is nothing I do. I deal with people who already have collections on their credit. It would suprise some readers how many people want to pay their old collections.


That is very commendable. I am not advocatinng that people should not pay their bills however, with the exception of a few, until C/A s start doing something to actually help these people in exchange for them making payment in good faith, in addition to avoiding new entries, I am going to force the C/A to prove that they have complied with each and every provision of FDCPA and FCRA if they are going to continue to report the debt, even if the consumer pays in full today. As you probably know, in the majority of cases, they don't.


In a recent conversation with C/A

Big Beacon: You sent my client a letter that his credit will be improved if he pays this debt.

C/A: Thats is correct.

Big Beacon: So that means you will delete the account upon payment then?

C/A: No

Big Beacon: So how will my client's credit be improved?

C/A: We will note the account as paid.

Big Beacon: Are you telling me that if my client pays this account
that his credit score will increase since he has no other derogatories.

C/A: Yes

Big Beacon: are you willing to put this in writing?

C/A: No.



Sorry but I don't play these games. When challenged the c/a will often tell you of people that got mortgages after their collection was marked paid. SURE THEY DID. AT 9 TO 12 PERCENT! It would be cheaper for them to rent an apartment! Do the math!



C/A: It would damage our relationship with the CRA if we were to delete accounts just because they are paid.

Big Beacon: It is going to cause more damage to your relationship to the CRA when you are forced to delete the account since my client has sent you a request for copies of original documentation from the creditor via certified mail just to confirm that he is being billed correctly, and you respond with nothing but a undocumented printout from your computer.
Have a nice day!

Big Beacon, I wanted to comment regarding something you posted here:

"until C/A s start doing something to actually help these people in exchange for them making payment in good faith..."

My observation about your comment is this: If I borrow money from you, are you obligated to do something nice for me in order for me to pay you back? In other words, if I owe my dad money (and I'm 40 years old, LOL, but hey, it could happen, heh)... if I owe my dad money, can I simply consider the debt invalid if he treats me grumpily like he usually does? My feeling is quite different from yours. I believe that if I borrow money from you, I am obligated to repay you even if you act like a rude moron. Your behavior doesn't excuse my debt. (Unless, LOL, you actually do excuse the debt, heh, but I digress...) You seem to believe that debtors aren't obligated to repay debts unless the lender does something additional "to help these people" (to quote you). I would argue that the lender "helped these people" when the money was lended (lent?)...

Ok, before anybody starts hurling CA stones at me... NO, I'M NOT A DEBT COLLECTOR, LOL. In fact, if you follow my posts over on Creditnet where I've detailed my own credit repair exploits (lol) then you know that already, but I thought I'd say it here just in case the previous paragraph was read within a context that doesn't apply.

Doc

Quote:
My observation about your comment is this: If I borrow money from you, are you obligated to do something nice for me in order for me to pay you back? In other words, if I owe my dad money (and I'm 40 years old, LOL, but hey, it could happen, heh)... if I owe my dad money, can I simply consider the debt invalid if he treats me grumpily like he usually does?

O.k. lets keep the family out of it. Lets say your neighbor loaned you the money. If he wants to be grumpy fine. Pay him. That has nothing to do with it. But what if after you pay him, your neighbor tells everybody you know that you are a deadbeat and to never loan you a dime and if they do, charge triple interest so you can't afford reliable car, any kind of credit card, or a decent place to live. Would he be your first priority?

Understand Doc, I only do this for people that are current now and have been for a while but had problems in the past. I don't work for people that are running up charges with no intention of paying.

Tell me if this is fair. A single lady who is has never been late on a bill before gets laid off. She diligently looks for employment and and finds a comparable job within 60 days. Two months of little pay from temporary jobs however causes her to fall behind. It was all she could do to keep her car payment and credit card current. Her cell phone and a medical bill were sent to collections.
Now, 6 months from the time she was laid off she is caught up on everything but the c/a refuses to delete the 2 collections. Now as a result the interest on her credit card has been increased from 12.9 to 23.9 and she cannot switch banks because of the collections. She wants to purchase a home but the cheapest rate she can get is going on 10 points making her unable to afford the payments. Why should she be penalized for 7 years because she was laid off of her job? I just don't understand that concept. I have personally loaned money to people many times and as long as they pay me back in full, if they are a little late so what. I will have nothing bad to say about them. They made good on it.

Big Beacon, good points all. I liked your examples better than mine.

When it comes to credit-related matters, there is sometimes a presupposition that debts really don't need to be repaid, and I stand corrected that you aren't an example of that brand of thinking.

A first cousin to "I won't pay back the loan unless they do something for me first" is the idea that a credit card line of credit is really more akin to income than to borrowed money. I can't count the number of times I've seen people post (on another discussion board, that is) something like, "Yippeee! I just got a Target card, so it's time to go see what I can buy for $2000." It's as if the money belonged to the poster and it was time for a spending spree. Paying back the money for some of those people is really just a nuisance, viz.: "I wish that g-d Target would get off my back because I told them a million times I'd send the g-d payment, sheesh."

Doc

Trust me. I've seen that plenty of times. I tell those people that I can't help them and just give them some free advice on paying down the debt. You see, most of my work is on a contingency basis. I get paid after someone gets a mortgage 3 points lower or a credit card 12 points cheaper to transfer their balance to. Although I demand a pretty good price, my clients get an amortization chart of the money they are going to save with their new line of credit. (Has been known to be up to $500 per month on interest alone.) I get the check the day they get their new credit. So if they were to pay stuff late again, I would not be able to get paid anyway.


All I am doing is getting paid for helping good people and literally changing their lives in the process. It is a great feeling to hear the words "thanks for everything" when they hand me the check.


Merry Xmas BB

Psychdoc and Big Beacon, you both have really good points. But I tend to think that creditors need to be more willing to work with people who owe them. I do believe in paying off my debts, but I would like a little consideration if I do it. Example:
According to one creditor, I owe them several hundred dollars. I think their amount and the dates are way off, but I called them to try to work something out. They are not willing to take a dime less than what they say I owe. I said ok, fine, can you delete the account if I pay you? Absolutely not. So I got into a lengthy discussion with this rude person I was speaking with. I told him that the SOL was up, I didn't legally have to pay them, but I want to pay them. He actually made some remark like "whoop-de-do." I told him I'm trying to pay them, why won't he work with me? He told me that what I owe them is an insignificant amount of money to such a big corporation, and that he didn't give a damn if I paid him or not.
No, they weren't required to help me at all. It would have been nice, but not neccessary. But outright rudeness? Insulting me? I told them I wouldn't pay them, and I won't. I was willing to pay my debt to them, but after the treatment I got, my next call is to the FCC. (This was over a phone bill, so it is in the FCC's jurisdiction). I am also going to send several lengthy complaints to Pacific Bell, the OC.