Author Topic: Comments on Public Records Section  (Read 956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

foolsmission

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1058
Comments on Public Records Section
« on: February 08, 2006 04:31:26 AM »
Pulled friend's Equifax.com  3-1.
Equifax is reporting "Tax Lien" $4k in a distant county.

Had atty friend access Nexis-Lexis Liens datatbase (or whatever it is called)

They have same docket number as Equifax and show all her correct info.

ONLY PROBLEM is she does not have any connection to that distant county.

Called the Superior court of said county.

"Mam you are not in our system period", not by name, property address, Social Security number ect.

The docket number goes to another case not in her name.

She has ordered a certified copy of the case.

Plan to dispute with Equifax, who will of course say that the court provided the info and that it is correct.

Going to send certified copies of the alleged judgment, with matching Docket number which will prove that our good friends Nexis-Lexis and their freelance stringers have yet again up.

Any wording suggestions to avoid a three month pissing match?








Pale Rider

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 524
  • Posts: 536
Re: Comments on Public Records Section
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2006 05:48:31 AM »
I would send the court documents with the initial dispute if there is a time factor.  They are required to consider documetation submitted by consumer (although they never do).  If they verify, call with tape rolling, then file suit if they don't budge.  2 chances to correct with proof from the court should be plenty to do them in.

foolsmission

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1058
Re: Comments on Public Records Section
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2006 07:25:48 AM »
I'd like her to avoid them doing their usual failure to consider documents routine.

How about "I DISPUTE SEE ENCLOSED". With "enclosed" being the certified copies of the Court Docket showing incorrect party has been identified.

Would that perhaps prevent their scanner from using OCR and so-called artificial intelligence programs to infer a "not mine"?

I mean this is 100% wrong TL.

DR Evil? If you help on this one you won't feel dirty or shameful.

And yes Pale time is of the essense.  I'm wondering if the lender would actually ramrod through a payment which the court insists is not due and owing by this party.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2006 07:27:30 AM by foolsmission »

Pale Rider

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 524
  • Posts: 536
Re: Comments on Public Records Section
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2006 02:02:30 PM »
If it is for a mortgage, a rapid rescore may take care of it.  I wish I knew more about how that process works, but I know it was intended for this type situation.

Dispute first with the CRA, then check with the lender to see if they can help.  If it still doesn't come off, the lender will probably still make the loan based on the court documents clearing their name.  The higher interest will be the damages, then they can refi later.   

foolsmission

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1058
Re: Comments on Public Records Section
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2006 05:47:13 PM »
Ok.
So anybody have a good FCRA atty in Nashville for my friend?

I'll PM LadynRed  on the freeadvice board, she is there and no doubt must know of one.

Thanks again!

« Last Edit: February 08, 2006 08:17:15 PM by foolsmission »

 

credit