I would like to know the answer too. Anyone here know what is the right answer. I'll do some investigation and get back to you if I got an good answer. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably could assist you..

Thanks Doc,.

I wanted to talk to you about a post that I posted here a little while ago (you were on vacation I guess) about a 'nutcase' type of letter to OCs to try and get rid of 'included in bk' TLs deleted by the OC....

I'll try to dig up the link and post it here...

Well I'm happy to venture an answer to your question if I know the answer!.

Doc..

Here's the thread.

Thanks Doc!.

Oh, I'm glad you like my site. I don't want to post the link here because of all the 'housecleaning' that's been going on. I would be thrilled if you became a regular over there though...

That a darned good question you asked. Since I don't have the definitive answer, I'll quote your earlier message to save somebody (who may have a better answer) a mouseclick:.

I do have a few thoughts, though:.

1) Don't worry about the moral fiber people. Credit reporting agencies enjoy no special status under the law as protectors of your private information. In fact, the only laws relative to CRAs are those which protect consumers. (So, for example, the laws dictate the maximum amount of time a negative tradeline can appear, but they don't dictate the minimum time they MUST appear, etc.) For that reason, businesses that traffic in your personal information like credit bureaus garner little respect from MANY people of excellent moral fiber. :).

2) On a more down-to-earth, practical note people challenge "included in BK" tradelines every single day with both success and failure. Give it a shot..

3) The Nutcase Letter may well work for you, although it wasn't designed for that purpose. If the tradeline is especially "old and cold" (say, 4 or 5 years old at least), then you've got a better chance of success..

Finally, do yourself a favor and spend some time searching the board for BK-related postings. Almost all of them have to do with life after bankruptcy, and that includes cleaning up those credit reports. You'll see lots of examples of what to do and what not to do..

Good luck to you!.

Doc..

Thanks for the reply Doc..

Unfortunately, most of these accounts are 'fresh' out of BK so I may have to wait a while before going 'nuts' on them. I have already tried to dispute these off via the CRAs and while I have had some sucess with some of them, the rest are almost always regarded as frivolous disputes now..

I'm thinking that (after waiting until the accounts are over 1 year post bk) I will try using a modified nutcase letter to the OCs in the hope that they may delete the TL from all three CRAs with little fight because the cannot get anything out of me and just want me to go away. I don't know if this will work or not though..

Has anyone else tried asking the OCs to delete 'included in bk' TLs before?.

Should I try a Mr. Nice Guy approach first? Would doing so negate any 'nutcase' attempts later?.

We'll figure this out together, right gang!..

I'm proud to be a bankrupt loser too! Do you have your user name trademarked?.

Back to the subject. I was thinking about using a revised 'nutcase' on my OC's included in BK also. I haven't yet. What I am doing is kind of "under the radar". I sent a letter to all the OC's with TL's. Most still list the accounts as charge off's and not as "included in BK".

I knew they wouldn't answer. I followed a month later with a very blunt letter (still 'under the radar' not refering to any specific laws, etc.). This letter set a timeframe and a demand of legally binding proof or removal of the TL. When the green cards came back from the CRRR's, I send a very blunt letter to the CRA's and told them they had illegally verified these accounts which can not be verified and they had repeatedly refused to remove them. I told them the OC's had not provided proof, the TL's were in dispute but were not noted as such, etc.

Reaction: Sears sent me what amounted to a book containing copies of my statements to 1993. No signitures, no contract. EX sent me a form letter saying I needed to give a specific complaint (morons). No response from TU or EQ (they still have about 15 days). Discover caved. They sent a letter yesterday saying they were removing all their TL's..

Depending on how this works out, my next step may be an intent to sue letter. This will be aimed at scaring the hell out of them. I don't want to give them my strategy or tell them what violations I may have. I want them to assume the worst. Then, I suppose it will be time to go to court..

Don't know if you can use a word of this, or if it makes any sense to the old timers. I welcome your input Psychdoc and all others. For what it's worth.....

I love it!.

Would you mind emailing me a redacted copy of your letters?.

This is perfect, even if only one out of five folds that's better than nothing!!!.

:D.

No trademark yet on the name though ;-)..

I've got to forefit the computer to my wife in a few minutes, but when she gets done, I'll post some info or e-mail it to you..

My wife knows when I'm working on credit. I walk around the house mumbling 'I'm going to kick their A***!' LOL..

Me too! walking around reading and re-reading their latest letters in response to my reply to their rebuttal to my request... etc.....

E-mail me and I'll get some Doc files ready...