Question about Bank One

[tank36]

What is the name of your state? Nevada

Can someone help me about a question I have about Bank One? I had a credit card with First USA Bank, not Bank one, and I have disputed it on my credit report as not mine. Bank one has sent me 2 forms back. One is a Affiidavit of Fact-Farudulent Credit Application, the other is Affidavit of Acceptance of Liability. I am hesitant to send the one back of Fraudulent Credit Application because it is really mine, but I do not want to send one back accepting liability. What can happen if I send the one back and say it is fraudulent? Please advise on what to do about this.

 

[djohnson]

Your not going to get advice here to tell you how to do not pay a bill that you admit is yours. If you owe it, own up to it and make payment arrangments.

 

[JETX]

Actually, I have no reservations in answering the writers question:
"What can happen if I send the one back and say it is fraudulent? "
Can you say perjury??? Can you say 'fraud'?? Can you say "Hi" to Bubba when you get the opportunity to 'tuck you in' at night???
Cause that is where you will end up if you commit a CRIMINAL act by lying on the affidavit.

 

[Ladynred]

Your best course is to NOT answer either one !! Do not sign anything.
If you disputed this with the credit bureaus, its THEIR job to follow up on the investigation, you don't have to provide ANYTHING to anybody. The CRA's have 30 days to complete their investigation. If they can't verify, then they have to delete the tradeline.

 

[JETX]

Your best course is to NOT answer either one !! Do not sign anything.
If you disputed this with the credit bureaus, its THEIR job to follow up on the investigation, you don't have to provide ANYTHING to anybody. The CRA's have 30 days to complete their investigation. If they can't verify, then they have to delete the tradeline.

Ladynred, what the hell are you talking about??? Or more likely, I have to assume that someone has hijacked the 'normal' Ladynred's account!!

I know that you are often blinded by your hatred of debt collectors, and have previously expressed your 'position' about Bank One, but in this case the writer has disputed the debt as not his, when it is clearly in his name. The creditor is well within their rights to ask the 'fraud claiminant' to provide an affidavit affirming that the debt is not his. That is the ONLY way that they will even take action to remove the debt. And by your advising him to NOT return the appropriate affidavit, you are simply allowing them to continue pursuing the writer for the debt. Your 'advice' in this case does nothing.

 

[tank36]

I guess I will pull out of this forum. Yes, the debt is mine. Thank you Ladynred for helping me. You other 2 jerks, thanks for your great insight. I will post no longer on this website!

 

[JETX]

Don't you just love it when a writer has NO idea what to do, yet when they get an accurate response that they don't agree with, the writer becomes an 'expert'???
What an idiot.

Go ahead and follow Ladynreds (incorrect in this case) advice. Then, come back here in a few weeks when the creditor (Bank One or whoever), serves you with notice of their lawsuit!!

Or even better yet, files a criminal fraud complaint with your local police department!!!

 

[Ladynred]

Nothing wrong with me !!!
Disputing as 'not mine' may not have been the wisest thing to do when it IS his account, but its usually the first attempt when disputing with the credit bureaus. I never told him NOT to pay it, I never said he wouldn't have to, or that B1 wouldn't pursue him for it either.

He asked a credit repair question and my answer was right in THAT regard. When you dipute ANYTHING with the CRA's, YOU, the consumer, are NOT required to give them a damn thing. It is up to the CRA's to verify the information within 30 days. If they can't verify, then they HAVE to remove the tradeline from the report - period. So, in this circumstance he does NOT have to sign and return anything. If he doesn't sign and return the fraud affidavit, B1 will assume there is no fraud, they won't turn around and sue him. I have never heard of any case where a creditor did. He doesn't have to accept the liability either - he KNOWS its his and so do they if he doesn't sign the fraud affidavit. No signatures means he told no lies to Bank1. Bank1 will report back to the CRA that the tradeline is valid and the CRA will send him a letter saying 'verified' or 'listing remains'.

So, what's the big fat hairy deal ?? If its valid, whether the tradeline is removed from his reports or not, B1 is going to continue to pursue him for the debt ANYWAY ! Disputing as 'not mine' is not something I agree with myself and I think its stupid when you KNOW it IS yours, but that is the advice he got and what he did. Until the SOL runs out for reporting, it'll hang onto his reports. Until the SOL runs out for legal action in his state, they'll come after him for the money.

I just don't see what all the fuss is about. In this case, he's damned if he does sign the affidavits and liability form (he's ALREADY liable) and thereby lying on the affidavit, and he's damned if he doesn't (no lies, he's already liable, tradeline remains). Either way, he'll still owe the money, B1 will still try to collect, and the tradeline will remain until it must drop off.

Geezzzz.... who whizzed in your cornflakes ???

 

[JETX]

He asked a credit repair question

*** No he didn't. He said that he "disputed it on my credit report as not mine." when it he later admitted that the debt WAS his!! In reading his post, the ONLY question he asked is: "What can happen if I send the one back and say it is fraudulent?"

Your answer had NOTHING to do with the question.... or subject. This is simply a matter of should he file a KNOWN fraudulent Affidavit (claming fraud), when it wasn't.

When you dipute ANYTHING with the CRA's, YOU, the consumer, are NOT required to give them a damn thing.

Sorry, but wrong there also. This is directly from the FTC website, under the FCRA:
"First, tell the CRA in writing what information you believe is inaccurate. Include copies (NOT originals) of documents that support your position. In addition to providing your complete name and address, your letter should clearly identify each item in your report you dispute, state the facts and explain why you dispute the information, and request deletion or correction."
Source: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/crdtdis.htm

It is up to the CRA's to verify the information within 30 days. If they can't verify, then they HAVE to remove the tradeline from the report - period.

Kind of incorrect. This is from the same site referenced above:
"CRAs must reinvestigate the items in question--usually within 30 days--unless they consider your dispute frivolous. They also must forward all relevant data you provide about the dispute to the information provider. After the information provider receives notice of a dispute from the CRA, it must investigate, review all relevant information provided by the CRA, and report the results to the CRA. If the information provider finds the disputed information to be inaccurate, it must notify all nationwide CRAs so they can correct this information in your file. Disputed information that cannot be verified must be deleted from your file."

So, in this circumstance he does NOT have to sign and return anything.

Read his post. This does NOT involve a CRA. This is a simple fraud investigation by the CREDITOR!!

If he doesn't sign and return the fraud affidavit, B1 will assume there is no fraud, they won't turn around and sue him.

*** HUH??? I agree with the first part, in that Bank One will refuse his 'fraud claim' without an affidavit, but they can certainly then file a lawsuit to try to recover the debt. Are you saying that Bank One can't sue him on the debt?? If so, under what theory??

[quoteI have never heard of any case where a creditor did.[/quote]
*** Never did 'what'??? Sue to collect a debt?? Come on.... you can't really be saying that, can you???

He doesn't have to accept the liability either - he KNOWS its his and so do they if he doesn't sign the fraud affidavit. No signatures means he told no lies to Bank1. Bank1 will report back to the CRA that the tradeline is valid and the CRA will send him a letter saying 'verified' or 'listing remains'.

LIR, you are confusing the hell out of me. What the heck do you mean that the writer "doesn't have to accept liabilty either'??? Liability for what??? For the debt?? Of course he does.

So, what's the big fat hairy deal ??

The "big fat hairy deal" is that you are simply incorrect. You seem somehow to have interpreted that this post has something to do with a CRA when it doesn't.

I have simply chosen to not respond to the rest of your post, since it is becoming more obvious that you somehow think a CRA is involved.... when it isnt'.

 

[Ladynred]

I think there's more than one bit of confusion here.

It DOES involve a CRA, ultimately, because he started this whole mess WITH A DISUPTE to the CRA ! Bank 1 is following thru because he claimed 'not mine' - hence the fraud and liability affidavits he got from B1 when the CRA contacted them - as they are supposed to.

"First, tell the CRA in writing what information you believe is inaccurate. Include copies (NOT originals) of documents that support your position.

First of all, as I already stated, a 2-word dispute of 'not mine' is pretty damn weak, even moreso when it really IS a fraud - and I don't agree with it. Clearly its tactics and it works pretty damn well for a lot of people. The LAW says the CRA has to investigate, nowhere does it bind the consumer to keep feeding the CRA information. Obviously, in some circumstances, like REAL fraud, you would want to.

"CRAs must reinvestigate the items in question--usually within 30 days

- right, they CAN use an additional 15 days to complete their investigations, but the can't drag it out any further than that. Per the FCRA:

(1) Reinvestigation required.

(A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

(B) Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation.

they can certainly then file a lawsuit to try to recover the debt. Are you saying that Bank One can't sue him on the debt?? If so, under what theory??

Now who's confused ?? I NEVER said B1 couldn't sue him for the debt !! You have misconstrued my statement. I was referring to the fraud affidavit, they wouldn't sue him over that !!!!

*** Never did 'what'??? Sue to collect a debt?? Come on.... you can't really be saying that, can you???

Read above - NO I didn't say that.

What the heck do you mean that the writer "doesn't have to accept liabilty either'??? Liability for what??? For the debt?? Of course he does.

Yep, you're obviously confused - you read my post with a single mindset. Why does he have to sign the acceptance of liability ? HE'S ALREADY LIABLE FOR IT !! Its his debt, he admits it, B1 knows it, so why sign their form ? If it WAS a fraud, there is NO WAY anyone should sign such a form.

His whole problem stemmed from a dispute with a CRA - so why don't you 'get it' ?? Its pretty clear to me he's trying to repair his credit by disputing things he wants OFF. Whether you like it or not JetX, disputing as 'not mine', even for legit accounts, gets a LOT of deletions. Is it really ethical when its yours ? Probably not, but its NOT illegal and its only part of a method of credit repair.

 

[JETX]

Thank you. You made EVERY point that I made.

1) "It DOES involve a CRA, ultimately, because he started this whole mess WITH A DISUPTE to the CRA ! Bank 1 is following thru because he claimed 'not mine' - hence the fraud and liability affidavits he got from B1 when the CRA contacted them"
*** Actually, we don't KNOW that and it is contradicted by the facts. First, the writers ONLY mention of anything that could lead you to assume a CRA is involved is: "I have disputed it on my credit report as not mine."
Yet, the fact is, the writer is (very likely, in my assumption) mis-stating the facts. The CRA dispute would NOT create a situation where the creditor would forward a fraud affidavit. The creditor would simply confirm the debt and the CRA would leave it. It is far more likely that the writer errred in saying the CRA when he really meant the creditor..... as THAT would create a fraud affidavit situation.

2) Your post CLEARLY stated (pretty emphatically) that "It is up to the CRA's to verify the information within 30 days. If they can't verify, then they HAVE to remove the tradeline from the report - period." You also said, "The CRA's have 30 days to complete their investigation. If they can't verify, then they have to delete the tradeline."
*** In fact, you know agree that the 30 day clock is NOT chiseled in stone.... but is more of a SHOULD, then a MUST.

3) "Now who's confused ?? I NEVER said B1 couldn't sue him for the debt !! You have misconstrued my statement. I was referring to the fraud affidavit, they wouldn't sue him over that !!!!"
*** Your post was not clear on WHAT you meant!! In fact, your post clearly IMPLIES (at least to me) that you meant the debt. (This might be due to the fact that I realize fraud is a criminal matter, not civil, making the creditor not able to SUE over it anyway!!) Here is what you said, "If he doesn't sign and return the fraud affidavit, B1 will assume there is no fraud, they won't turn around and sue him.". It is NOT clear that you were referring to the fraud.

4) "Yep, you're obviously confused - you read my post with a single mindset."
*** Nope. I read your post already KNOWING that a creditor can't sue for fraud. And that made your post VERY CLEAR that you were referring to the debt. The fact that YOU didn't know that, or wasn't clear is obvious.

"Why does he have to sign the acceptance of liability ? HE'S ALREADY LIABLE FOR IT !! Its his debt, he admits it, B1 knows it, so why sign their form ? If it WAS a fraud, there is NO WAY anyone should sign such a form."
*** Agreed. My post and position all along is for the writer to NOT sign the 'Affidavit of Fraud' as that could create a criminal situation.... as I noted.

"His whole problem stemmed from a dispute with a CRA - so why don't you 'get it' ??"
*** Because I believe your ASSSUMPTION is incorrect as noted above.

"Its pretty clear to me he's trying to repair his credit by disputing things he wants OFF."
*** Another assumption. I think it is far more likely that he was contacted by the creditor (debt purchased by Bank One) and he said "not his". They in turn sent him the appropriate paperwork to report the fraud. As noted above, the fraud process doesn't (normally) occur on a dispute to a CRA!!

Anyway, to close this, it is clear that one of us is somewhat confused.... and I have 20-20 vision!!

 

[MrKee]

The CRA dispute would NOT create a situation where the creditor would forward a fraud affidavit. The creditor would simply confirm the debt and the CRA would leave it. It is far more likely that the writer errred in saying the CRA when he really meant the creditor..... as THAT would create a fraud affidavit situation.

JetX,

If you really believe that statement, then you are truly out of touch with the latest strategies of OCs and CAs. Many, many posters on several credit repair boards have reported that numerous original creditors are mailing similar fraud affidavits when the consumer disputes an account as 'not mine' with a consumer reporting agency. It seems to be a trend as of late.

Assuming that the original poster has no idea about the facts of 'their' post is a dangerous practice.

But, with your rosy 20/20 vision, I am sure you are right....again!

MrKee

 

[JETX]

Gee, I was wondering when you would come out of the woodwork again.

And I see that you are still mis-stating the facts!

Let me make it clear so that you can understand.....
In my experience (and that is a hell of a lot more than you), it would be unusual for a creditor to send a debtor a 'fraud affidavit' simply on a debtors request to a CRA. In fact, I have never heard of that happening. That doesn't mean that it did or didn't in this case, since we have heard nothing since from the only person that knows (that being the writer).

In any case, it really is NOT RELEVANT whether the CRA was involved or not!! The ONLY issue at hand is..... should the writer submit a KNOWN FRAUDULENT affidavit to the creditor??? Here is the ONLY question that the writer asked "What can happen if I send the one back and say it is fraudulent?"

All the other crap about CRA's and who contacted who and who said what is purely that..... non-relevant CRAP!!

 

[Ladynred]

You beat me to the punch on that one MrKee, that is exactly what my point was going to be. The 'affidavit of fraud' has become quite common as a response from 'not mine' disputes with CRA's. It doesn't take much reading on Creditboards to see this happening over and over.

Nope. I read your post already KNOWING that a creditor can't sue for fraud. And that made your post VERY CLEAR that you were referring to the debt. The fact that YOU didn't know that, or wasn't clear is obvious.

Now this is bordering on the ridiculous. Maybe YOU know (and I DO know ) that the creditor can't sue for fraud, but most people coming here asking questions usually do NOT know. My answer, after all, was not directed at YOU !

*** Because I believe your ASSSUMPTION is incorrect as noted above.

Well, you seem to operate in a world where there is only black and white, only yes or no answers. You made and assumption about MY response based on your lack of information on how these types of disputes are commonly being handled.

*** Another assumption. I think it is far more likely that he was contacted by the creditor (debt purchased by Bank One) and he said "not his". They in turn sent him the appropriate paperwork to report the fraud. As noted above, the fraud process doesn't (normally) occur on a dispute to a CRA!!

You made assumptions of your own here, IMO.

Actually, my eyesight is hampered by presbyopia, but it has NO effect on my responses !

That's it for me - this pissing contest is over !

 

[JETX]

And my response to this entire CRA issue???

As already posted earlier:
"In any case, it really is NOT RELEVANT whether the CRA was involved or not!! The ONLY issue at hand is..... should the writer submit a KNOWN FRAUDULENT affidavit to the creditor??? Here is the ONLY question that the writer asked "What can happen if I send the one back and say it is fraudulent?"

All the other crap about CRA's and who contacted who and who said what is purely that..... non-relevant CRAP!!"