     Carmela | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 04:33 am 
I had a State Tax Lien showing on my credit report. I paid the amount owed and the Representative told me that this public record would/could be removed from my credit report. He sent me a letter with a stamp on it indicating that it was paid, satisfied and ordered cancelled from record. Now, Equifax (the tax lien was in Georgia)and Experian is showing it as paid/released on my report. TransUnion deleted it from my report. I am planning on disputing the claim again. Am I misunderstanding the statement "ordered cancelled from record?" Doesn't that mean it doesn't exist at the courthouse any more? Please advise of how I should handle this? |
| kristy welsh - creditinfocenter.com | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 04:34 am
Carmela,
I would contact the representitive (send them a copy of your agreement) and tell them that Equifax is still showing this lien. Ask them respectfully remind them to honor the arrangement they made and ask them to make the request again if they haven't already made it.
I don't think you are misunderstanding the terminology. Keep pressing. |
| Anonymous | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 07:47 am
Remember if he agree to remove it there still be a record at the courthouse those files does not go away. |
| Lynn Whealer | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 08:45 am
When I checked into this a while back, I found that a tax lien can indeed be vacated entirely from the public record. This is most often done when a lien is mistakenly filed, through procedural error, clerical mistakes, wrong name or social security number, etc.. I don't know if cancellation is the same as vacting, but, for SURE, a RELEASE of lien will not remove the originally filed lien from the public record. It simply updates the lien as having been paid/satisfied.
Additionally, to my knowledge, courthouses, etc. do not report information directly to the CRA's (including deleting mistakes). Rather this info is gathered directly by the CRA's (rare) or, most often, by third party companies such as CB-Infotek and Information America (and many others). These companies then supply the CRA's. The point is this: The representative indicated that he would undertake the responsibility to directly have the CRA's remove this information. It is probably not normal procedure, so I do wonder about such a commitment. Also, even if he did actually do that, it must also be removed from the public record, or the next time one of these third parties updates the CRA, it could just re-appear.
There seems to be less commonality about how public records information wends its way onto a credit report than commercial information. |
| Anonymous | Monday, March 20, 2000 - 09:23 pm
The CRA'S get their info from courthouse data bases.Each state has a data base i am on line with each state to pull Tax Lien info the bureaus do not hire out side companys.
The fee is $250.00 Per month
Don't ask for the phone number i can not give it out. |
| Lynn Whealer | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 05:43 am
My information, gleaned from various net sources is that CRA's do indeed get public record info from 3rd party clearing houses (but I've seen nothing to indicate that such clearing houses are their EXCLUSIVE sources of public record info.). Equifax had a direct stake in CDB Infotek for that purpose (CDB-I has now been spun off and is part of Choicepoint), one of the more well known.
Anon, are you with a CRA?. I find it hard to believe that CRA's directly search 50 state databases instead of the more efficient information clearing houses. Any other info you can share would be appreciated. |
| Greg Fisher, creditscoring.com | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 06:09 am
Lynn:
These companies, themselves, appear to meet the definition of a CRA, and their reports, the definition of consumer reports-- making them subject to the FCRA.
What do you think?
Anonymous:
Why can't you give out the phone number?
Send me a self-distructing tape with the information. The secretary will disavow any knowledge of your action. |
| Lynn Whealer | Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 06:23 am
Greg -your contention that these firms are CRA's seems to be irrefutable.....but then, the sole reason for a lawyer's being is to refute the irrefutable, isn't it? ....our own Voightkampf, an exception, of course ;) By the way, he must be on vacation or sumpin' . |
