While reading FoxBusiness.com recently, I came across an identity theft article by Erica Sandberg. It had a catchy title, 'Help, My Mom Stole My Identity'.
Unfortunately, the content under the promising headline was useless drivel, consisting of credit bureau and credit card industry talking points.
The article was a Q and A format from Erica Sandberg's 'Opening Credits' column also published on a spammy credit card offers website called CreditCards.com.
A reader, Tina, asked Erica this question:
"Dear Opening Credits,
I'm 19 and about to go to college and have been trying to educate myself about getting good credit. So I pulled my free credit reports and found out I already have miserable credit. I spoke to my mom, and she got all squirrely. I called my dad -- they're recently divorced -- and he basically said mom had opened the accounts after the divorce when things were tough financially. So, great, my mom stole my identity. Obviously, I don't want to call the cops on her, but what do I do? Any help would be appreciated. --Tina
OK, an answer to such a question should make a great article hey? It was a terrific opportunity to offer Tina (and the readers) some very useful advice on an important topic, identity theft/credit repair.
Erica Sandberg whiffed. She gave no helpful advice plus the 'advice' she did give was wrong. So, in this article, I will repair the damage done by Erica Sandberg and answer Tina's question correctly.
Along the way I will expose Erica Sandberg as just another false consumer advocate/reporter who shills for the credit bureaus, credit card companies and collection agencies. I will reveal how and why Erica Sandberg actually hurts consumers who are victims of an unjust, unfair and incompetent credit reporting system.
Erica begins her response to Tina by offering solace:
"I really hate to hear a story like this. It breaks my heart. Sadly, I've heard it many times before, so if company gives you some solace, please take it."
She goes on to say that, although it is a crime, perhaps Tina's Mom "...wasn't thinking right at the time." Then, if Tina's Mom can't pay the outstanding debt, incredibly, Sandberg tells her to get her dad (who is divorced from mom) to pay the bills!
Let me explain why this is very bad advice. Contrary to Erica Sandberg's recommended first step of paying the bills, my first step would be to get the erroneous bad credit off Tina's credit reports. Not one penny of the charged off debts has to be paid to accomplish this.
Why? Because the bad credit debt information on Tina's credit reports does not belong to her- it is not her information. Tina should immediately dispute all the misleading, erroneous credit information, caused by her mother's actions, with the three major credit reporting agencies, Experian, Equifax and Trans Union.
A disputed item on a credit report must be researched and completely verified as accurate by the credit bureau within a reasonable period of time, usually 30 days. If the disputed item cannot be completely verified, then it must by law, be immediately deleted.
We know that none of these bad credit marks belong to Tina, so, if the credit bureaus actually do their job, all the misleading negative bad credit should be deleted from her credit reports in a reasonably short time, right? Well, the truth is credit bureaus and creditors do a terrible job verifying consumer disputes. Learn more about the credit bureaus' shoddy verification techniques in this article, Credit Repair Disputes.
Some of the mistakes will be removed from Tina's credit reports but the ones that come back as verified will need additional credit repair work and persistence, consisting of repeated truthful disputes with the credit bureaus and creditors along with a commitment to be willing to sue an obdurate credit bureau in smalls claims court.
I'm sensitive to Tina's desire not to implicate her mom in a crime but the good news is Tina can have her good credit standing again without giving all the background information about what occurred. You see, Tina is not required to do the credit bureau's work for them. The credit reporting agencies and their shills like Erica Sandberg will never tell Tina this but if the bureaus and creditors cannot prove the disputed bad credit items belong to Tina (and we know it's impossible for them to do so because the information doesn't belong to her), the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires they be permanently deleted.
This is what disturbs me about Erica Sandberg's advice. She wants her readers to take for granted that because all the errors on Tina's reports were caused by another using her identity, somehow the major credit bureaus bear no responsibility for publishing these erroneous and misleading credit reports.
Erica does not even address the credit bureaus' culpability in allowing this mess to occur in the first place. I'm not excusing Tina's mom in any way but I am pointing out that Erica's silence on the credit bureaus' failed, fractured system should be a red flag to readers that Erica is part of the credit bureau cabal and not a true consumer advocate.
Erica's column and reports appear in publications and websites that derive advertising revenue from the major credit reporting agencies and major creditors. Sites like the Wall Street Journal, Redbook, Bank Investment Consultant, MSNMoney, SmartMoney and others. These are respected outlets but they rarely, if ever publish exposes on the inept and inaccurate credit reporting system.
Erica Sandberg's background reveals a stint working for Consumer Credit Counseling Services of San Francisco. Contrary to what many consumers believe, CCCS offers zero credit repair advice. Plus these outfits are in bed with major creditors and credit reporting agencies.
They derive their income from set up fees, monthly fees and large 'kickbacks' from the very creditors they purport to negotiate with on a consumer's behalf! They often criticize credit repair companies but the fact is Consumer Credit Counseling Services charge outrageous fees to consumers amounting to several thousands of dollars.
They, like Erica Sandberg, are part of the creditor/banking industry/credit bureau cabal. There is so much money to be made in this corrupt circle (advertising revenue, credit report income, creditor 'kickbacks', high interest rates, etc.), that consumers will never be told the truth about credit reporting, credit repair or identity theft from a 'consumer watchdog', organization, principal or employee associated with the corrupt, fractured credit reporting system.
For more information on how 'consumer advocates' and even our own Government have failed consumers by allowing a dishonest credit reporting system (that any criminal syndicate would be proud of) to run roughshod over innocent consumers like Tina see this article about 'Zero Day Threat'.
Mom, of course, must step up and face the music. It's the morally correct thing to do plus all avenues of resolution have the potential to lead to her anyway. I'm assuming all the accounts have gone to charge off/collection and can no longer be misused. If not, Tina must make sure that all the accounts are closed to avoid further damage.
Although mom should resolve any debts she ran up under her daughter's name, her situation poses an interesting problem. Tina has the right to a clean credit report without paying a dime of the bad debt while mom has none of this bad credit on her credit report but should do the right thing and pay what she charged.
The thing is, our credit reporting system is so flawed, so fractured that mom's payments could trigger more erroneous bad credit data to appear on daughter Tina's credit reports. It's a hornets nest for sure. A flawed credit reporting system coupled with fraudulent charges like mom's make for a very painful situation for Tina.
Erica offers no help when she writes:
"If the debt has migrated over to a collection agency, however, talking won't do a lot of good. Collectors typically don't accept installment payments, so once you have the cash -- from your mom or dad, hopefully -- pay the cards off in full. As time passes, the delinquencies and charge-offs will have less and less impact on your credit history and score. After seven years, all evidence of the problem will come off your report."
This is appallingly bad advice about dealing with a collection agency. Here's what Erica Sandberg should have told Tina.
If Tina has been harassed by a collection agency she will be encouraged to learn that a collection agency has no power, no ability to collect a debt if Tina tells them not to. I assure you this is 100% true. It's called the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Tina should send a dispute verification and cease and desist request to the collection agency. It should be mailed 'return receipt requested' so Tina has proof the collector received it.
It could be a simple request for the collection agency to never contact Tina again and this would work fine BUT an even better way to handle this would to include the following in her letter:
Your Name
Your Address
Collector's Name
Collector's Address
Date
Re: account number_____________
Dear Sir:
This is to inform you that I dispute the validity of this alleged debt.
As per the FDCPA, I demand that you cease all contact with me at home,
work or anywhere with the exception of sending me the following information
in a timely manner as outlined in the FDCPA.
The original application, with my signature, showing that I applied for this account.
The entire history of this account, including when charges where made,
when payments were due and when payments were made.
The contract between you and the original creditor that gives you
the authorization to collect this alleged debt.
All pertinent documents proving you are registered and bonded with the state
of ____________ to collect debts as a collection agency.
As per federal law you are prohibited from continuing any collection activities on
this account including reporting any information about this account on any of my
credit reports while the validity of this alleged debt is in dispute.
Sincerely,
Your Signature
Your Name
This letter accomplishes many things. All phone calls and dunning letters will immediately stop. If the collection agency cannot produce the original application, Tina does not have to pay. If they can't provide the complete account history, Tina doesn't have to pay. If they don't have a contract with the original creditor giving them authorization to collect the debt, they have no legal right to collect it. If they are not bonded and registered as a collection agency in Tina's state, they cannot do squat.
Plus, all negative data about the accounts in question must be immediately deleted from all credit reports until all requirements of the dispute verification letters have been met.
In over 23 years helping consumers deal with these issues, I have never seen a collection agency or collection lawyer fulfill all the requirements in the above letter. Collection agencies are all bark and no bite. They are completely powerless to collect a debt from a consumer who exercises his rights under state and federal law.
With the collection agency out of the way, consumers have the absolute right to resolve the issue with the original creditor. In Tina's case, she doesn't have to pay the creditor either because she never made the charges.
Here's where Erica Sandberg hurts consumers though. She correctly chastised mom for her illegal behavior but neglected to criticize the much more egregious conduct of the three major credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union, for creating and profiting from a credit reporting system that makes identity theft so easy for criminals and so painful and frustrating for innocent consumers like Tina.
Unfortunately, the content under the promising headline was useless drivel, consisting of credit bureau and credit card industry talking points.
The article was a Q and A format from Erica Sandberg's 'Opening Credits' column also published on a spammy credit card offers website called CreditCards.com.
A reader, Tina, asked Erica this question:
"Dear Opening Credits,
I'm 19 and about to go to college and have been trying to educate myself about getting good credit. So I pulled my free credit reports and found out I already have miserable credit. I spoke to my mom, and she got all squirrely. I called my dad -- they're recently divorced -- and he basically said mom had opened the accounts after the divorce when things were tough financially. So, great, my mom stole my identity. Obviously, I don't want to call the cops on her, but what do I do? Any help would be appreciated. --Tina
OK, an answer to such a question should make a great article hey? It was a terrific opportunity to offer Tina (and the readers) some very useful advice on an important topic, identity theft/credit repair.
Erica Sandberg whiffed. She gave no helpful advice plus the 'advice' she did give was wrong. So, in this article, I will repair the damage done by Erica Sandberg and answer Tina's question correctly.
Along the way I will expose Erica Sandberg as just another false consumer advocate/reporter who shills for the credit bureaus, credit card companies and collection agencies. I will reveal how and why Erica Sandberg actually hurts consumers who are victims of an unjust, unfair and incompetent credit reporting system.
Erica begins her response to Tina by offering solace:
"I really hate to hear a story like this. It breaks my heart. Sadly, I've heard it many times before, so if company gives you some solace, please take it."
She goes on to say that, although it is a crime, perhaps Tina's Mom "...wasn't thinking right at the time." Then, if Tina's Mom can't pay the outstanding debt, incredibly, Sandberg tells her to get her dad (who is divorced from mom) to pay the bills!
Let me explain why this is very bad advice. Contrary to Erica Sandberg's recommended first step of paying the bills, my first step would be to get the erroneous bad credit off Tina's credit reports. Not one penny of the charged off debts has to be paid to accomplish this.
Why? Because the bad credit debt information on Tina's credit reports does not belong to her- it is not her information. Tina should immediately dispute all the misleading, erroneous credit information, caused by her mother's actions, with the three major credit reporting agencies, Experian, Equifax and Trans Union.
A disputed item on a credit report must be researched and completely verified as accurate by the credit bureau within a reasonable period of time, usually 30 days. If the disputed item cannot be completely verified, then it must by law, be immediately deleted.
We know that none of these bad credit marks belong to Tina, so, if the credit bureaus actually do their job, all the misleading negative bad credit should be deleted from her credit reports in a reasonably short time, right? Well, the truth is credit bureaus and creditors do a terrible job verifying consumer disputes. Learn more about the credit bureaus' shoddy verification techniques in this article, Credit Repair Disputes.
Some of the mistakes will be removed from Tina's credit reports but the ones that come back as verified will need additional credit repair work and persistence, consisting of repeated truthful disputes with the credit bureaus and creditors along with a commitment to be willing to sue an obdurate credit bureau in smalls claims court.
I'm sensitive to Tina's desire not to implicate her mom in a crime but the good news is Tina can have her good credit standing again without giving all the background information about what occurred. You see, Tina is not required to do the credit bureau's work for them. The credit reporting agencies and their shills like Erica Sandberg will never tell Tina this but if the bureaus and creditors cannot prove the disputed bad credit items belong to Tina (and we know it's impossible for them to do so because the information doesn't belong to her), the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires they be permanently deleted.
This is what disturbs me about Erica Sandberg's advice. She wants her readers to take for granted that because all the errors on Tina's reports were caused by another using her identity, somehow the major credit bureaus bear no responsibility for publishing these erroneous and misleading credit reports.
Erica does not even address the credit bureaus' culpability in allowing this mess to occur in the first place. I'm not excusing Tina's mom in any way but I am pointing out that Erica's silence on the credit bureaus' failed, fractured system should be a red flag to readers that Erica is part of the credit bureau cabal and not a true consumer advocate.
Erica's column and reports appear in publications and websites that derive advertising revenue from the major credit reporting agencies and major creditors. Sites like the Wall Street Journal, Redbook, Bank Investment Consultant, MSNMoney, SmartMoney and others. These are respected outlets but they rarely, if ever publish exposes on the inept and inaccurate credit reporting system.
Erica Sandberg's background reveals a stint working for Consumer Credit Counseling Services of San Francisco. Contrary to what many consumers believe, CCCS offers zero credit repair advice. Plus these outfits are in bed with major creditors and credit reporting agencies.
They derive their income from set up fees, monthly fees and large 'kickbacks' from the very creditors they purport to negotiate with on a consumer's behalf! They often criticize credit repair companies but the fact is Consumer Credit Counseling Services charge outrageous fees to consumers amounting to several thousands of dollars.
They, like Erica Sandberg, are part of the creditor/banking industry/credit bureau cabal. There is so much money to be made in this corrupt circle (advertising revenue, credit report income, creditor 'kickbacks', high interest rates, etc.), that consumers will never be told the truth about credit reporting, credit repair or identity theft from a 'consumer watchdog', organization, principal or employee associated with the corrupt, fractured credit reporting system.
For more information on how 'consumer advocates' and even our own Government have failed consumers by allowing a dishonest credit reporting system (that any criminal syndicate would be proud of) to run roughshod over innocent consumers like Tina see this article about 'Zero Day Threat'.
Mom, of course, must step up and face the music. It's the morally correct thing to do plus all avenues of resolution have the potential to lead to her anyway. I'm assuming all the accounts have gone to charge off/collection and can no longer be misused. If not, Tina must make sure that all the accounts are closed to avoid further damage.
Although mom should resolve any debts she ran up under her daughter's name, her situation poses an interesting problem. Tina has the right to a clean credit report without paying a dime of the bad debt while mom has none of this bad credit on her credit report but should do the right thing and pay what she charged.
The thing is, our credit reporting system is so flawed, so fractured that mom's payments could trigger more erroneous bad credit data to appear on daughter Tina's credit reports. It's a hornets nest for sure. A flawed credit reporting system coupled with fraudulent charges like mom's make for a very painful situation for Tina.
Erica offers no help when she writes:
"If the debt has migrated over to a collection agency, however, talking won't do a lot of good. Collectors typically don't accept installment payments, so once you have the cash -- from your mom or dad, hopefully -- pay the cards off in full. As time passes, the delinquencies and charge-offs will have less and less impact on your credit history and score. After seven years, all evidence of the problem will come off your report."
This is appallingly bad advice about dealing with a collection agency. Here's what Erica Sandberg should have told Tina.
If Tina has been harassed by a collection agency she will be encouraged to learn that a collection agency has no power, no ability to collect a debt if Tina tells them not to. I assure you this is 100% true. It's called the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Tina should send a dispute verification and cease and desist request to the collection agency. It should be mailed 'return receipt requested' so Tina has proof the collector received it.
It could be a simple request for the collection agency to never contact Tina again and this would work fine BUT an even better way to handle this would to include the following in her letter:
Your Name
Your Address
Collector's Name
Collector's Address
Date
Re: account number_____________
Dear Sir:
This is to inform you that I dispute the validity of this alleged debt.
As per the FDCPA, I demand that you cease all contact with me at home,
work or anywhere with the exception of sending me the following information
in a timely manner as outlined in the FDCPA.
The original application, with my signature, showing that I applied for this account.
The entire history of this account, including when charges where made,
when payments were due and when payments were made.
The contract between you and the original creditor that gives you
the authorization to collect this alleged debt.
All pertinent documents proving you are registered and bonded with the state
of ____________ to collect debts as a collection agency.
As per federal law you are prohibited from continuing any collection activities on
this account including reporting any information about this account on any of my
credit reports while the validity of this alleged debt is in dispute.
Sincerely,
Your Signature
Your Name
This letter accomplishes many things. All phone calls and dunning letters will immediately stop. If the collection agency cannot produce the original application, Tina does not have to pay. If they can't provide the complete account history, Tina doesn't have to pay. If they don't have a contract with the original creditor giving them authorization to collect the debt, they have no legal right to collect it. If they are not bonded and registered as a collection agency in Tina's state, they cannot do squat.
Plus, all negative data about the accounts in question must be immediately deleted from all credit reports until all requirements of the dispute verification letters have been met.
In over 23 years helping consumers deal with these issues, I have never seen a collection agency or collection lawyer fulfill all the requirements in the above letter. Collection agencies are all bark and no bite. They are completely powerless to collect a debt from a consumer who exercises his rights under state and federal law.
With the collection agency out of the way, consumers have the absolute right to resolve the issue with the original creditor. In Tina's case, she doesn't have to pay the creditor either because she never made the charges.
Here's where Erica Sandberg hurts consumers though. She correctly chastised mom for her illegal behavior but neglected to criticize the much more egregious conduct of the three major credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union, for creating and profiting from a credit reporting system that makes identity theft so easy for criminals and so painful and frustrating for innocent consumers like Tina.

















