Exactly, and timeliness of executing the process must be emphasized. The intent of a "1-2 Punch" (DV/Dispute combo) is to "draw the foul" as we would say in basketball.
Well, these last few posts seem packed with the most convoluted methods for removing derogs I have ever seen posted on a credit repair site, and that is saying something Depending on the furnisher, and whether old personal information is left on the consumer credit reports to help the CRA internally verify the TL before the dispute, some 40-60% of the simple CRA disputes will result in a deletion of said TL. So if the chances of getting a deletion are truly 40-60% with a simple dispute to the CRA, why on earth bother with all these complex methods? Use those if the first dispute does not get a deletion, but don't use the vastly more complex methods on the first pass! Keep it simple, stupid (KISS).
I don't see how you construe a proven process which leverages legal rights and procedures to the upmost of strategic effectiveness as "convoluted". If you review this, and other forums, I think you will find this method recommended as a highly effective part of the process. What is the source for this data of 40%-60% deletion rate for "simple CRA disputes"? I also do not feel that a simple DV letter, coupled with a dispute is a "complex method". The approach simply covers all the aspects, sets the foundation in case of verification of dispute, and preserves future dispute validity. An initial dispute of "incorrect and please delete" could possibly lessen the chances for a reinvestigation for a claim of "Not Mine" (which may be the case here). There is significant testimony on these forums to posters having "hurt themselves" by firing off a dispute too quickly, and not leaving options for the future open. I am an advocate of "keeping it simple", but often the little extra work upfront pays the greatest dividends in the end.
Thank you for your thurough response I'm pretty new at this and I don't know what the achronyms mean. What's?: DV, DF, FDCP, FACTA? thanks again. lots of achronyms that I don't understand on this site - but very helpful nonetheless. i appreciate your advice. Ben
Clarification... Thanks Bella, when you say "delete old addresses....dispute with CRA's" do you mean dispute the tradeline with the CRA's or dispute my old addresses? Excuse my naivete - i'm new to this. Thanks, Ben
"DV" = Debt Validation (Request): the sending of a written request to a collection agency to "validate" (prove) debt is yours and accurate. "DF" = Data Furnisher: the party that actually reports information on your credit report to the Credit Reporting Agencies. "FDCPA" = Fair Debt Collection Practices Act": This is the set of laws that regulate how debt collection must be conducted, and specifically outline what they cannot do, and what is illegal. See the Federal Trade Commission website for full act. "FACTA" = Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act: relatively new, outlines practices to ensure credit transactions are accurate. Enacted in light of rise in identity theft. Hope this helps, I know we sometimes get carried away w/the acronyms, and forget maybe newer posters aren't familiar with them yet.....
