I have a question about a certain technique. Lets say that you talk to the legal dept of a CRA and ask them about an investigation that you have due(been 30 days). They tell you they have no evidence that you sent it and they will call some other offices. Now I tell this person that I talked to the attorney from the OC and they sent me all accounting files and there are no evidence that there are lates, other than the reporting on the CR. Then the person says fax it to us and we can update. I then tell her the OC said that the CRA is the one goofing up and reporting wrong. Realistically the accounting does show some lates, but if I do some minor touch ups to the accounting it can show no lates(main question) Would it be morally wrong to do this touch up and send it through the fax to the CRA? What legal issues do I face. Besides, I do the moral thing and send in the dispute-they lose it and won't help. I then try to call them and get no live person as required by the FCRA, but rather a recording. So if they don't abide by the law, why should I? Once again the question is would it get me thrown in jail for doing something this fraudalent? I believe in doing the right thing, but I also believe they should too. Thanks for any input-I hope this makes some sense. The CRA is an affiliate of a major CRA. Very lousy.
Not to mention that sometimes they verify documents with the OC. Probably not a good idea. There are other ways to accomplish the same thing. L
Do not stoop to their level. If we begin to be dishonest like them, then everything we learn here becomes tarnished. Just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes that is not the way to go about it. Especially with everything leaving a trail. Most of us have been unethical by disputing something as not mine when it actually is. But that is a little harder to come back on you. What you are thinking about ding could really get you in trouble. Imagine having a CRA not on your reports that you fraudulently disputed something.
When I was younger I received a speeding ticket, and while I was speeding I did't feel I was going as fast as the officer said. It was a situation like "I clocked you going 80 but I'm going to be a nice guy and bump it down to 70" when I was actually going 70. I had a friend who took a class to get his speeding ticket off his report and he told me that in the class they told him that you usually get a 5 mph bumper. So I would usually go 5 mph over the speed limit. Anyway to make a short story longer, I was worried that while I wasn't going as fast as the officer said I was, I was still speeding..so moraly I should just pay the ticket. My mom talked me in to going to court to see what would happen. The judge releived my strugle at the very beginning. He addressed the court and said that because the way our government is set up you are innocent until proven guilty. Which means that you can come up here and say not guilty-but mean prove that I did it. I have no moral problem disputing a valid negative trade-line to the cra's. I am simply asking them to prove it. scott
