Had collections on my reports. Sent validations and waited for the green cards to come back. They came back then i disputed the collections with the CRA. Is all this right???
Re: Okay folks did i do this right? Hi, I notice that you've been on Creditnet for about a month. What's happening unfortunately is that some (not only you) are apparently leaping into the fray without first spending a few weeks researching and reading the board. You need to search this board for the keywords "validation estoppel" and definitely spend quite a bit of time reviewing the concepts before jumping right into the pool. That said, no, you don't do CRA disputes right after receiving green cards back. Basically you're mixing up the idea of disputing tradelines with CRAs with the idea of requesting validation from CAs. These are two different legal paths which are guided by two different federal statutes. Of course, they can ultimately work together, but that's something you'll learn down the line after reading a lot more. (I would suggest that you review the FCRA and FDCPA and know which relates to which course of action, etc., before you begin taking action with other accounts.) Finally, your CRA disputes are likely to be ignored. Even worse, the CRA is likely to mark your tradelines as "verified on such-and-such date" and ignore subsequent disputes. There are antidotes for that as well, but I'm getting way ahead of myself. For now, you should: 1) Hold off on any further CRA disputes related to those tradelines. 2) Wait the FULL 30 days (read the validation letters you sent), because the CAs are entitled to those 30 days. 3) Then follow up with either the second validation letter or estoppel. (Read this board some more, and then ask specific questions as needed. You won't need to ask general "what do I do now?" questions when your foundation with this material is a bit stronger.) 4) Allow the additional time stipulated in your follow-up letters. 5) Then pause and see how the CAs have responded at that point, which will determine further courses of action (if any are needed at that point), which can include such possibilities as: small claims suits against the CAs; lawsuits against the CRAs; preparing "intent to sue" and/or formal pleadings; etc. Bottom line is that this "Step 5" is way ahead of the ballgame -- you'll want to consult the board for more specific instruction as needed later. For now, though, READ READ READ. I guess my simplest message is that you've jumped ahead and mixed up the two paths (CRA disputes and CA validations). This situation is certainly handleable, though, but you'll want to spend time researching these topics here and then follow through with the appropriate next step(s). Doc
Re: Okay folks did i do this right? Clcik here for the FDCPA: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm Click here for the FCRA: http://members.aol.com/victcrdrpt/
Re: Okay folks did i do this right? I've been doing the same, PsychDoc, sending validations, waiting for the green cards and then disputing at the same time. The idea being, I thought, it gets you on two overlapping tracks at the same time. The CA will either provide the validation and update; not provide the validation and not mark the CRA showing as disputed by consumer. Or, the CRA will verify without validation having been provided giving further ammo to whatever track you are on.
Re: Okay folks did i do this right? sassynaz: I apologize in advance for the spelling. I think however if you use the method you have described you are setting yourself up for a temporary deletion. A) You have not allowed the CA the 30 days as is their right by law. B) If you then dispute with the cra's you might get lucky and earn a deletion because they are still working on your validation request and might not verify. However I am sure this will end up being temporary and quite possibly screw up any chance you may have for suing on violations for a PERMANENT deletion in the future. The whole reason behind the (very lengthy) process it seems to me is to permenently have these damaging items deleted or else your just wasting your time and spinningyour wheels.
Re: Okay folks did i do this right? I'm by far not an expert here, but I disagree. In several instances I have used this method successfully. My derogs are very old though, so that might have something to do with it. First off, most CAs don't have and can't get proof of the debt without paying a fee. In many cases they can't get it at all. That being the case, if they get a request for validation and a request from the CRA to verify the account, rather than be in violation of the FDCPA, they are just as likely to not verify to the CRAs and not do anything more on the account. They can't re-report it after deletion without first providing the requested validation (well...they aren't supposed to at any rate). Also, I have yet to hear of anyone receiving the required "notice of reinsertion within 5 days" from the CRAs. This is a violation which will give you bargaining power if you end up filing suit. Anyway...that is my thinking on this subject and so far its worked pretty well in the cases in which I've used it. I only have used it after my first round of disputes with the CRA came back verified. That's my second round tactic. L
Re: Okay folks did i do this right? P.S. (Can't edit for some reason). The CRA can delete an account if they don't receive verification within 30 days, but if they do get it within 31 days, they can (and have) reinserted, so that's one reason I don't agree with your theory, Robin. I could be WAY off base, though. L
Re: Okay folks did i do this right? thanks. My stuff is really old too, and it's all paid, no way they can validate what is there now, most hasn't been updated since 1998. I'm not following how it's not allowing the full 30 days for validation though; I understand the CRA only has to verify the information so there's more of a burden in validation. If I don't do a follow-up letter until the 31st day, how are they not getting their full 30 days? The follow-up with the CRA would likely be about 10 days after, depending on the response provided, if any.
Re: Okay folks did i do this right? I wanted to clarify, the previous post didn't read as I had intended. "My stuff is really old too, and it's all paid, no way they can validate what is there now, most hasn't been updated since 1998." This reads like I was waiting for validation from the CA's as it presently is reporting, sorry. I know that the tradelines I have running concurrently cannot be validated by the CA and rightly shouldn't be verifiable by the CRA. The balance of tradelines, likely can't be validated, but I wouldn't be bothered if they were updated and reporting correctly. Validation information would help me should they not be deleted. I wasn't trying to re-invent any wheels, side-step, stomp on any toes. PsychDoc, you have your own book at my house, highly treasured, should you ever want to publish it I can save you tons in printer ribbon . I know all are paid and even if the CA's think they aren't paid, the SOL is expired. I didn't want to be misleading, I have nothing current on my reports except 2 mortgages, everything was discharged and paid for in C13. I'm not in a position of waking up a sleeping creditor or risking any judgements. Except for Sherman Acq/Financial who buys BK debt, that's another thread though; I'd like to wake him up, LOL. I have no unsecured credit which is nearly as bad as bad credit; put them together and I'm just plain screwed. I think the easiest thing for me to do would be dispute everything as having been discharged in C13, with correct dates I could then re-establish credit. I like taking my power back; it feels good for my mind, body and spirit. I understand your concern about being marked as having been previously verified. Just wanted to clarify.
