I found the below letter on a website someone posted on this site. Would it work to send to an OC that I sent a dispute letter to over a month ago with no response and hasn't listed the account as disputed with the CRA's. If you don't think it works, do you have any ideas for something that would. Thanks! ----- RE: Dispute Letter of 10/08/03 Dear Sir/Madame: I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute, and demand for validation, dated 09/27/03. You have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt. Under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists. You must now correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, has worked as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and entitles me to presume that you sent your letter(s) in error, and that this matter is permanently closed. Your dead silence has spoken volumes. You have fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice to CURE THE PROBLEM. I have damages. You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Failure to respond within 15 (3 times longer than the FTC itself would expect) days of receipt of this registered letter will result in a probable lawsuit, quite possibly in Federal District Court, in demand of a Jury Trial, for, but not limited to: - Defamation - Willful, Negligent noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. - Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Should I obtain a judgment against your company, I will petition for a Writ of Execution from the Sheriff's office in your county, and I will begin the process of attaching property or funds to satisfy said judgment. For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.
Yummy, have you disputed it with the CRA yet? If not, this is the first thing to do ... OC is not obligated by FCRA to respond to your letter.
Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed Yes I have. I haven't heard anything on 2 accounts. And one of them, the CRA said it was verified.
As I remember, this is the Butch's Estoppel letter, modified by you. It should work. Few questions though ... - This is a letter to CA, right? - Did they contacted you first or did you just saw the TL in your CR? If they initiated the contact, when did that happen? - You say "[color=0066FF]RE: Dispute Letter of 10/08/03[/color]", later you say "[color=0066FF]my notice of dispute, and demand for validation, dated 09/27/03[/color]". Which is the correct date of your letter? Did you send it CRRR? If yes, the correct date should be the date they signed for it (from your GC).
Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed This is for an original creditor. I sent a dispute letter for an account that shows up on my report that I am 99.99% positive isn't mine. They won't send me proof of the debt. I sent it CRRR, they signed for it on 09/29/03. Can I use this with an OC. The letter I sent them on 09/27 was a dispute letter asking for proof of the debt. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed Yummy, send this letter to whatever CRA did not respond 30 days after the date on your GC: «Your Name» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «State» «Zip» «Company» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «State» «Zip» «Date» RE: Dispute Letter of [insert date] Dear Sir/Madame: This letter serves as formal notice of your failure to respond in a timely manner to my dispute letter of [insert date], deposited by registered mail with the U.S. Postal Service on that date. Federal law requires you to respond within 30 days, yet you have failed to respond. Failure to comply with these federal regulations by credit reporting agencies are investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (see 15 USC 41, et seq.). I am maintaining a careful record of my communications with you on this matter, for the purpose of filing a complaint with the FTC should you continue in your non-compliance. I further remind you that, as in Wenger v. Trans Union Corp., No. 95-6445 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 14, 1995), you may be liable for your willful non-compliance. Be aware that I am making a final goodwill attempt to have you clear up this matter. You have 15 days to cure. For your benefit, and as a gesture of my goodwill, I will restate my dispute. The following information needs to be verified and deleted from the report as soon as possible: Name of Creditor/Agency, Account #_________ The listed item is completely inaccurate and incomplete, and is a very serious error in reporting. Please delete this misleading information, and supply a corrected credit profile to all creditors who have received a copy within the last 6 months, or the last 2 years for employment purposes. Additionally, please provide the name, address, and telephone number of each credit grantor or other subscriber. Under federal law, you had 30 days to complete your re-investigation, yet you have failed to respond. Do not delay further. Be advised that the description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information is hereby requested as well, to be provided within 15 days of the completion of your re-investigation. Sincerely, «Signature» «Your Name» «Your SSN» Send the following letter to your OC to dispute the account as "not mine": «Your Name» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «State» «Zip» «Company» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «State» «Zip» «Date» RE: Account #_________ Dear «Credit Card Company» I have recently received a copy of my credit report. The [insert name of CRA] report had an account listed from your company as a credit card. I disputed the account with the credit bureau as â??not mineâ? but it recently came back as verified. I am writing this letter to you in an effort to get this removed. Please delete your information from my credit reports. I have never had an account with your company. If someone has opened an account in my name, please close it immediately before further harm is done. I am requesting that you notify all of credit bureaus that this account is â??disputedâ? or that you delete this account until this matter is resolved. This is required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. If there is any paperwork that I need to sign to confirm that this account is not mine, please send me the required documents. This is a written dispute of this account per the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Please be aware that I am exercising all of my rights per FCRA and all other applicable laws protecting me. Sincerely, «Signature» «Your Name» Keep us posted ...
Re: Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed Hi, I already sent a dispute letter saying this account wasn't mine. I have sent a letter to the CRA's saying that I would like it removed from my credit report since the OC can not provide proof that the debt exists. So is the letter above okay to send to the OC since they haven't sent me anything yet and it has been way over 3 days?
When did you sent the letter to the CRA? Better, would you post a list of the letters you sent? Something like: Date (from your GC) - to OC/CRA - requesting - respond from OC/CRA According to § 611 (a)(2)(A), the CRA should've notified the OC about the dispute. In this case, § 623 (b)(1) obligates the OC to investigate and report the results back to the CRA in 30 (not 3) days. Since you have already disputed it with the CRA and they didn't respond in the required 30 days, you may send this letter to the OC. Attach a copy of your letter to CRA and the green card as a proof CRA has received it. The tricky part is that CRA may have not notified OC about the dispute. What happens then is, CRA is in a violation of § 611 (a)(2)(A), and OC is not obligated to do anything. So if you receive a letter from OC that they have not received anything from CRA, the next step would be to send the proper letter to CRA accusing them in a violation of FCRA.
Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed This is the first letter I sent to the OC. I sent this on 09/10/03 ******** Dear creditor, You are inaccurately and incompletely furnishing information regarding the above-referenced account to the CRA's in violation of the reporting requirements of the FCRA, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information, and for which you are responsible. I dispute your information in its entirety and request evidentiary documentation that substantiates the information you have furnished and its reporting. Should you not be able or willing to provide me with the substantiating documentation as verification to cure this violation, within the next 15 days, please have the information deleted from each of the CRA's you initially furnished it to or, alternatively, do not respond to the next dispute that I initiate through the CRA's Nelson v Chase Manhattan, 2002 provides a cause of action for individuals against furnishers of information. ********** I then sent the following letter to the CRA on 10/15/03. *************** Dear Sir/Madame: This is a request for deletion of a disputed item. I have attempted to have this alleged debt verified by the alleged creditor to no avail. I am respectfully requesting that Trans Union do what is legally mandated by the FCRA, and delete the account listing. Jerk OC On 09/12/03, Jerk OC, received a dispute letter from me. Attached is a copy of that letter along with the U.S. Post Office return receipt showing they did indeed receive the request. As of today, Oct. 15, 2003, they have failed to provide any proof or respond in any way. When an alleged debt is disputed, a notation must be entered on the debtors report showing the item as in dispute. This was not done. As per the FCRA, if no proof of debt exists, it may not be reported to the credit reporting bureaus. The FCRA also states that the credit reporting agencies must accept written proof from the debtor. Therefore, I am not asking for an investigation to be done, I am requesting that the entry be deleted in its' entirety as there is no proof of its' existence as evidenced by my attached documented proof. ************ I have yet to hear from either the OC or the CRA. So I send the letter you posted a link to above?
Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed Yummy, the letter to the OC, dated 09/10/03, doesn't help you much - they are not obligated by FCRA to even respond to you. On the other hand, the letter to the CRA, dated 10/15/03, does obligate the CRA to reinvestigate. They have 30 days to complete their reinvestigation (§ 611(a)(1)(A)) and 5 days to notify you about the results of their reinvestigation (§ 611(a)(6)), which moves the date to 11/28/03. If you don't get any responce from the CRA by this date, then you send the above mentioned letter to the OC.
Re: Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed But isn't an OC obligated to report the account as in dispute under the FCRA? I am 99.99% positive that I read that on this website.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed Yes, Yummy, § 623(a)(3) obligates them to do so. BUT, without first disputing it with CRA, there is no time period set for this, AND, there are limitations on enforcement and liability of using the subsection (a) set by § 623(c) and § 623(d). Read FCRA Section 623 and you will see what I mean ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed If, however, they do not list it as in dispute, the listing is not 100% accurate and that's grounds to get it deleted. (of course, you have to convince the CRA of that.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed It's tricky, Atlanta ... [color=0066FF]FCRA § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. [/color]If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer[color=0066FF]. [/color] So, it doesn't obligate them to report the notice, it prohibits them from reporting without notice. Which means, we have to wait until the next time OC reports the account (which they usually do every month, but not necessarily), then the OC will be providing inaccurate information, then we can try to convince the CRA ... Besides, the CRA's obligation to delete a TL comes after a dispute with the CRA, not after OC reporting inaccurate information.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Advice On Letter Needed No, it's not tricky and you can't pick and choose which sections to read and which sections not to read. The OC's under that section are required to report the information as disputed to the CRA's. The CRA's are required to note the information as disputed in all subsequent reports. Don't discourage disputing via the furnisher, vghost, they are two tracks that can be pursued consequtively, when you get to the end, you've a solid paper for holding the furnishers responsible for their information as well as the CRA's for their reporting. How can you even hold the furnisher responsible for their reporting and secure documentation to show a bogus verification process (back to reasonable procedures) without contacting the furnishers? Quite like validation, the benefit is in the asking and papertrail, you don't want them to respond and most won't. If they do respond, use it against them to confirm the inaccuracies and/or forward it to the CRA's to prove you pursued the options available for consumer resolution to no avail and to confirm inaccuracies in the reporting. If they do respond and everything IS accurate, use it to negotiate with. Don't limit your options. You will receive from the CRA's, should you pursue the path, a generic form letter telling you to either dispute with the furnishers or enter a 100-word statement. And please don't send the recommended second letter above (in red) claiming fraud and/or identity theft without using the words and requesting documents to sign saying the same. There are now criminal penalties in at least one state for doing the same as well as the penalties associated with being listed in the CDIA fraud database. Sassy
