Maybe I'm not using the right words in the search, but I can't find this answer. I've sent my disputes to the 3 CRAs. Can I now send my disputes to the OC/CAs before I receive information back from the CRAs? My two thoughts are this: If I send to the OC/CA - they can't continue to report and then can't validate to the CRAs inquiry until they validate to me, so the CRA deletes. BUT If I ask for validation and they've already blown off the CRA - CRA deletes it then the OC/CA validates and reinserts on the CR. Now if all of that makes sense - do I wait or should I go ahead and send now? TIA!
You should have sent the validation letters first, then when you got the green cards from certified mail back, that is when you dispute with the cra's. At this point, I'd do nothing until you get the results. Depending on how old these accounts are, they may just get deleted and then you won't need to contact the oc's/ca's.
Re: Re: Can I double validate? Thanks LKH. I'm fairly new here and when I was starting this I was really confused . . . lol sometimes still am! Someone came along and said do CRAs first. <sigh> When your drowning, you don't know which way is up sometimes. Anyhow, many that I disputed are way past the SOL so I'm hoping those just die off with this initial dispute. Live and learn right?
Re: Re: Can I double validate? Shanyl, There are times when starting with the CRA's is the best idea. TL's may just come off. If that happens great. No need to pursue a CA. Starting with a CA may wake up a monster too. Depends on what and how much you know about your adversary and what YOU think would work best.
Hi Bruce! Thanks for your reply. Many of the disputed items are obsolete / way past SOL so I'm hoping they just drop off. (For SOL do they still contact the CA/OC to verify?) You stated that it depends what I know about my adversary... if I know nothing of them, which is best? Also, I may post this under a new thread but if you're here reading this, I'd like your opinion on something. I'm afraid I did a MAJOR oops. On May 26 before I knew about CNET and the rules, I did an online dispute to TU. Not knowing if they got it, or if I did it right, after I found the *right* way to dispute, I sent in a formal dispute via CRRR about a month later. Now I realize what I did (I'd forgotten about the online dispute) and I'm afraid that they'll flag my file as frivolous. Do I call them and explain that I erred in submitting 2x - that I'd forgotten my first dispute? I'm just kicking myself! This isn't a live and learn experience I wanted.
It is my understanding that your second dispute very well may receive the frivolous response, but so what. Many disputes do even when they're not that closely timed. It's no biggie. Now that you know the correct timing you'll get less of these and more deletes. Don't be hard on yourself what what you didn't know (smile).
Re: Re: Can I double validate? Thanks goldhummin! IF they do tag it as frivolous, I'll just sit on it another 90 days and then start again. Hopefully by then it'll be enough time past to drop the flag (if that is what happens).
Yes, that is my understanding of the process. You just keep sending the dispute in every 60 - 90 days. You just need to be more persistent than they are. Best of luck! Goldhummingbird
One suggestion, you don't want to start with EX... You may be able to start with the other two, and have it work, but EX usually labels any second dispute of a trade line as "PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED", and won't dispute it unless you have a smoking gun.
This is great info, Jam. So, maybe I'm asking a dumb question here.... but, um if you don't "start" with EX how does it work better if you start with the other two first and then when you dispute EX they still just confirm it anyway. I guess what I'm asking is there a different strategy for EX, or just a hope and a prayer?
yes! I didn't see Jam's reply - glad you did! Definitely NOT a dumb question! I'm eager to hear the answer as well.
Basically, its a warning that if you do EX before you lock a CA which is reporting on EX with a validation letter, and they do verify the account, there is a great chance that you could have superglued it to your report for the remainder of the seven year clock, unless you work extreemely hard to get a smoking gun which you can use to demand a re-investigation. And a smoking gun usually would be the entry changing in such a way that it is not the same as it was previously verified. Or some type of writen admission from them that the account is invalid, or not yours, or a settlement showing they've settled for something involving illegal reporting. An example that I had, after I complained about a CA to their state and my states AGs office, the CA 'noticed' that in my original dispute, I also mentioned a discrepency in the dates which they were reporting (TU re-aged about 5 months), luckily, they re-aged EX to match to CYA, and then I was able to use *THAT* when I received the PI to prove that they did not PI the trade line as it is currently appearing, and got them to do a (b) verification of *BOTH* dates (the original correct open date which they had PI'ed, and the re-aged open date which they investigated the second time). This is the only time that I've been able to beat the PI response.
Now, what you could do, and may find it a little bit easier... Dispute the other two, and then when you get the results back, work on the presumption that if they didn't verify with the other two, then chances are better that they won't verify with EX. So if there is a trade line which appeared on all three, and it was deleted from both of the other reports, your chances are possibly better that it could fall off of EX when you dispute it. Then when the results come back from EX dispute those that remained on all of the reports with the CAs, then dispute those as well, on all three. But if any of them were previously investigated by EX, you have a chance that they won't look into those trade lines again.
The 'hard' part is trying to put it into a system to get started. And everyone will come up with a slightly different system, that they find works for them. Now, with an account that just shows up, the first move would be to lock the CA with a validation letter, because more than likely its new enough in their system that it'll pop right up with no problems if you ask the CRA for verification.
