cavalry

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by dec, Jun 30, 2007.

  1. dec

    dec Active Member

    I sent two dv letters and yet to recieve any reply, but they keep verifying with cra. I disputed with all three cra and equ was the only to delete. what should i do next? i am trying to buy a house in the next 6 months and i nedd this gone.
     
  2. ccbob

    ccbob Well-Known Member

    Tell it to the judge...

    This always sounds extreme, but if they won't talk to you or send you anything by mail, then you need to speak louder:

    - complain to your AG
    - complain to the FTC
    - file a law suit and serve them with the summons

    one of these will get their attention.
     
  3. bizwiz41

    bizwiz41 Well-Known Member

    A CA is only required to validate within the first 30 days after you receive your first notice of the claimed debt. If you are DVing after that time, they do not have to validate. Are you stating in your DV letters that you dispute the debt?

    If the CA is verifying to the CRAs, then request a Procedural Investigation of how verified. Then, go after the CA for not marking account "disputed by consumer" (if you have disputed directly through your DV letters). You will have to take (not threaten) legal action as posted above.
     
  4. Flyingifr

    Flyingifr Well-Known Member

    Actually, a CA is never legally required to Validate at all. If the VOD is sent within the first 30 days the CA is prohibited from further collection efforts until Validation is provided. The CA in that case has the option - provide the Validation or abandon the claim. After the 30 days the CA can legally ignore the VOD request. I don't know where this idea that a CA must Validate ever started but it has no foundation in law.

    Reporting, including verifying a trade line, to a CRA is not considered a collection effort since that communication is not an attempt to collect - it is merely an attempt to put pressure on the debtor to pay by adversely affecting the credit rating - the important difference being the exact communication is to the cRA and not the debtor and the exact communication is not in and of itself a demand for payment.
     

Share This Page