Thanks for your concern. I now wish I would've done what you have suggested. Fact is, what's done is done. My intentions were good and the thought was to get it done and get it done now! I will not do it that way again. I'm seeking advice for what I have done though in hopes that I might be able to curve possible problems caused by this type of action. Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome. SnakeMan
You are speaking on the assumption that the OC or CA has never seen such a "nutcase" letter before. I am sure the orginal nutcase letter probably achieved it's desired goal. But 5,000 nutcase letters later? I don't think so. Give me a break. About the only thing those letters do is contribute to our nations' landfill problem lol
Cool. If they do throw it in the trash, and don't bother to validate, and then continue to try to collect, you have violations. If they do try to sue you, you can probably safely assume that they take you so lightly they will show up in court with no proof, and when you challenge them, they will not be able to prove that the debt is yours. So, go ahead, send it, let them ignore you. It works fine, in spite of opinions othewise. I always say personalize it, but even if you don't, it is still a legal request for validation, and it will still work. One of the reasons for sending that particular one is that they won't bother doing it. That's what you WANT! You want them to ignore you, underestimate you, not take you seriously.
He and I agree here, and just to clarify one more time, thats about all I meant when I said I don't use the ones from the sample letter forum. LOL - thats funny. In all fairness, since I took a friendly poke at Bill, he did have a lot of good things to say, but alot of times his meaning got lost in his verbosity. I would lose track of the topic, and lose patience in attempting to read them.
Re: Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted} Awww, I hope the Foxy Mrs. Butch didn't put too much time in as well, as Mr. Due Process was banned.
Don't worry too much Snake. I don't think any PERMANENT damage has been done. Breeze is right, it doesn't matter if they get 1000 of these a day they still have to follow the law. In fact, she may have an excellent point in that, if they do get 1000 a day they may be far more likely to just laugh and throw it away. LOL What more could you ask. Further, "Nutcase" is not just a letter; it's an entire philosophy. My fav. way to handle a pd off collection is to make an inaccurate reporting argument in the hopes they will pull an inq. to see what the problem is, hence a violation. That's along the lines of the Nutcase philosophy too. Nutcase on Viagra. Just as we consumers are "unsophisticated" so are collectors. It's not that hard to scare them off, especially on smaller accounts.
Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted} Exactly right, Butch. I always like to use a phrase I made up -- "nuisance quotient" -- when describing this interpersonal approach (which is, of course, just one of many tools in the box). With fully paid creditors, you own the nuisance quotient (call them a hundred times if you like); with unpaid creditors, they own the nuisance quotient (within FDCPA limits). Also, I've always agreed with breeze that anything consumers can do to customize the sample letters we teach -- without ruining their core meanings and approaches -- works in their favor. Doc P.S. I just did a Google search on "nuisance quotient" (full phrase in quotes) and up came 22 entries (link) none having to do with credit, but still... I guess other people may also have "made up" that phrase concurrently. At least it didn't pull up 22,000 entries, the usual Google response for anything that's been out there awhile, LOL. No matter who used it first, I think the phrase is a goodie.
Re: Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted} Yes I always liked that too. To carry it just one small step further (for newbies) Doc's nuisance quotient IS worth MONEY. The more of a nuisance you can be the more it's worth. If I were running a collection agency and you cost me $500 to collect $600, I'd go elsewhere, right smartly, as they'd say down home. lol
Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted} So its almost like we should be hustlers. Pretend we dont know anything at first, and then when they violate, BAM. suddenly we know everything, and they have no choice but to remove the TL or be sued. right? this is the approach i'm about to take. Just a simple 'hey...i think you're reporting incorrectly. you need to change it or delete.' and i wont give them ANYTHING else to go on. even if they ask, right?
Re: Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted} Precisely, If they know you know what you're doing, they'll go through extra measures to comply legally. You don't want that to happen. Here's an example; my first dispute to the CRA's: Dear Friends At EQ, A friend of mine told me that if I write to you about a bad mark on my credit record that I don't recognize you might look into it and help me fix it. The item is: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx etc., etc." Please write back and let me know what you find out. Warm Regards, Mr. Butch . tee hee
Re: Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted} Oh - I firmly believe this item was simply deleted without an investigation. They had to be thinkin, "why don't we just help this poor slob. He seems like a nice guy". Buwahahahaha!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted} but what about a letter to the CAs or OCs? I'm ready to attack a huge CA that is on all 3 of my reports. Its a paid collection. Its been reporting incorrectly for about a year. (its been paid, but still reporting as derog.) Now, i don't want to write a letter that says "you need to update my account to 'paid'" or "you've been reporting my paid account as derog for a year now--please update it". I want them to pull a hard inquiry, so i should be very basic in my approach, but not too obviously vague so they figure out what i'm up to. what do you suggest besides: Dear sir/madame: You have placed inaccurate information on my credit reports. Please correct your mistake or delete the entry immediately. the account number listed on my reports is #XXXXX. Thank you, crowmom ---------------------- is that too vague? should i include the account #? What if they mail something back asking for more info?
I understand that, but on EX and EQ, it says 'condition-derogatory'....on TU it says 'condition-paid'. also, under 'balance' EX and EQ both list an amount of money, and TU just has a $0. Point is, I'm not worried about getting it updated to 'paid' because i realize its a derog either way. I want it GONE. In fact, I'm glad its incorrect because i can get the ball rolling by sending a letter that says 'hey--this is wrong'. Then they'll pull a hard inquiry (hopefully) and i'll have a little leverage later. My question is, now that CAs (especially big ones like this one) are 'on to us' how vague should I be when writing my initial letter to them? and what if they ask for more info?
Re: Re: CN's #1 fan {sarcasm noted} "On to us" as in they (CAs) know that a lot of people have discovered credit repair, and they are familiar with the letters people have sent from this site and others. This is why I am being so careful before I start on this particular CA. I'm trying to decide what angle to take, since I am sure they've seen it all by now. Here's what i have so far: huge dense CA 123 street vindictiville, 123456 Greetings, I am writing to you today to see if you could check into an account I had with your company that is listed on my credit reports. The account number listed is XXXXXX. I was hoping you could help me figure out why the entry is incorrect. This is an important matter to me, as I believe there are laws against reporting inaccurate information to credit bureaus. I would very much appreciate someone looking into this matter and fixing it as soon as possible. Please write me back and let me know what you find out. Thank You, crowmom too wordy? too vague? wouldnt they raise an eyebrow and ask 'why didnt she just tell us why she thinks its incorrect?' Will they write me back and ask for more info? and if so, what do i do? I'll do a search and try to figure this out, but any advice is appreciated. thanks.
1*Snakeman, the truth is those letters only work for you if the account is truly not yours & you don't owe the debt. 2*If you owe the debt the CA's now know where to find you. 3*I would throw such letters in the trash if I worked for a CA. I wouldn't even read them SoParkDiva ================== 1*FALSE 2*Not The Point. 3*And spend a lot of time in court defending your self and paying fines. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
