Numbskull, use some of Bucks post for your letter. "if this was a valid account, you would already have all the information you need from the account number I provided you in my first letter. I should not be expected to do your job for you. Either you can validate this account or you cannot. etc...." also some of this info could come in handy for your letter: http://a1248.svwh.net/BoardFAQ.htm#OriginalCreditor also, there is a great letter somewhere on here for just this sort of situation...it says something to the effect of "you do not need any more identifying info from me...no one in their right mind would dispute someone elses account". It could be a letter to a CRA, but some of it could apply in your situation. anyone know the letter I'm talking about? I'll do some searches today....I might even have it saved in my favorites.
i found it!! of course, Butch wrote it. lol. here is the link: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=195705#post195705 hope it helps. its a good thread. it may even be one of the 'must reads'.
Please give recomendations to the letter I have drafted below: What should I add or change? Numbskull 1313 Mocking Bird LAne Anytown USA 55555 Discover Financial Services P.O. Box 15316 Wilmington, DE 19850 November 4, 2003 Re: Account # 8989899889898 To Whom It May Concern: On October 23, 2003 I sent a letter requesting validation of an erroneous debt that your company has mistakenly reported as mine. Since mailing the previous letter, I received a letter back from your company on October 30, 2003 requesting additional personal information about me. Since I have not in the past, nor will I do business with your company in the future, I will not provide your company with my personal information. I am writing to you in an effort to resolve your reckless and unfair information reporting practices. I do not make a habit of providing my personal information to companies that I do not do business with. The fact that your company has erroneous information listed on my credit files should prove to be more than sufficient personal information about me. Since you have not complied with my request for proof that I owe this debt, and as I stated in my previous communication that this account is not mine, I amicably demand that you remove the erroneous listing from my credit reports immediately and completely. Respectfuly, Numbskull
Re: Re: Re: Discover Reply to Val Letter Yes !!! It's called a subpoena. Short of that, it would look better for you if it at least looked you'd like to cooperate but cannot do so for your own safety. What with ID Theft being the fastest growing crime in the US and all. So, I would send them back the same information they already have and no more. But in explaining why I'm not providing more is because you are, at this point, EXTREMEMLY concerned about identity theft/fraud. Since you seem to think you have an account with my name on it I'm very VERY concerned as you may be engaged in the enablement of ID Theft. Therefore, I shall not provide all kinds of information for you out of my desire to protect myself and my family from the extraordinary legal ramifications of ID Theft. See? .
Re: Re: Re: Discover Reply to Val Letter There's not a Judge on the planet that wouldn't understand that. BTW - one thing I always did do was have my letters notarized. I knew they couldn't come back playing games about my identity. .
Re: Re: Re: Discover Reply to Val Letter Thanks again butch!! I will add that info into the letter. SHould I include any references to any of the statuates or sections of the fcra?
Re: Re: Re: Discover Reply to Val Letter I am sure Butch would say "no" to that question. You don't want to look like you know your rights, because then this supposed creditor will be more likely to violate your rights, which will give you more leverage in getting the TL deleted. If you start going on about the FCRA, FDCPA, FTC, etc, they'll be more careful, and they'll probably know youre doing credit repair. You want to look like a person who is simply concerned about identity theft, and genuinely being 'wronged' on your credit reports. The letter is good. I'd leave out "nor will I do business with your company in the future" and "amicably". You should also stick something in there about how they still have from the date of the original letter to resolve the issue. (i think they have 60 days as an oc?)
Re: Re: Re: Discover Reply to Val Letter I'm probably wrong here, but . . . Since this is, in fact, Numbskull's debt, is this the best route? My concern is that although Discover hasn't provided validation (and may not be required to do so, depending upon where he resides), that doesn't mean that they can't come up with it in court. Numbskull does, however, have legitimate issues with the tradeline. There is no way that an account can be opened, paid off and charged off all in the same month. Might it not be more productive for Numbskull to indicate in his letters that they are reporting incorrectly, but not telling them what is incorrect. Hopefully they pull an inquiry, which will give him leverage to demand a deletion. At minimum, he may prove himself enough of a pain in the butt to have them remove the tradeline just to get rid of him.
Re: Re: Re: Discover Reply to Val Letter My concern is that although Discover hasn't provided validation (and may not be required to do so, depending upon where he resides), that doesn't mean that they can't come up with it in court. merlin ================ So then why is there any excuse for failing to provide the proof when asked for it. THE END ** *** ** LB 59
Re: Re: Re: Re: Discover Reply to Val Letter From a practical standpoint there is no excuse. However, in reality, from a legal standpoint, the excuse is that the law is on their side and they don't have to. He can't take them to court solely for not providing the requested validation, therefore the "excuse" would never even come up. (By no means am I defending this or saying that it is right, but as we attack this racket that calls itself the credit industry, what is "right" is irrelevant. We need to exploit the current laws in our favor. Or better yet, figure out an effective way to change the laws.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Discover Reply to Val Letter This is my personal opinion from my personal experiences, so take it or leave it as you see fit . . . I would use the letter that you have, but I wouldn't claim that I never had an account with them. Possibly you could say that you are not in the practice of providing personal information to companies with which you do not have any business dealings (says that you aren't a customer, but doesn't specifically say that you never were). I would then reaffirm that I was questioning the validity of the tradeline and that I was persisting in my original request (dated xxx) for validation of all tradeline notations, given the erroneous information that is currently being reported on my credit report(s). I have actually had decent results with this approach.
