Double Reporting?

Send the collection agency a DV letter...That will force them to show validity of the account...make sure you send it CRRR.

 

Sending a DV doesn't *FORCE* them to do anything; except ceasing collections until after they've provided the validation.

Now, with the original account "I don't have an account with ________." (You don't they sold it, they no longer have an interest in the account.

The second, dispute as soon as they receive the DV, this puts them in the position where verifying the tradeline is continued collection activity.

 

That's all well and good but if they do verify then you have to sue somebody in order to get the job done. The question then becomes one of which party is at fault. Is it the debt collector or is it the credit bureau?

After all the debt collector may not have responded to the dispute but the credit bureau is falsely claiming that they did.

On the other hand, they may actually have responded so how do you prove which one is the appropriate defendant? Or do you sue both of them and let the court provide the answer?

 

Here is what I would do:

Delete old addresses from each CR, because they are used to automatically " verify " an account without the CRA having to actually verify it with the furnisher.

Dispute as " inaccurate, please either correct or delete " with each CRA reporting the account.

 

C1Sucks

That brings in another more advanced tactic.

The "Hey, DSDA Collections, I know that you were not dumb enough to VERIFY this inaccurate information to the CRA. So hey, if you send me an affidavit that the CRA are the ones who screwed up, I won't be forced to sue your company to get it fixed."

That's an over-simplification, but that's the general idea.

 

Thanks for the reply and suggestion. Seems to me that if one needs to use that tactic they might want to also provide a copy of the already prepared lawsuit ready to file in federal court, an intent to sue letter and waiver of service of summons all in the same mailing.

If they don't answer within a reasonable period of time, say 20 days then go ahead and file the case.

Do you agree with that idea?

 

Actually, the suggestion is (I'm sure) here somewhere...

I just remembered the one time that I used the strategy...

The OC didn't bite, but the account was deleted with one phone call to the CRA.

The dispute letter (both to the DF, and CRA) were based on Johnson v. MBNA; and disputed all of the dates on the account.

The OC when they last verified the account, verified that the account was *STILL* OPEN. But their previous reporting, and the status of the account, contradicted that reporting. And since the dates were in the dispute...

After I hung up, I was singing "Na, Na, Na, Na, Hey, Hey, Goodbye"...

 

grrrrr, I was sure it was here somewhere... But I know where it *WAS*...

It's a 3-page letter, which has enough quotes from caselaw, and the FCRA, to get the message across...

 

I think that is the basic purpose and content of Butch's Nutcase letter, is it not?

 

I know that it's from Butch, just couldn't find the copy of it on this board...

 

The letter is on this thread, in post # 11 from Doc:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/Disc...thanks-all-wish-me-luck-18103.html#post125081

 

That's close to the one... The one which I have is versatile (not just for paid collections).