Originally posted by godaddyo THere is no way that they are capable of writing genuine and original letters that will come off as your own every time. I would imagine that the CRAs get pretty used to seeing their form letters from these companies. ........................Make it look like it was writtten from joe blow consumer, not some high and mighty law firm up on the hill. If you have the time I would even neatly hand write the letters. This qoute was edited and took me out of context if you look
GodaddyO: All of the letters I have seen are a real hoot. Now take this statement found in most of them for example ******** This is a request for validation made pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Please complete the attached form and follow its instructions and your claim will be processed as soon as this information is received. ********* Who ever thought this lulu up has got to have a few screws loose somewhere in my opinon. I mean, what in the world did he think he was going to do with that, make somebody think he was General Motors or something??? Like he has is such a fortune 500 company that he has a whole claims processing department just to handle these kinds of petty little deals? ********* Please also be aware that if any negative mark is found on my credit reports from your company or any company that you represent, this will result in my filing an immediate lawsuit against you and your client for 1) Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 2) Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 3) Defamation of Character, 4) Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud. And then he tries to make them think he's a lawyer *************** Pending the outcome of my investigation of any evidence that you submit, Then he's going to conduct a grand jury investigation of some sort. All huff, puff and bluster with no substance to it at all. Oh well, I guess it just goes to prove the old saw that if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your BS. LOL
I tend to agree when it comes to CRA's, but when it comes to CA's that is a different matter. They seem to fall for that long validation letter all the time. They are usually not wanting someone to actually litigate so they give up and send it back to the original creditor. Its as if though they are playing with dynamite and passing it around the ring..
Godaddyo Well, I agree with you that the collection agencies seem to fall for lots of these letters and that judging from the posts one sees here from time to time, the long ones work about as good as the shorter ones. But we all have to realize that the collection agencies are only going to lose so many times apiece before they start taking a real hard look at the legalities of these letters, and the first ones they are going to make a special effort to kill are those that obviously appear to be just so much huff and puff. There is another consideration that I have to look at, and that is that lots of you folks are doing it for free, so if you get "killed", you can just walk away from it shaking your head and muttering to yourself. All you have to do is go back to the drawing board and try some new approach if you can think of one. I don't have that luxury. If they come back with something right for a change, I've got to have the next bullet in the chamber ready to fire again and it's got to be far more powerful than the first one was. I just had that happen yesterday in fact. For the first time ever, a CA had a complete and well itemized statement with signature of debtor right there in plain sight and did it within about 7 days from receipt of the validation letter. I was flabbergasted to say the least. But did that make me go off muttering to myself??? FAT CHANCE! Let's see how well he handles the next shot that's most likely been sent already or will be today. Folks doing it themselves can just wait for it to fall off in 7 years or whatever. I can't do that. I MUST get results or I lose too, and IF there is nothing else I can guarantee, one thing I will guarantee is that I'm not a loser.
I don't understand why would you want the letters to be very simple. I would think the opposite. I want them to think that I am sophisticated enough to know my rights and will pursue the matter further. I also believe dependent on how you phrase your letter, they have to investigate the item every time. I am also a little leery of the credit repair letters from companies or law firms, because from this board, I hear people get things deleted but then the item gets reinserted and its back to square one again. I think if you have the time and patience and you handle them very professionally, they have to take you seriously. From the letterhead to your closing, its the total package. Just my 2 cents! Cyprigirl
caprigirl: You are correct in what you are saying. It does have to be professional looking for the creditor/ca. Not for the credit bureaus since they don't usually pay a lot of attention to what you say, just do things their own way no matter what. But I don't think that 2 pages or more full of questions and demands, the majority of which is just designed to look important but carry no real weight at all does not look professional. Neither does things like "I'll investigate your claims or I'll process your claim and other unnecessary verbiage. In my letters, I just say the things that are necessary in the fewest possible words and let them hang themselves from there. I don't want to tell them they have 30 days under the law to reply. If they aren't professional enough in their business to know that, tough. I'll teach it to them the hard way. I want them to think I want just one thing and I want it done correctly. I tell them exactly what I want and I don't mince any words about it. I don't tell them I am disputing the bill, let them figure that out. If they aren't smart enough to figure out it's a dispute, that's their problem, not mine. If they miss the point, I'll show them what the point was the hard way.
I respectfully, disagree Bill. I think it makes the process burdensome on them to prove that this is indeed your debt, which is what you want and if they have failed to adequately respond, you have them and you have created a paper trail. That is my purpose. Because once I HAVE REQUESTED validation and they failed to do it, in a reasonable time, then I will go to the CRA and demand removal. I also disagree with not applying pressure on the CRA. Look at it this way, a customer is constantly telling you this is not their account and the creditor is saying it is and the customer continues to complain and creates doubt that it may not be their account and the collection agency really doesn't care they just want the money and will say what they have to force you to pay. But in the meantime a customer tells the CRA this is not their account in writing of course, so they have notice of this dispute. Don't you think that they will think twice about reporting it if there may be doubt that the item is not 100% accurate, which is the standard set by law. If I am the CRA, I would just delete it and let the creditor and you resolve the problem and not leave myself open to liability to the possibility that information is indeed incorrect. If it somes to that point, I suggest writing to the legal department of the CRA and not Customer Care or wherever disputes are sent. They would have legal notice and any competent legal counsel would seriously weigh the options of pursuing this matter further as opposed to simply letting the CA and the customer deal with it and leave the CRA out of it. It's called CYA on their part. If I worked as general counsel for a CRA, I would definitely advise to remove the item. Its not worth the time and money. Again its all about how badly you want to have this item removed. They are not going to make it easy. One final thing I think its also dependent on how much money and who the creditor is involved. If you are talking about a tax lien, foreclosure, bankruptcy, child support. It might be very hard to get those items removed. Just my 2 Cents! Cyprigirl Bill, its Cyprigirl not caprigirl
Cyprigirl, I don't think that the CA's believe that the letter writers know what they are writing. I would tend to think they believe that it's a form letter found on the internet and mailed to them from people who have no idea what it really means. Some people do this. They don't understand all of it, but they find it on a site like this and put their name on it and send it out. You even mentioned that it's good to change it around to allow for that persons situation. That's a great suggestion. It should be done, but it isn't always. I think the CA's bank on the fact that most don't understand what they are sending. I can only attest to my own situation. I sent demanding letters for a duplication on my reports. I pontificated all sorts of crap all over the place and not NADA for results. I wasn't until I started e-mailing the most simple nasty letters that I actually got results. They were one or two line e-mails that got straight to the point. They worked. Of course it helped that I e-mailed everyday for about 2 weeks or so. LOL!
Judy, I understand what you're saying, most people don't know what they are doing with these letters. Of course, if they do not respond favorably at first, then the gloves come off and I agree you have to get nasty with them. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire with these agencies. But my main initiative is to create a paper trail, then they no choice but to do what you request. But kudos to you for blasting them! Cyprigirl
Well, I would definately have to agree that there are a lot of people who fire off letters without thinking it through. I would like anyone who wants to repair their credit to take the time to study for a while before doing anything. I have removed around 20 items so far. Each one using different strategies. It has been much less of a pain than a BK ... I wont give up no matter what now..
cyprigirl I think you disagree with me for the simple reaon that you do not understand how far I go with this thing. I go so far and hit them so hard that they (original creditor) or collection agency (depending upon situation) actually eat the debt and are more than willing to do so in order to avoid what just slapped them up beside their heads. In the case of a creditor or a collection agency that bought the debt, they end up eating it, in the event of a collection agency acting solely as agent of creditor, they pay the debt rather than go to court to fight a losing battle. I am currently in the process of scanning in 5 court cases here in Oklahoma in which friends of mine actually went into court as pro-se litigants and won their cases using my methods. Not all are collection agency related. One friend had an accident due to actual negligence on the part of the county road maintenance department. A professional attorney fiddled with the case for a year and then wanted out of the case because he didn't want to "fight city hall", and my friend went into court pro-se and started to fight. Last time I talked to him about this situation, it was just a matter of settling on the amount the county is willing to pay. The first case I am scanning in is a response to plaintiff and defendant on counterclaim's motion for summary judgement. Plaintiff and defendant on counterclaim's motion for summary judgement is a substantive and procedural nullity. Those are the major arguments in point in the case. You will see how the arguments are presented and how the points referenced are backed up with case cites. Page 1 of 5 is now posted at http://www.creditwrench.com/umax1.html All 5 pages as they are posted on the website will be labeled as umax1.html through umax5.html I am telling you the pages in advance because it could easily be maybe 3 or 4 days or over the weekend before I have time to get them all scanned in and then reformatted after copy and paste into html documents. Even then, the placement of words on the pages will not be exactly as scanned in because of the limitations of html. I could just scan them in and then reference to them from html but then they are too hard to read. While I am not referring to the comments made by any person in this thread, but rather some of the bickering that we have all seen in the past and people bashing me telling everyone I am full of it and don't know what I am talking about, I'm sick and tired of it, and now I am going to show people what can be done and how to go to court and actually do it for themselves just like I have been saying that can be done and is being done. Maybe then we will have an end to it. I think these 5 cases should be enough evidence to prove the points. I'm not going to give out the actual names of the persons involved for privacy reasons, and also for that same reason I'm not going to give out the actual case numbers because the people involved have asked me not to do so.
