When I came here in May, I had 11 negatives ranging from a 30-day late to an almost five-figure chargeoff. Now I have 6 negatives, I think... with most of the really bad stuff removed with little effort. These are my opinions so far: I cringe when I see newbies spending hours memorizing the FCRA. Just ask for validation on everything--most OCs and CAs won't be able to provide it. Dispute online. It's quick. If that doesn't work, just call the CRAs. I've gotten at least ONE item removed every time I've done this. Would not recommend calling CAs. They are not human and should not be treated as if they are. Don't lie. If you think it may be your account, just ask for validation--they won't be able to provide it (real validation as per the Wollman letter) anyway. My best advice is to not slip into the 'hopeless' or 'victim' mentality. You'd be AMAZED at how disorganized and lazy the CAs and OCs are. Keep the faith!
I have to disagree with MOST of what you said. NEVER call ANYONE. Calls are recorded and the CRA folks are trained to get you to admit an account is legitimate, even if it may not be. It is HIGHLY recommended by us folks who have been doing this for some time that newbies spend HOURS (even days) studying the FCRA and FDCPA. You can't use a gun if you don't know how to fire it. Also, it is not always wise to request validation. Requesting validation on a substantial debt (usually over $1K) while it is not yet beyond the SOL will many times trigger the CA to file suit against you - very bad move. I think most here will agree with my stance.
Can you request validation on Charge offs and included in the BK items? If yes , Do you request that validation from the OC or the CRA? Thank you
Right. That's why I wanted to offer an alternate take. I see newbies making things hard and freaking out, which I think gives lots of unwarranted power to the creditors and credit reporting agencies. Who knows. My huge chargeoffs are from 4 years ago. I can't even detect signs of life from the creditors, much less getting sued.
Our experience has been that many of the negatives will fall off easily. BUT, the really useful impact on the scores happens when that final derog finally comes off, not when the first 5 or 10 do. We were declined multiple times with what many would consider respectable scores due to that last little negative. Where knowledge of the FCRA and FDCPA comes into play is when you run up against those who refuse to cooperate with you. In most cases, you have no leverage whatsoever if you don't know your rights and if you don't have the documentation showing that the OC, CA or CRA violated them. You can get a LOT done by just disputing, there is no question about that. But if you want to ultimately succeed in having clean reports you have to do your homework. Requesting validation is great, disputing is great, but timing is everything. You don't want to end up knowing the only way to achieve your goal is to sue a CA, and then discover you don't have the right documentation to take to court to prove your case. The time you spend in studying the FCRA and FDCPA and in reading the FAQ section of this board is time incredibly well spent. You're not spending the time to get the easy deletions, you're spending it to get the hard ones. DemPooches
Keep on cringing, moneyhoney, You're giving irresponsible and flat out wrong (e.g., OC's can't provide validation -- BTW, they don't HAVE to validate), information. With all that time cringing instead of reading and understanding, you won't know what to do when that "huge five figure debt" shows back up on your reports. Sassy
I'm just giving my impressions based on what I've experienced out in the trenches. I've personally had negatives deleted because the OC couldn't verify that a debt was mine. It's not irresponsible to report my own personal experience. I'm certainly not advising anyone. I just wanted to offer a different perspective.
I understand your purpose is to give a differing perspective from that of many other posters on the board. I certainly respect your right to share your perspective, even if I disagree with it. But since I strongly disagree, I would have been remiss not to post what I felt were the appropriate cautions for anyone who thinks your approach might be a good one. I hope you'll let us know if you do tend to see things differently as you begin to run up against the "toughies" in trying to complete the task of cleaning your reports. I thought this was a lot easier in the beginning too. That perspective kept me from having the right documentation for court and cost me one heck of a lot of time and effort backtracking. DemPooches
Thanks for the respectful post, DemPooches. I don't think my approach is as radical as, say, sending a signed affidavit to the CRAs saying a debt was not mine when I knew it was mine. I know some people I respect have done this and had it work out. I would be scared to try, though. I'm over halfway through my repair and it has been easy, yes. I will certainly honestly let everyone here know if it gets tough (and if it doesn't). At this point I'm in so much better shape than I was in May, I don't know how upset I'd be if no more negatives got deleted anyway. Obviously I am not a perfectionist! Oh, and no, I would NEVER recommend going to court unprepared. I am banking and hoping on never having to find that out.
awwwww moneyhoney, I'd not post I told you so! Without the knowing and understanding, and that's not advocating memorization btw, you are cutting off your leverages and options. I think the biggest mistake is not doing anything at all. Sassy
Moneyhoney..i think you gave some good advice. I cringe when people try to read statutes and laws on their own b/c many times they misread or take thing out of context. Additionally, it depends on your particular situation. If you are going to just dispute something with the CRAs you don't need to spend hours reading the laws at that point. Perhaps later on you should but it's too much in the beginning. I have been very impressed with some of the knowledge that people have on here. Some are very astute and should perhaps consider law school However, I have also seen advice given on here that is not supported by the FCRA or FDCPA. Like I have said before, there are ways to twist things around for either side. Lastly, it's not enough to just read the FCRA and FDCPA on its own, you would also have to read FTC interpretations as well as the courts' interpretations of those laws. And just b/c the 4th circuit interprets the FCRA one way does not mean that the 9th circuit interprets it the same way.
I think that offering a more simplistic view of credit repair is extremely valid. Things are really turning out well for you moneyhoney. BUT... That does not mean I can condone the advice of not reading the FCRA and FDCPA all the way through and knowing what is what. Sure, it's easy to get stuff off, but what happens when it comes back on? That's when those statutes come in handy. I think that newbies need to really be aware of how to do their credit repair journey right the first time. There are so many mistakes made by many. But, congratulations, and I hope you continue to post your adventures in credit repair.
Lbrown - you are right BUT what if they DO validate? The debotr is now in world of trouble after waking a sleeping giant.
Speak of the devil (sort of). I disputed a negative on my reports from a dept. store I've never shopped at. They say I owe them money from '95-'96. They actually sent me a year's worth of invoices today. Apparently a store I did have an account with liquidated and they bought the store's accounts. They had the wrong address for me and said if I can prove that then I can contine to dispute. Grand total they've been trying to track me down for 7 years for: $7. It's not even money for merchandise, as I did apparently pay my last bill. It's interest.
More good points. I just don't know if a regular consumer can basically teach themselves law. I guess the one redeeming factor about CAs and OCs is that lots of times they seem even more disorganized than the regular folk who may end up in court with them.
