guerilla tactic for stuck accts....

I believe it was Butch over who was talking about how when you sue a CA and a CRA over verification after non-validation, you pressure the CA to admit they never recieved the dispute from the CRA or the CRA somehow did not properly conduct the dispute in exchange for releasing the CA from the lawsuit.

Well I decided to try a modified theory out on an OC and it appears it can actually work. The CRA didn't delete, but the OC did and additionaly gave me the evidence in writing I need to file suit against the CRA.

I've typed up a sample letter to give everyone some ideas. Its still in rough form so don't pay any attention to any errors you should find.

The letter should be used on paid OC's where you know the CRA did not contact the furnisher of information yet somehow still verified. Such clues to this are:

1. reinvestigations that are completed in under a week,

2. where you have disputed the information directly with the OC and the account is not marked in dispute by the OC after the CRA verifies,

3. where there is obviously wrong information on the tradeline in question that gets verified.

4. where 2 out of 3 CRA's have already deleted the account, yet one CRA still keeps on verifying

The letter should be sent to the legal dept of the OC. You should be able to find out where to address the letter to after calling the corporate office and asking politly.

Now then, on to the letter...


Re: OC Name Acct. #xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx


Dear (OC Name),


I am contacting you now regarding the inaccurate information contained within my EQ/EX/TU (pick applicable) credit files associated with the above account.

On xx/xx/xxxx I disputed the inaccurate information with EQ/EX/TU and it was subsequently verified on xx/xx/xxxx.

Recently I have learned that EQ/EX/TU sometimes does not contact the furnisher of information when verifying a dispute, but merely verifies the information already placed on their magnetic tapes. Due to the nature and circumstances of my last dispute, I find it hard to believe that (OC name) has been contacted by the credit bureaus in question.

Obviously, these sorts of things can create difficulties for the consumer in trying to correct inaccurate information on their credit reports and also legal problems for the furnisher of information because they never get a chance to conduct their own investigation into the accuracy of the disputed information. In addition, it can it can falsely implicate that a furnisher of information has knowingly or negligently furnished inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency in response to a dispute.

I have already suffered actual damages from the reporting of inaccurate information and am preparing to initiate litigation for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and my states consumer protection laws. However, I wish to make sure I have the responsible party before filing.

If upon receipt of written confirmation that you have no record of EQ EQ/EX/TU contacting (OC name)â??s offices regarding the above account during xx/xx/xxxx to xx/xx/xxxx, I will focus my attention upon EQ/EX/TU for failing to properly investigate my dispute saving (OC name) from having to deal with a lawsuit and damages caused by EQ/EX/TUâ??s negligence in handling the matter. Otherwise, presume that (OC name) provided such inaccurate information to EQ/EX/TU during the reinvestigation process, and will be forced to proceed with the filing of a lawsuit to recover damages.

(Optional paragraph) Please expedite all correspondence concerning this matter, as I am preparing to go mortgage shopping/vehicle shopping in the next few weeks, and any adverse action taken by a lender based on the inaccurate information contained on my credit report(s) will result in damages considerably more than what I have already suffered.

Your cooperation in this matter will insure that EQ/EX/TU fully complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act when conducting reinvestigations of consumers disputes and possibly help reduce the number of lawsuits against your company caused by the credit bureaus disregard for the law.

Alright there you have it, please feel free to pick it apart and rewrite it as neccesary as I know there are more eloquant writers out there than me.

 

Its OK.

I thought to myself "What better way to prove that a CRA didn't do an investigation than to have an OC admit that they were never contacted."

Not only that, an OC can legitamately state that cannot find any record of verifying a dispute even if the CRA does contact them in regards to investigate.

As an added incentive it also gets you the consumer off their butts.

I'd like to add another rule of use. The letter should be used on one CRA at a time.

 

Re: Re: guerilla tactic for stuck accts....

edited...

The procedural request should be sent as soon as the the results of the investigation are recieved.

Then apply for a few CC's so you can get some actual damages.

The CYA Manipulation letter should be sent 30 days after the dispute was recieved by the CRA (To give the CRA plenty of rope to hang themself with).

Its critical that the CRA doesn't have time to go back and do a proper investigation before the 30 days is up. All it would take is a phone call or fax from the OC to the CRA asking whats going on or vice versus and then the set up would be all over.