Re: Amazing... I don't mean to be a jerk, but, DaveLV sent a copy of this letter to a few people in confidence that it would go to those people only. Now people are coming out of the woodwork asking for the letter. To those of you who received it from DaveLV, I personally don't think you should be sharing it with others. That's just my opinion.
Re: Amazing... You are entitled to your opinion LKH; however, I thought the purpose of the board was to share knowledge and assist one another. If some are going to only assist the "Select few" that they choose to, then it seems to defeat that purpose. If Lexington, copyrighted the letter, that is one issue. In order to provide the service they offer, they use the individual client's return address, and if one of the letters is returned, then it seems, they have given ownership of the letter to the client. If the client then wants to share it, it is their decision. I have seen several "example" letters posted here, slightly modified in some cases, that have been taken from published books or website content in which the owner of the copyright or the website actually loses, by the letters appearing in this forum. It doesn't seem, that we should split hairs about this, as it is already being done to other companies/individuals who do copyright their material.
Confusing purpose and intent The purpose of this board is to share information...the intent of this board is NOT to facilitate the transfer of Intellectual Property (even though some may think that letter is not intellectual, it is IP) when it is not yours to share. I really appreciate DaveLV's sharing the information with me but I WILL NOT pass it along without his permission. He shared that with ME - that's NOT for me to share with others. The letters that you write or modify surely can be traded posted and passed around, but if somehow, someone (say your next door neighbor) got your USMAIL dispute letter returned to a wrong address by mistake...does that give them a right to post your information, and your letter without your permission? We all want the CRA's to play fair, I think we should play fair as well. Just my thoughts, I agree with LKH. -Dave
Re: Confusing purpose and inte Of course you do, you got a copy of the letter. Odd, how the IP that is modified and posted as dispute letters, etc you don't consider IP. If you want to have a "clique" that only shares information with those within their inner circle, that is fine. The CRA's playing fair, and a company letter that is prepared under the auspices of being the individual that the actual credit report is on, are two different subjects. In all fairness, Lexington, with or without permission, representing themselves as an individual to the CRA's is not exactly on the up and up when it comes to being fair. I actually enjoy the board and learn from the posts. I am disappointed the see little "Cliques" form. If I had information that was informative and of value, I would not hesitate to share it. Each to his own, I suppose.
Re: Confusing purpose and inte I'm amazed by the interest spawned by this letter Dave received. A couple of comments: Kristi, you'd be wrong to assume that Lexington dispute letters are created by individuals with little supervision and that a poor letter could sneak past. Currently, Lexington draws its dispute letters from a mass of internally formulated, thoroughly reviewed and edited, dispute letters. I don't want to compromise Lex's system by revealing too much (don't think for a second that the credit bureaus don't watch this and other boards for such information - they are consummate spies - a fact Lexington has turned up in discovery against them during their last lawsuit.) Along those same lines, Lexington does hold its dispute letters as copyrighted material. They appreciate the consideration shown by many on this board in that respect. At the same time, I had a great idea: would it be of value to you board-watchers if Lexington posted three or four random dispute letters along with an explanation of how and why they work? Lex would ask that you respect the inherent copyright, but you would be free to use the information for your own credit repair efforts in any way you see fit. I have already asked the moderator that he delete the whole thread within 48 hours, so if you're going to copy the material, get it while it's hot. (Leaving the letters up is an open invitation for the bureaus to zero in on the practice.) If that's something of interest to you, post and say so and they can probably get it up in the next 24 hours or so.
Re: Confusing purpose and inte Jason, Thank you for this response. I have read many of your posts, regarding Lexington, and have always been impressed by the professionalism of the response and the willingness to take responsibility when a client is displeased. I recently enrolled with Junum vice Lexington, purely for economical reasons. If the first round of Junum's work does not meet my expectations, I will certainly consider Lexington. The customer service skills (I am a customer service professional) you display, truly impress me. I can not say the same for my few contacts with Junum via email and on the telephone.
Re: Confusing purpose and inte I always did sit at the "cool" table for lunch. Maybe that's why everyone still wants to sit with me for lunch. Hal, you're welcome to eat lunch at my table anytime you wish. -Dave P.S. before lunch, we'll be smokin in the boys room, cause everybody knows that smokin aint allowed in school!
Re: Confusing purpose and inte I can see the logic behind the "imperfect" letter from Lexington, but what makes me cringe is the fact that the CRAs have our employment information on file. If I were to retain Lexington, I'd at least expect the letters written on my behalf to reflect the level of education required for my profession. The CRAs are aware of the fact that I'm a retired teacher. After earning a master's degree and having taught high school for 32 years, I'd be appalled to find that Lexington or anyone else sent something written so shabbily, with my name on it. Just the thought of having even a total stranger viewing me as being illiterate makes my skin crawl--especially when he/she can so easily associate me with our system of education! Does Lexington take its clients' education and employment information into consideration when sending out dispute letters?
Re: Confusing purpose and inte Doris, The bummer about displaying education in one's dispute letters is that the dispute/reinvestigation process would actually penalize you for sounding like you knew too much. Your "smart" disputes would statistically be returned more often than the average. I know the people well who wrote the original dispute letters for Lex and they're VERY educated (professional writers) and those that reviewed them have law degrees and paralegal recognition. Why would Lex do it any way but what has proven itself to work best? (I know that they would like nothing more than to crank out letters touting, "According to Public Law 91-508, Title 6, Section 611, you are required to conduct an investigation when requested by the consumer. . .") Unfortunately, those letters would tank. Bummer system, but that's how it works. I know how you feel. Truth be told, the credit bureaus should, based on the law, be required to initiate an investigation any time a consumer challenges their credit for any reason. Something such as, "Dear Experian, I don't believe that American Express account #123456 is verifiable. Please reinvestigate it," should be all that is required. That dispute would tank as well (Lex has tried.)
Re: Confusing purpose and inte Maybe we should all send our disputes in Crayon on Big Chief Tablet paper...considering the apparent mental capacity of the CRA verifiers.
Here are the letters [ This message has expired. The content has been removed from the original post as per the company's request.]
Re: Here are the letters Jason, While I highly respect your opinion and Lexington's work for consumers I still do not agree that the over-angry letter is the best approach. While one does not want to act like a know it all consumer or attorney, you also don't want to make such threats. If a CRA worker opens that dispute and it starts off with "How dare you" or "Suffer the consequences" then I fear that has a negative effect. I am sure that the majority of Lexi's letters are not that way but rather calm and concise without being "Too Smart". In my opinion that approach is the most effective along with finding real reasons as to why you believe the debt is invalid. Thanks however, for clarifying that the letter was in deed a Lexington letter. I was not sure. People have to remember, if you are going to pay someone to do the work for you, then there may be tactics and or letters used that you may not necessarily agree with. With credit repair, it's more of a persistant approach then any other. Thanks again, for sharing your thoughts and for also posting samples. I am sure many individuals appreciate it. Kristi
Re: Here are the letters Kristi, Good points, all. My understanding of the Lex approach is to use whatever gains the best statistical result within the bounds of ethics. (They actually step letters in their "angry-ness." First letters, less so - second, third or fourth disputes are typically more demanding.)
Re: Here are the letters Fascinating! I am a Lex client who has seen some good results to date. And based on my experience disputing this stuff myself, it makes sense that these types of letters work. I am highly educated and my letters were overly "professional" sounding and I couldn't get the CRA's to budge. Lexington seems to be able to accomplish what I was not. I then ask myself, "Do I care how?" The answer is no, not really.
Re: Here are the letters I guess the bottom line is that people retain Lexington to get results, and as long as they get them, their money is well-spent. I'm sure the CRAs get so many dispute letters that they don't read them thoroughly anyway; however, I'd be willing to bet that they check them to make sure they include certain elements, and that they don't include others. Besides, with all the dumb mistakes the CRAs make on a majority of the credit reports in our country, they probably wouldn't recognize illiteracy if it slapped them in the face.
