Lizardking, I bow before your credit greatness. I am about to start a round of disputing with the original creditors. I don't know which ones are still owned by the original creditor and just sent to collection agencies and which ones have been bought, but if an original creditor has sold the account, they are not owed a debt, therefor they can't report a debt right? My thought is using a modified version of your famous validation letter: Do you think that this might work? (I'm including your second page pretty much exactly as worded) I get collection notices from CA's all the time, but the only things posting on my credit report are from the original creditors. These things are pretty old, and if the creditor still owns it I highly doubt that they will have enough of the requested information from page 2 and should just delete.
If you wish to use LizardKing's letter, why don't you just use it as he has posted it? From what I can see, the changes you have made will make little or no improvements in his original letter. It is obvious that Lizardking or whomever has designed the letter so that it will work on both creditors and collection agencies alike if it will work at all. It should be obvious to one and all that his letter does work and do what it was intended to do, so why change it? Personally, I think Lizardkings letter does have a lot of good and very valid points in it. That does not mean that I do not think that many improvements can and should be made in it, and that much of it is totally superfulous, but what I think in this case is off point. The point I wish to make is that if you are going to use Lizardkings letter, then I think you should use it in it's entirety exactly as he prescribes and not go making a bunch of changes unless you know exactly why you are making those changes. No validation letter is an end unto itself. You not only should understand the purpose and meaning of what the letter says and does, you should understand the reason for each of it's clauses and terms before you attempt to change it. You should also understand quite thoroughly what the likely outcomes of the letter may or may not be. For instance, what happens or what do you do if the recipient of the letter totally and completely ignores you? What do you do in that case and when do you decide it is time to take the next step so that it does not become stale and meaningless? What do you do if the creditor continues to hound you? Sends you threatening letters of some sort or makes nasty phone calls and pays no attention to the validation letter? If one does not know what to do and what to expect, then the results can be quite dismal indeed. Use whatever letter you think fits your style, but understand what you are doing and why before you send it. If you don't take the time and trouble to learn these things then no validation letter is likely to do you much good. Don't you think that's sound advice? Does it make common sense to you?
Hmmm... you know, I sent a letter off (right before I read about validation letters) to GulfState credit, basically saying that they were billing me & reporting to my credit, & that I owed them no such funds. I instructed them to stop billing & remove notations from the CRA's within 30 days or I would sue (citing the FCRA). I never asked for validation. My attitude was not to ask questions & give them a chance to argue, just stated what I wanted from them. This is an account they recently bought that went bad in 1993. I'm wondering what type of response I will get.
I'm not sure what kind of response you will get back from them, but I'm beginning to think that you are at least on the right track. Here is why. It's getting so that all I am getting back out of the credit bureaus is garbage. Meaningless letters in reply to validation letters. They tell me something about some other company who is responsible for the report who is not the collection agency or creditor making the report or they send out a letter with a bunch of blanks I guess they think I am fool enough to waste my time with. Anything but information that can be acted upon. Subterfuge rising to the level of insult to human intelligence and nothing more. I'm just now stopping to think that after all, the credit bureus we attack with such vim and vigor are not the originators of the bad reports in the first place, so should I blame them and continue to play their silly games? I'm beginning to think not. I'm beginning to think that the better angle of approach is to go after the creditor/collection agency and kick the crutches out from under them and once they are down the tubes then go in and demand verification, validation or whatever one wishes to call it. It's beginning to make sense that one should maybe go after the source of the trouble rather than the reporter of the trouble. Once the reporter has nothing he can report, the report has to go. Make sense?
Yes, it does. I really want to keep my requests to the CRA's to a minimum, and I agree about taking those on one at a time in order to avoid raising red flags. A couple of my initial letters were of the credit-repair book variety, citing this-and-that. Experian sent 3 letters out, 2 of them said basically nothing. I called them to ask what it means, & right off the bat she asked if I was paying someone to help me. She said that it was 'something in the wording'. So, I do believe that they look closer at you if they're suspicious. Going after the originator of the bad credit what I'm buying into, also. I have had 2 recent situations where I've gotten the run-around for 6 months & I'm through with that. Now I'm at Lizard's level. I want it done and done now. I know my rights and you better follow along. Just for 'giggles', here are the other 2: Back in Sept, my bank erred on a deposit which made checks bounce. One was to Walmart, who promptly sent me to the DA. The DA was charging me for: the check, fees, and $85 to take a check writing class. I sent them a money order for all but the $85, and the letter from my bank (per someone on the phone). I thought all was honkey dorey until I tried to open an account at the credit union last month. It took 4 phone calls a day to a very helpful (really) clerk to clear it at the DA's end. Now I have to repeat my fight with WalMart to remove me from SCAN. The second was to my mortgage company. I sent a replacement check in Oct, but they mistakenly reversed it out as NSF. I have been on the phone with them at least once a week since then (and 3 times a day for the past couple of weeks) to get them to fix it. It now has been verified, and sent on to the next dept to be keyed in right, fees reversed, etc. All this time they've been reporting me 30 days late. It's been a week in this new dept, and so far nothing. I'm writing a letter thru Planet feedback tonight. I've been trying to get these taken care of so I can open an account with the credit union & **try** for a much needed auto loan. I'm tired of relying on other people & getting lip service. So, I'm madder than hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Everybody clear out, nursie's on the rampage. Gosh, that feels better!
Thanks for your reply. I'll be interested in seeing what others have to say too. We all want instant gratification, but I guess we sometimes just go at getting it the most obvious way when if we stop to analyze the situation carefully we see other ways that might be better. Here's wishing you the best of luck with your problems. Have you looked at the chexsystemsbites website? Bill Bauer
The world owes him a living too, but he's gotta work like hell to collect it. The world ain't too good at coughing it up even though it owes him. Getting a bank to admit they made mistakes and pay for them is like pulling hen's teeth. He will most likley have to sue them to get any results out of them at all. And even that might not get the job done.
