Anyone out there have a sample of a prove it or remove it letter or know where I can find one online? Thanks! Eric
RE: Prove it or Remove it Samp I believe Barry has one a creditmania.com and also Krist from carreon and associates.com. Hope this helps
RE: Prove it or Remove it Samp You are so right Mom: http://www.creditmania.com/document.htm Good Luck, BarryN
RE: Prove it or Remove it Samp Hi Eric: Here's a sample letter: http://www.creditinsiders.com/article02.html Scroll down a little bit and you should see it. Regards, Alex http://www.Creditinsiders.com
RE: Prove it or Remove it Samp re: CCB Bank account # 12345... Dear Sirs: I am writing to dispute the validity of the above referenced item pursuant to the FCRA. The FCRA requires you to verify the validity of the item within 30 days. If the validity can not be verified, you are obligated by law to remove the item. In the event that you can not verify the item pursuant to the FCRA, and you continue to list the disputed item on my credit report, I will sue you for actual damages and declaratory relief under the FCRA. The FCRA provides concurrent jurisdiction in federal and state courts. As this is the case, I will elect to use the Santa Clara County (CA) Superior Court (use the jurisdiction in which you reside) to bring an action against you, if it becomes necessary. While I certainly don't want to litigate, I will use the courts as needed to enforce my rights under the FCRA. I look forward to an uneventful resolution of this matter. Very Truly Yours, Joe Consumer
RE: Prove it or Remove it Samp This is a very useful 'real life' sample letter. One note, while I certainly agree with the strong, direct tone of this letter and will leave no doubt that the individual means business, it "may" lead to lazy and/or incompetent CRA reps (especially at Experian) to lie even more and reply with a 'phony' verification. May I suggest including a sentence such as "The FCRA" requires you to not only provide verification in a timely manner but to provide the name and/or number used in this verification"
Litigious Threats And Faulty I Pat: While I appreciate your attempt at helping, the sample letter youâ??ve posted will likely do anything but. Hay if I were collection manager and received such writing, Iâ??d call the authorâ??s bluff and play a real game (and collectors can in deed to that)! I mean itâ??s like crying wolf or a small child stomping a demand, do this or else! Itâ??s difficult to take one seriously when a tirade is misplaced for diplomacy. Clearly more results are gathered with honey than vinegar, a concept that plainly escapes you. That is in light of the litigious tonality such a letter clearly conveys, while demonstrating a blatant lack of understanding. Look at it this way, collection managers know far more about the law than the average consumer; they are not intimidated by uninformed threats. For example, examine the following text that unquestionably contradicts itself: â??In the event that you can not verify the itemâ?¦ I will sue you for actual damages and declaratory reliefâ?¦â? Well I got news for ya, Statsky defines a â??declaratory judgmentâ? as: A binding adjudication of the rights and status of the litigants in a justifiable controversy WITHOUT GRANTING ANY COERCIVE RELIEF (i.e. â??damagesâ? or injunctive relief). Heeellllooo? Bottom-line is that in the REAL WORLD of collections and litigation, a consumer is far better served not to threaten litigation! Cite applicable laws when appropriate, yes without question, but quoting legal theories should be left for those who can get them straight. Correspondingly, dignified and courteous letters simply documenting the facts gain far better responses if one eventually does go to court. To do anything less damages oneâ??s own position, in the course and scope of attempting to come on strong! So I suggest Eric be more like Joe Friday (you know from Drag Net fame?)â?¦ State the FACTS man, just the facts; he should leave legal arguments out of such writing, and therein be taken far more seriously. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
RE: We are talking about CRA's Perhaps so if this were sent to a the collections manager of a creditor or collection agency but in regards the CRA's (which I believe Eric had intended this for and most certainly Pat) it could prove quite effective. Face it, the CRA's lie thousands of times daily about verifications, you know it, I know and everybody on this board knows it, especially people like Madelyn. If anybody proposes a way to lessen (and no the bought off government does squat) this I am all for it. Furthermore, it has been my experience on many occasions that the only way I could resolve something with a company was dealing directly with their legal department, moreover, from what I have heard and read over the past couple of years is that many large institutions will arrogantly ignore you or stonewall you until you either threaten or file legal procedings against them, this is a view shared by an increasing segement of the community.
Related Question sorry this is so long, but I think its an important question that my impact alot of people. I've seen this question on this an other boards but never really seen a definitive answer. If a creditor (or a CRA, for that matter) elects to "prove" something rather than "remove" it, what exactly would count as "proof." In other words, does a letter stating "our records show that the information that is currently reported is correct" suffice? I received a letter like this in response to a "prove it or remove it" letter that I sent to a creditor. This particular creditor was reporting three thirty day lates on a car loan that I used to have (okay, you twisted my arm it was GMAC.) The dates were not showing on the credit report, only that it was late 30 days three times. I called this creditor trying to get the dates of the lates that were reported and was told that they did not have the information available. I then wrote a letter stating I wanted to see the dates of these payments so that I could go through my cancelled checks and see when the payments were made, because its entirely possible that the payments were not late at all, I don't remember ever paying the account late. It was basically your "prove or remove it letter" like those referred to above. The letter I received back basically stated what I said above, without the dates. I guess I just don't see how something can be "verified" if the dated arent' there??? They didn't even refer to what they were reporting in the letter, just a blanket statement "what we are reporting is correct." I am concerned about this for the following reasons: I had this car loan from 1992-1997. Its been paid off for three years. Without dates, how do I know 1) if the lates are more than 7 years old or not 2) how do i know that potential creditors won't just assume that these lates are more recent?
Credibility... It's The Thing Steven: Hay I hear your point and at face value it makes sense to advocate an aggressive stance. Yet it doesnâ??t make a whole lot of difference to whom the letter is sent, a CRA or alternatively the creditor â?? credibility is everything. Okay, you say, getting strong more often produces resultsâ?¦ I agree. Albeit one can certainly compose a strongly worded letter without need to: 1) resort to threats of an inappropriate balance, and 2) use of legal terms that are contradictory. Either improperly applied diminish credibility and hence defeat oneâ??s purpose, perhaps prolonging an issue or exacerbating it. You know courts are not as insensitive as is commonly thought, Judges can certainly grasp subtext. For example, if the tonality of successive letters is one of increasing threat toward litigation thatâ??s certainly justifiable. But blatantly threatening litigation in a first or even second attempt to resolve a matter does not further oneâ??s position, but rather weakens it (if court becomes the final outcome). Truly, Steven, weâ??re on the same page here. Iâ??m not suggesting that a consumer shouldnâ??t threaten litigation nor even that they forego actual filing of a case. But the whole purpose of sending a letter as the one at issue is to resolve a matter, and to do that requires a realm of credibility. CRAs, creditors, collection agents and departments are not intimidated by incredible threats â?? only real ones. Certainly itâ??s all a matter of semantics that either convey an issue in effective and credible terms, or lead to frustration by the author. Now I donâ??t know about Pat, Iâ??m certain he/she is aiming to help in the best way known. But as for me I work with credit related litigation and disputes every-single-day, and I can tell you that engaging litigation is NOT as easy as it appears. The credit community also knows this and seldom places much â??credibilityâ? in threats they feel are idle. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
RE: Credibility... It's The Th Actually, in an attempt to clarify my position and while admitting that I do 'admire' Pat's method here is the actual way "I" would approach this. You are correct in stating that an overly aggresive or threatening tone in a first letter is not appropriate (no matter how much it feels justified). In the case where I am contesting an account that I find in error or 'not mine' I would "expect" a response along the lines of "we have contacted XYZ company at this number and/or address whereupon it was verified that this is correct", naturally, if I still felt this was not the case I would have to take it up with the actual creditor or whomever is reporting the account. But as you aware many times things are not as simple as that due to laziness/incompetence on a rep's part I may very well receive this 'blanket' response "our records show that the information that is currently reported is correct" and gives a contact # and/or address that is outdated, incorrect or NONE AT ALL. Now I realise at this point I would have some small justification in instituting a lawsuit but prefer an intermeditary step. Realising any further attempts at verification would be pointless and most likely considered "frivolous and irrelevant" I would 'attempt' to contact the creditor and ascertain whether they were, in fact, contacted by the CRA. Whereupon, I would either A. Not be able to contact them at all B. Get a definate response, preferably in writing, that no such attempt at contacting them was ever made by the CRA C. Receive confirmation of the CRA's contact and their own verification of the account In the cases of A+B I would then draft up letter for the CRA's legal department wherein I would include the copy of the "verification" letter and in very bold terms state "Do you stand by these words". In the event of either no response or a response to the affirmative I would then proceed to sue them and no doubt win the case. Furthermore, I would attempt to convince the judge that the CRA in question practises this "fraud", willfully and on a continued daily basis in the hopes that he/she would censure it and perhaps levee a much higher fine. Of course, I would contact all the relevant government regulatory bodies who while initially would most likely ignore my complaint 'may' decide to take action if I include a copy of the judgement and perhaps the words of an incensed judge.
RE: Related Question can ayone I love to hear the answer too, I have a 30 days late I have been fighting, cause being I never paid a dime to this account so therefore how can I have been late??
RE: Litigious Threats And Faul Yeah. I ran into trouble the moment I threatened legal stuff. The first thing a creditor will do is refer you to their outside counsel and then ignore the rest of your correspondence on the grounds that future contact must be directed to their attorney pending legal action. Also, you can't seem to get any response to questions for information on your account unless you subpeona it. In short, once you threaten legal action, you lose your rights under the various laws for information (short of legal requests for documents). Dang that came out confusing...but I'm tired.
RE: Litigious Threats And Faul Steve: Very true and the primary reason some creditors refer to counsel is to protect themselves, not wanting the regular staff to say or do anything to escalate the issue(s). Your experience also helps to demonstrate another aspect of my point, which is if one is not REALLY prepared to engage suit then the threat leads nowhere and therefore shouldnâ??t be used. Itâ??s like thisâ?¦ Which composed vein and tonality is likely to leave more options open: 1) â??â?¦ As you know X law requires Y to be completed within Z amount of time. Please take all necessary steps to remain in compliance thereof, so that we may both put this matter to rest.â? - OR - 2) â??X law requires you to complete Y within Z days! If you fail to do this I shall file suit accordingly!â? Both communicate a sense of obligation yet one locks the author into a given course, while the other still protects legal avenues albeit not in a hammering manner. Hay Iâ??m all for folks asserting legal rights, however as you can see that can be done without need for belligerence and loss of creditability. Again, it goes back to gaining more bees with honey than vinegar. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
RE: Litigious Threats And Faul I filed two lawsuits for exactly this situation. I tried the actual damages case in small claims for common law libel, then tried a lawsuit in the regular docket for declaratory relief (granted). I don't cry wolf. A demand letter with multiple causes of action does not necessarily suggest only one lawsuit.
Actual Damages AND Declaratory If a CRA violates the FCRA, I may sue for actual dmages. As a SEPARATE cause of action, I may also sue for declaratory relief- a judge's order to ammend my credit report. One cause of action addresses the damage already done, and the other a remedy as to legal rights and obligations of two parties. Never threaten to sue if you won't, in fact, sue. I have found that after filing a lawsuit under the FCRA, the defendant has no doubts about credibility.
RE: Unfortunately, ya gotta fo even if they don't.. "Never threaten to sue if you won't, in fact, sue." I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY. Many times a large company will only take you seriously and stop jerking you around when you file a lawsuit. "IF" you know or truly believe you have been wronged then by all means an individual should sue. Still I must side with CreditDefenses as far as 'initially' sending a threatening letter to a CRA. Believe me they know the FCRA and its regulations intimately. Sure they break it thousands of times a day (same as many collection agencies and creditors, notably, CCB, First USA and Fleet) but I doubt you will find much sympathy from a judge if you send a "Your crooks, we all know it, so you better follow the laws and not screw with me else I'm gonna sue your ass*s" letter. Yup, you gotta wait until your screwed, verify it a couple of times, perhaps officially complain to some apathetic, do mostly nothing regulatory bodies and then you can sue. Thats just the way the system cough cough "works". Ya gotta love it NOT!
Two Distinct Actions? Pat: Wait a minute; I gotta disagree with you here palâ?¦ Multiplicity restrictions definitely come into play, and why the defendant(s) didnâ??t file a motion to quash or to strike (the non-small claims matter) is pure folly. Now Iâ??m not saying you couldnâ??t have done so, only that aggressive counsel would have jumped all over that, and moved to have your formal case dismissed as nonsuit. This is VERY basic stuff, negligence of which is grounds for misconduct. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
