Hiya CN, I'm finishing up my dispute letters to the CRA's and wanted a last bit of advice before I send them off. I've seen varying opinions on this, so I figured I'd ask. When listing the disputed items on my letters, what info should I list about the accounts? Currently I have them setup something like this: EXAMPLE: Not my account: "Creditor name here"/ Account #: 123456789 Account History Inaccurate/Never Late: "Creditor name here"/ Account #: 123456789. Is this ok or do I need to include more/less information to the CRA's in my letter? Thanx!
* *Change this Account History Inaccurate/Never Late: "Creditor name here"/ Account #: 123456789. to /Never Late: "Creditor name here"/ Account #: 123456789.
I've got my disputes adjusted to "Never Late" but had a few more questions I thought I'd throw out there before I launch my attack so to speak. I've been reading it might be best to go for a "not mine" approach first as apposed to "never late". The only reason I had considered a never late is that one of my disputes involves an account that I'm still paying on. It's been current for several years now and I've got about $700 to go on it. It's got allot of lates on it, but isn't a charge-off or anything like that. Wasn't sure how well it would hold up going for a "not mine" approach when I'm still in fact paying on it (Discover). I've also heard Discover is very hard to get removed via "not mine" but that they can be sloppy when it comes to verifying account history (lates). Also, I have about 6 items on two of the CRA's and 4 on the other. I've seen mixed opinions on how many to dispute: more than 4 is bad, disputing as many as you want is ok for your first time, etc. This is my first dispute so I just want to make sure my I's get dotted and my T's get crossed. Will a row of 6 "it's not mine" get me in the frivolous club on my first attempt? Thanx for all the help everyone! I figure it's best to ask and get this right from the get-go.
BlakMajix, First, a few pros and cons regarding the â??not mineâ? approach that may help you to decide whether it is appropriate for a particular account. PROS Disputing an account as â??not mineâ? is effective because it places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the CRAs. In other words, a CRA cannot request additional information from you about the account being disputed, which they occasionally do. How could you possibly know anything about the account? It is not yours. The real beauty of this approach is that, unlike other dispute reasons, when a â??not mineâ? dispute is successful (CRA cannot verify that the account is yours), the CRA must delete the entire trade-line from your credit report. CONS The fact that a successful â??not mineâ? dispute results in complete deletion of a trade-line, makes it inappropriate for use on some accounts. It may be a mistake to use this approach on worth salvaging. For instance, an established credit line that is being reported positively except for one or two late pays, may be more wisely disputed as â??never lateâ? than as â??not mineâ?. Using the â??not mineâ? approach limits your ability to dispute an account again in the future. For example, letâ??s say you dispute an account as â??not mineâ? and the CRA verifies that the account does indeed belong to you. If you dispute this account again as â??not mineâ?, the CRA will likely reply that the account was previously investigated and verified leaving you at least temporarily stalemated. If you decide to change tactics and dispute this account in another fashion, such as â??never lateâ?, you will have contradicted yourself (yes, the CRAs keep records of disputes) and it will be easy for the CRA to assert that your dispute is frivolous, leaving you more seriously stalemated. It is my experience that the â??not mineâ? approach is most effective on older, closed or charged-off accounts. I would not use this approach for open accounts or for accounts that are in one way or another still active (still making payments). It is just too easy for a CRA to verify these accounts. As for Discover, it has also been my experience that it is very difficult to get Discover trade-lines deleted. However, I have had personal success in having the history deleted as have a number of other people. Regarding whether disputing 6 items at once as â??not mineâ? will land you in Frivolous Territory, I donâ??t know. I will say that I believe that overall, the most successful dispute letters involve a mix of dispute reasons such as: Never Lived Here, Never Late, Not Mine, Incorrect Credit Limit, etc. etc.. If this is your first round of disputes, do your self a big favor and operate under the cloak of the concerned citizen for as long as possible. In other words, donâ??t over-dispute, personalize your letters and keep your credit savvy from becoming transparent. Good luck! Simon
I have a different position than Simon. First the not mine dispute should be your first dispute as once you dispute an account another way say, never late you can no longer use the not mine dispute. Also, the not mine dispute while effective at times, usually isn't overall. The reason is that when you simply state not mine all the CA or OC has to do is verify that they have two out of three pieces of info on you, usually name, SS# and or address. Once they verify two out of three the CRA marks it verified and that's that. Whereas if you made a dispute such as I do not owe $12.03 the CRA must say does this person owe $12.03. The OC and or CA will have to say no if say you owe $12.02. The CRA is not allowed to ask well how much do they owe, etc. This is my take on it for what it's worth. I've been very successful at disputing using this approach.
Re: Re: Question about CRA disputes I kind of disagree here, but then I play the semantics game. I sometimes dispute as "do not recognize", which has the same effect as not mine, but, IMHO, leaves some wiggle room. I haven't been labelled as frivolous yet, but from the not mine/do not recognize I move on to the "I do not owe x this amount of money", DOLA is wrong, never late, etc., whatever I think up at the moment. My theory in doing this after the "not mine" is this - OK, you verified it was mine, I have dug through my records and found this account, but I have no record of it being blah blah. I don't think you shoot yourself in the foot by denying it completely right out of the box.
Re: Re: Re: Question about CRA disputes Hiya jlynn, Can you give me an idea of how you word your dispute lines? I'm curious how you juggle this (I'm picky on semantics too). I like the "do not recognize" line. Also, I can certainly see the validity on disputing "not mine" first as it still leaves it open for future disputes, but I'm just wondering how this could possibly work in my favor with that pesky Discover account that I currently pay on. From everything I've read, I think my chances of getting that one verified are very high. I guess when I did a rough draft of my dispute letters, it looked awfully repetitive with "Not Mine: Insert Evil Creditor Here/ Account: #123456789"...rinse, repeat. So I figured I'd ask here before I put the final touches on them. Thanx!
Re: Re: Question about CRA disputes BlakMajix, Don't mention it. Do yourself another favor and seriously consider the replies of robin and jlynn. While our experiences might differ, I have absolutely no doubt that their preferred methods have worked well for them. Actually, robin has reminded me of something I forgot to mention before. IMHO, it is a good idea to first dispute demographic information before disputing trade-lines. Old addresses are particularly good to have deleted as they may help the CRAs to verify that disputed accounts belong to you. The way I look at it is, while you may never know with certainty whether or not having demographic info. was key to the deletion of a particular trade-line, it can only benefit you to have unnecessary and potentially harmful info. deleted from your reports. The good news is, it is surprisingly quick and easy to have this info.(especially addresses) deleted. I have had terrific success by calling the CRAs, speaking to a rep. and simply stating that the info. is not yours.
Re: Re: Question about CRA disputes jlynn, I like the "wiggle room" afforded by the "do not recognize" dispute too I wonder, has there ever been a post devoted to really clever disputes? I'll bet some people here have crafted some good ones.
Re: Re: Re: Question about CRA disputes I haven't seen such a post but it sounds like a great thread topic. I see allot of info on the in's and out's of disputing, but nothing on specifics like this (which is why I posted in the first place). Great idea Simon!
Re: Re: Re: Question about CRA disputes the not mine dispute while effective at times, usually isn't overall. The reason is that when you simply state not mine all the CA or OC has to do is verify that they have two out of three pieces of info on you, usually name, SS# and or address. Once they verify two out of three the CRA marks it verified and that's that. | robin ======********------ True but it still don't prove that you owe it. THE END ** *** ** LB 59
