question about nutcase letter

the nutcase letter is for paid collections accounts. i would send it to them anyway.... maybe they are scared to mess with Christi (LOL).

some people have edited the letter to use with paid original creditors... i haven't had that problem.

 

Actually, uniondiva, when I originated the letter I intended that it be used with paid original creditors. So it's actually the other way around from what you thought, lol: some people have edited it for use with CAs. But, hey, it's worked most of the time so more power to them.

Doc

 

talk with your atty before messing with the current situation with Equifax....

 

I second Marie's comment. By the way, I presented a slight revision to nutcase (version 2.0, lol) in your other thread here:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=1&postid=153711

Doc

 

Do you think that it goes - way - too far out to request items such as certificates of insurance, taxpayer ID number, contact information for general counsel .... ? What would you consider the line between 'Nutcase' ans abusive?

Thanks!

 

No, because if a lawsuit were filed, all of these items would be available under discovery and would be pertinent to the case.

I think the nutcase letter is hysterical and obviously something that would give them a headache, but the flip side of that is, providing the requested info in the nutcase letter is nothing compared to having to answer interrogatories and request for production of documents...lol. I can't imagine a company actually responding to the nutcase letter with all that info outside of litigation, but that isn't the point of it anyway...the point is to get them to think they have a "litigious nutcase" on their hands (hence the name of the letter)(and which they probably do have on their hands when dealing with a creditnetter) and rather than deal with the potential expense, they will delete a paid collection.



L

 

Thanks, that does make sense.

I have been drafting dozens of different permutations of that letter - settling upon a milder form.

Next question about this tact - If the CA performed some other FCRA violation, should a pugilistic section be inserted for that? Or, are we not trying to inscence or corner the reader?

 

LVLowRolle, I want to make a case for not "softening" the tone. Coming up with a different letter is good (to prevent overuse of the same verbiage) but I don't think going soft will help. Here's my case for that:

You're not trying to "corner the reader" or "incense" them with this, as you put it. Instead, you're suggesting that it is within the consumer's legal right to request all of that information; then you sneak in a quick mention of an "out" (that they can simply delete the tradeline) before quickly emphasizing again that you would rather have them retrieve all of that information. You don't make it look like the deletion is really what interests you; on the other hand, you're not letting them know why you need all of that. They basically surmise that you're serious and up to something legal that may cost them money in the long run.

I don't think the letter is rude, "pugilistic," or anything of the sort. (So you wanna fight about this? LOLOL.) It does suggest that there are legal consequences for abridging your rights. Basically it foists two choices upon the reader -- a difficult one and an easy one. Nothing works all the time, of course, but this letter worked for me 3 of the 3 times I used it. Here are a few more nutcase testimonials which would support the strong-tone approach:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=128092#post128092
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=141946#post141946
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=147152#post147152
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=153638#post153638

Also, this rationale may help explain the tone of voice as well:
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=125081#post125081

Of course you may come up with an improved letter, so if you do have success with something different, please don't forget to return with the results so that the rest of us can benefit! Frankly, the more letters that exist which are directed at FULLY PAID but VERY LATE tradelines (a category previously ignored because the old philosophy was that we lost our "leverage" once an account was fully paid), the better off we'll be. That way the same letter isn't being sent to the same creditors repeatedly. Irrespective of that, don't go soft! Stay hard! (Cough, cough.) Keep us posted!

Doc

 

Doc,

First of all, I want to thank you. I have all of your advise on this site and used a great deal. In two weeks, I have cut my CA listings from six to three have a definable strategy for the rest.

As to my question, (Keep in mind I only have five total tradelines to fuss over) One of the CAs that I paid a year ago pulled a hard copy of my report two weeks ago. I am operating under the assumption that that is definately not kosher. That being the case, I wanted to add it to the nutcase letter.

My addition reads:

Consequently, [the CA] performed an unauthorized inquiry into my EQUIFAX credit file on March 5th of this year as confirmed by the credit reporting agency on the 7th. Please note that this inquiry was filed nearly a year after the paid collection account handled by your firm had been settled. Such an inquiry will limit my horizons now, and in the future. I only ask that you remove this inquiry. This solution may not be the complete redress available to the consumer under the FDCP, FCRA, federal statues, and [State] state consumer protection laws regarding unauthorized inquiries.

My fear, with any hard letter, is to not push the reader beyond whatever casual corrective action they might take given a request. In combining both grievences, I dont wan't to exceed the envelope.

I greatly value any input.