One piece of advise I've seen and I've been given was to send DV to CA, then a few days later, file a dispute, for a 1-2 punch, so to speak. Last week I sent 3 DV's CM/RRR and today I called EX to dispute 2 TL's. I called because I had questions about a couple of things I needed answered, like who reported an address I never had nor know anything about from anyone I know? They couldn't answer that - said they couldn't tell, it wasn't attached to any account now listed so they would remove. Anyway, while I was on the phone, (recording for my documentation) I wanted to disputed the 2 TL's that didn't get removed in my last dispute, which was completed a month ago. Both of the items are paid. I was told I cannot dispute these items again, they were disputed once, verified and cannot be disputed through the CRA again. Anything I do to try to get it removed now has to be done between me and the creditor. Maybe this strategy works if you do it on the first dispute, but I don't know that either. But I wanted to notify members here that that strategy didn't work, at least not in this case. Does anyone care to revise or clarify that strategy advise now?
The strategy has its drawbacks, and this happened to me: "previously Verified" I went to experian online and filed new disputes, some accounts it accepted, others it did not.I have tried it as listing the same report number, and also as a new dispute, "recieved report elsewhere", one was not more effective than the other. I also mailed in my disputes. Some were denied , others accepted, I have phoned back several times, and by quoting FCRA violations, such as re-dating accounts, changing info, etc. Had my re-disputes accepted, and denied. I always tell them the FTC TAKES THESE COMPLAINTS SERIOUSLY. Not sure what your course of action should be, but please dont give up. I have had dv's ignored and the account verified during the 30 day dv, not sure on that one either., it is also flawed. Another flaw is: The OC or the CA responds with no info available to DV. (contract, statements, etc.) Forward letter to CRA and request deletion, they reply with: "Cannot accept evidence, sent it to the OC with your complaint" Cant other members with more expierence answer with a strategy to combat these roadblocks in the dispute process? My questions to these problems have gone unanswered.
I posted this as it's own thread, even though I posted this in another thread, because I think it's important and didn't want it getting lost in another thread and not seen. (the other thread is "Round 2 of dispute...." started by me) Dealing with EX is a whole other topic, I may post about that again, or dig up my old thread and continue it. I'm a bit frustrated though that I've gotten this info here about the 1-2 punch, DV - dispute with CRA, and it doesn't work. And that when I posted a thread about advise before this dispute, I got little help (thank you to anyone who did repsond) I know I'm not singled out here. As I look at the threads and the number of responses, I see down the "response" column a lot of 0's and 1's or very low numbers, with the exception of an old thread that comes back with high repsonses. I don't know why I see the experts here and there, but nto offereing up much advise to many people. I thought they were here because they wanted to help people. I see more responses if your question is about court, but many of us need to know these basics from those who treaded this path before. I have read the sticky's, and when I have a question I look at the sticky's again and again, and maybe I've missed something here and there, but I am trying, and many others are too. I'm really hoping the helping hands will come back, even for us beginners.
If you are trying to get negative information removed that is accurate, you may be successful, either due to the DF failing to respond, or not wanting to take any risk on a paid debt or one they no longer own, but if you fail, you may have a limited choice of "Plan B". If the information is erroneous, you can go to court, against the DF for reporting erroneously, or against the CRA, if the DF agrees to remove, but the CRA fails to. Either way, disputing thru the CRA is a necessary step to establish liability on either party to take the matter to court. If the reporting is erroneous, each response failing to correct may improve your case for damages, and therefore also your negotiating position should they decide to settle out of court. Along similar lines, you are in a stronger position keeping your reports clean in the first place, particularly if a creditor makes an error, and you are on top of it immediately. You also document and memorialize in writing, and send CRRR, to have records to show when disputes were made, or when agreements to correct were made. If you keep no records, and just talk on the phone, you will be at the mercy of the least competent company's own records and people. It is best to be right, but even if you are, you have to be willing to push.
Ontrack, thank you very much for the courtesy of the response. I understand everything you said. I have tried to procedd as if I may need to go to court someday - I read the litigous mindset thread, and I know my record keeping and appropriate steps in the appropriate order are important. So far I think I've done that. (these paid items were brefore I knew better, but I'm trying to deal with that now) 1. I've disputed (Round 1) and got many negs removed. 2. After that, I was able to get a PFD on the only item that was not paid that still remained. 3. Last week I sent out 3 DV letters to the only 3 remaining items (punch #1), and I wanted to follow that up with disputing with the CRA's (recorded on my end) for the 2nd time. (punch #2) So I think I am proceeding in the right order. (it would have been nice to have someone proof my DV letter and verify my steps in dispute #2, but when no one did, I proceeded anyway) This is what was said here as what to do. But EX says I can't dispute again. When you say , are you saying to file a dispute with them another way anyway? Are you saying they had no right to say that? Are they wrong? Let me know if they are, and let me know if I should add that to my FTC complaint that already exists. Should I try to dispute with the other CRA's online/through mail? If what EX says is true, they won't let me either, so I need to know if EX is wrong or right. If they are right, and I can't re-dispute, what is the next step? I think either Goodwill to OC or start nutcase letters, but I think trying only 1 more thing should be enough. If there is something reported wrong, even the smallest thing, should I skip right away to the ITS letter? At this point I have 1 dispute and 1 DV letter (CM/RRR) as effort on my part to correct - is that enough? In one case, I have even more - previous efforts to have removed. One other CA is West Management, which I think are scumbags - how likely are they to delete something that has already been paid? All of these questions will help me to know what to do next. I can send an ITS because I have documentation that I have tried to correct (dispute#1 and DV letter) Should I try to dispute with EX again anyway, online this time (or mail, doesn't matter, just not on phone)? Thanks again, ontrack. I hope you'll add your thoughts again.
Is the information being reported erroneously? If so, and the normal disputes fail, then court is your next step. You can write letters all day long, but they cannot force anyone to do anything. You would want to document the disputes and responses to be able to show negligent or willful erroneous reporting, and economic damages if you can, and you should look for an attorney with experience in FCRA and FDCPA law. They also often do bankruptcy law. Although you might be able to do this yourself, why would you want to give your opponent a discount with your free labor, when FDCPA and FCRA allow the court to award attorney's fees if you win? For maximum effectiveness, you would not want to let the SOL expire on any of their FDCPA or FCRA violations. If it is being reported correctly, you may have less options. If they have violated FDCPA by their collection methods, you may have legal recourse, and you may be able to use that to negotiate removal or settlement of the debt. Or you may file a complaint with your state AG, and it might be simpler for a CA to drop collection efforts. Or they might sell it, and you get to start over with disputing and validation with the new CA. If they are reporting correctly, and they keep good records, and they are not violating any laws, you may be at an impass. Or you could wait 6 months or a year and try again. Things change, companies merge, or get bought and sold, records get lost, etc. Or they might even screw up in responding to your dispute and put gross errors on your reports, giving you the legal traction to sue and settle for removal. CA's especially have less interest in old paid accounts. There is no more money in it for them. If the CRA rejects your dispute as already verified, sometimes including some documentation of your claim will result in a redispute. Or again, wait 6 months to a year. If the DF agrees to remove but it stays on your reports, and disputes thru the CRA fail to dislodge it, see an attorney. You may need to put pressure on both the DF and CRA, and sometimes an attorney letter will accomplish that. Or you may need to sue, one or the other, or both. With OCs reporting erroneously, especially on paid accounts, proceeding up the hierarchy may work. OCs generally have an interest in future business, which can be lost if they can't keep potential customers happy. CAs, and CRAs, have no such interest, since to them, you are not a customer, and you are not dealing with them by choice. Remember that if you don't assert your rights, you might as well not have them. If you don't ask, you will not get. If someone is illegally screwing up your life, its better to fix it now, than let it drag on, costing you for years. Keep in mind that all the crap they throw at you was not invented just for you, but is their standard everyday behavior, whether you owe a debt, or don't owe it, whether they have the right party, or not, etc. So whatever comes back at them, they deserve. The law gives you the right to take them to court, but it doesn't make you do it. In the mean time, time passes, your financial position improves, you continue to establish additional accounts, and your scores improve, allowing you to get better terms on new accounts. Those improvements are as important as getting a negative account removed, so don't forget their value in your focus on your credit reports. What matters in the end is your financial bottom line. Remember, your goal is not just to improve your score, it is to improve your life. Whatever you do, don't do nothing. Actively manage your credit. Push on all fronts. Use opportunities as they arise. Don't give up. That is my view of the whole field of consumer credit management, and what is called credit repair is only one small part of it.
I think this may be my only hope. I hope I can get a response to the DV letters, and maybe there is more info on there to look at to see if there is a mistake - as of now, from what I can see, it doesn't look like there's a mistake. I don't think there was something wrong in collection tactics - I paid, not because they bugged me - I pd because I wanted to clean up my CR and I grabbed my CR and paid what I could (before I knew anything about any of this!) So I can'tr get them on that - I called THEM. I have been doing all that you said, about keeping CR clean - I only 1-2 items on each report that is neg, and they are paid. I have scores in the upper 600's - I now know better and am improving over time, as you said. Ontrack thank you very much for giving so much information, and I hope others find it useful, and it does help verify my steps and train of thought. I appreciate your time to write so much and to thoughtfully respond. You stepped up when no one else was - I am grateful. I respectfully must say that I'm not sure the specifics of my needs as stated in my posts are addressed though. My main problem now is 2-fold (mostly). 1. That there was advise in this forum that didn't work. Maybe at one time, that strategy worked, but it appears not now. Or maybe in some cases it will, but in others it won't. I just wanted some clarification on that, or to let everyone be aware of this response from EX, so that now we can all work with that info. trying to share what I've learned, trying to be helpful. 2. That being said, what should I do now, in light of this information, due to the specifics of my circumstances? Is there another strategy to try to get rid of these 1-2 negs? As I stated to start this post, I think I've run of options, other than to let time go by and try to dispute again and cross my fingers. However, among my questions were: * Should I try a goodwill to OC? * Should I try nutcase letters? I read the thread about an idea that I like, that says for paid accounts like mine, I can try to be a bother to them, in hopes that they will remove negs just to get rid of me. That is something I'm willing to do, and I think I've already started it. But I will do it all through a paper trail - no phones. The dispute, the DV CM/RRR, and the other letters I want to write are to that end. I intend to write to the CEO at some point, just to keep trying. I paid these without verifying they are mine. That's why I may be able to ask for verification now - to be sure they are in fact mine. I did discover one truely was not, I was refunded and the item was supposed to be removed - I have a letter from the CA saying this dated Jan., 2006. It was not removed until I disputed in June, 2006. It is still on EX because I missed it in the 1st dispute - EX didn't list it in the neg. section, and I missed it. I just disputed that with EX and I'm sure it will come off. My point is because I paid something before validation, I paid for something that was not mine. For that reason, it would not be unusual for me to ask for vlaidation now, to be sure everything is accurate or if not, removed. So I hope I get the validations back. If not, it is a record that I attempted to verify. It may be useful to tell a CEO all of this, and that I tried to get the information but got no response. These accounts were not in collections long - one for 1 month, the other for 2 months (the 3rd for several months, under 1 yr). Maybe a CEO will grant removal for this reason, and it's paid. I'm looking for ideas and verification of my strategies. I am willing to share what I've learned along the way to help others, and I am willing to respond to others posts to try to help when I can. Again, Ontrack, thatnk you, for all that you do, truely.
Ontrack, thanks for the info, you not only help Suzie, but educate us all with some sound advice. Suzie, the best advice apears to be keep pushing to get a clean report, dont get discouraged or give up, this is merely a step in the credit education process. On a positive note, if you get responses from DV's you can submit them as additional relevent evidence, and ask the CRA for a deletion. This will re-initiate the dispute process. There are drawbacks to this also, and the CRA's are well prepared to deny your request, but with a can do attitude and a exceptional credit education you will win. Your on the right path, read read read, and use google and posted links to find out about court cases that win or lose for the consumer. I agree the old post had alot more expert input, they are a wealth of information, I too wish they would continue to help us, as times and strategies change. Thanks for the good info threads like this produce.
Ok, I am getting the message to keep pushing, keep trying, but let me clarify this: Should I file my 2nd dispute with the other 2 CRA's now, or wait? I only tried with EX, not the other 2 yet. I think I'm hearing that I should wait for a while to see what does or does not happen with the DV's I sent, and maybe re-dispute with CRA's in a few more months. But maybe what you are saying is to not let the EX things stop me, and file those other 2 disputes now, while the DV's are still fresh - try that 1-2 punch anyway. Maybe even try again with EX, but online or by mail this time. So does keep trying mean now or later? Thanks!
I would wait and send the DV responses to the Cra's (if they favor your case) It will add credibility to your dispute. If you re-dispute today, you will have to re-dispute a 3rd time when the DV replies to you. As a chronic disputer , the CRA's may ignore you. This is only my opinion, please decide for yourself. I have had mixed results at this stage of the process. A better educated member could probably offer further input.
"I only 1-2 items on each report that is neg, and they are paid. I have scores in the upper 600's : They are paid accounts, and as time passes your scores will rise whether you get them off or not, and based on their original date of delinquency, they will eventually fall off. In the mean time, do not miss the opportunity of building your credit by carefully opening new accounts with reputable lenders, increasing credit limits, and maintaining low balances. The longer and more extensive your good credit history, the less effect even old paid collection accounts will have on your scores. You have also seen that even dealing with accounts you know are not yours can take time and continual pushing. That is why you should have no tolerance for any CA who attempts to collect from you but will not validate. Even though you finally got them to refund your payment (you are very lucky), you are still dealing with this 6 months later! Next time you will keep good records, know what you owe, and go ballistic on the first violation. Despite the extra work, it is actually cheaper. If you had a fence around your house, and a bunch of hippy squatters moved in, you would call the police immediately.
i have found in my travels that once you dispute, you have to wait a month or so, but then you can redispute again. on one of my negs, i have disputed no less than 9 (or more, i lost count) times. the problem is, unless you can "convince" the creditor in some way that it is in their best interest not to verify the info, most of the times it will be reverified again. my tactic is to be nice the first few times, then get mean. if it is paid, just nutcase/bbb/attygen the heck out of them. make them realize you are not going away. call, call, call.... just like they do to us. make them feel the pain. blah blah blah...see you in court. also a lawyer friend could come in handy if there is a violation or two. something about a lawyers letterhead gets things moving.... in the case of an old $15 bank chargeoff (one of my hardest), i sent no less than 19 nutcase/its/seeyouincourt letters. they kept saying, i don't see that in our files. well, i see it in my report lady.... it was finally removed, but only after i harassed them for at least a year. over 15 f##king dollars...my score was compromised by at least 50 points! there oughtta be a law.... oh! there is! F C R A slow and steady wins the race......
I got a letter from one of the CA's that I sent a DV letter to. To paraphrase, they say the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allows me to request validation, but only within the first 30 days after you receive an intital statement from them. While they beleive my resquest for validation is not timely pursuant to Section 809(b), the will validate the debt by enclosing a copy of the statement from the creditor. They close by saying if I need additional information or have questions I can call them. They sent what looks like an itemized bill. It is not a statement that was ever sent - there is no "date of statement". It looks like a summary, basically. A list of charged items from an E.R. visit with dates. It is a 1 pg thing. My signature is nowhere, there are no terms spelled out. Not much to it at all. This is a medical account that was paid 12/05 and was only in collections for 1 month. The date of service was 4/05 and it was reported on my CR by 11/05. Not much time. Any thoughts?
Your gonna have to quote some law cases: In Oglesby v. Rotche, No. 93-C-4183, 1993 WL 460841, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 1993), and again in Blakemore v. Pekay, 895 F. Supp. 972, 983 (N.D. Ill. 1995), the district court addressed whether consumers could waive an FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692i, the venue section which mandates in part that a debt collector bring legal action on a debt only â??in the judicial district or similar legal entity . . . in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon[.]â? In Oglesby, the debtors defended themselves in the debt collection suit rather than moving for a change of venue while in Blakemore, the debtor appeared in the debt collection proceeding and consented to judgment against him on the debt. In deciding that consumers cannot waive the protections afforded by 15 U.S.C. § 1692i, the Illinois district court concluded that requiring an unsophisticated consumer to â??exercise his rights under the FDCPA immediately or lose them is contrary to the basi[c] premise of the Act, which is to protect unsophisticated debtors from debt collectors who may use the legal system, about which the consumer has little knowledge, to bludgeon them into submission.â? Blakemore, 895 F. Supp. at 983 (quoting Oglesby, at *10). The district court explained that 15 U.S.C. § 1692i â??is . . . more in the nature of a statutory tort which is completed upon the filing of an action in an improper venue.â?
You can use their own words against them. In referecing the FDCPA the CA points out that your right to dispute follows the 30 day period "after your receive", they use these words but due to cost restrictions rarely if ever send certified. The burden is on the CA to prove that you received the initial notice. Even if you have had prior correspondence with the CA they are obligated to ensure that you received the initial demand letter or dunning letter. If you have communication with the CA prior to your RECEIPT of the initial demand letter with its required notices, the CA then has 5 business days to send an initial demand letter. "owe2much" brought up some very helpful case history that I'll definately be bookmarking, but if the CA cannot prove you received notice they will have a difficult time defending their position.
Are you saying that I should send them another letter, requesting validation, quoting law stating why they need to comply? I think I understand what the last 2 posts mean: that there is case law that says just because I didn't ask for validation with 30 days after receiving their first letter (which would be hard to say when I received it, since they didn't send it registered mail), doesn't mean they don't have to provide validation when I request it at any other point. So if I understand that correctly, the next question is what to do with it. Send them a letter asking for validation again, and state that case law? Or use it for court purposes (send an ITS letter?) So far I have disputed once as "not mine" and it was verified (by who, I don't know. sometimes I wonder if the CRA even bothers to investigate). That would have been my 1st attempt to "correct or delete". This DV letter (sent CM/RRR by me) is my 2nd attempt. Both have good documentation to show my attempts. Is that enough to stop playing with the CA and go straight to court? Is their denying me validation a violation worth $1000? Along the way I've found this, which I think is essentially the same thing, but what do you think? Spears v. Brennan "In deciding that consumers cannot waive the protections afforded by 15 USC 1692i, the Illinois district court concluded that requiring an unsophisticated consumer to 'exercise his rights under the FDCPA immediatley or lose them' is contrary to the basic premise of the Act, which is to protect unsophisticated debtors from debt collectors who may use the legal system, about which the consumer has little knowledge, to bludgeon them into submission." If someone could explain what to do with all of this now, thank you.
BTW, I live in an apt. complex, have for last 2 yrs, and was here when this was all an issue. mail is often mis-delivered in that mass of metal boxes that are stacked together. Mail is not delivered to my door.
The Ogelsby case is a exerpt from the case of Spears v. Brenann. I would send them the quote along with a request for written validation. If your next step is litigation, then you should start reading more court cases , and consult with a laywer, or other legal professional.
Should I also try a goodwill letter to the hospital? My goal, of course is to get deletion without going to court. I know it may not come to going to court, but I have to procedd as if I am. I also know that if the CA is responding this way, they either don't want to be bothered (I got this letter back very fast), or they can't validate (but I'm thinking they probably could, at least at one time, since it was new - fresh info and not a JDB, see dates above - and from a hospital, and a local CA - but maybe can't validate at this time and are putting me off, or they are giving me the run around the block (just as I am trying to do, playing my game back at me) So should I send the 2nd letter to CA with that case law stated, and at the same time send a lgoodwill etter to the OC (a hospital, and hospitals usually are in the customer service business)? I knoiw from experience that the OC can say it's out of their hands now since the CA had it, but I also know they can instruct the CA to remove, so I can word my letter to say this, diplomatically. Is that advised, or just the CA letter #2 thing? Thank you very much for your help!!!!!
I'm no expert, and have had mixed results with the disputes, but like you I have done alot of reading. I read the OC is the only one who can do a pay for delete for a unpaid collection, however I dont feel that is what we are discussing here. I would go after the reporting agency. I assume it is the CA since that is where you sent the DV letter and got the reply. I would send them a copy of their own letter, a copy of the above reference (hand written or typed) and a very brief letter demanding they provide me with a signed contract, statements showing all amounts and dates being reported, or imediatley delete the account from my credit reports. Send it CRRR and see what happens. If some one has a better suggestion please share it with us.
