Alright guys I'm gonna give all the facts, so let's get to it. I began my credit repair journey about 32 days ago and here is what's happened. I originally began with these reports: EQ: Client- SW bell Date reported11/99 Amount 282 Balance 282 Balance date 11/99 Last activity 08/97 date assigned 07/99 CA-Risk Mangement Alternatives (RMA) Client- Ameren UE Date reported 09/98 Amount 219 Blance 229 Balance date 09/98 Last activity 02/98 Date assigned 07/98 Unpaid CA-Consumer Collection Management(CCM) TU: Original Creditor SBC Placed 04/02 Updated 04/02 Balance 381 most owed 282 Status Collection Account CA-American Agencies (AmAGC) EXP: Original Creditor SBC Opened 04/04 Reported Since 06/98 Date of status 06/98 last reported 06/02 High balance 282 recent balance 381 as of 06/02 CA-AmAGC Original Creditor Ameren UE Opened 07/98 Reported since9/98 Date of Status 09/98 Last reported 09/98 High Balance 219 Recent Balance 229 CA-CCM Original Creditor SWbell Opened 07/98 Reported Since08/97 Date of Status 08/97 Last reported 09/99 High Balance282 Recent Balance282 CA-RMA Original Creditor Seligman Justice Court Opened 06/2000 reported since 11/2000 Date of Status 11/2000 last reported 11/2000 High Balance 555 Recent Balance 555 CA- Valley Collection Service (VCS) So that is what I started with.... AND NOW THE RESULTS (positive mostly) EQ: CCM/Ameren UE--------Remains RMA/SWbell-------------Deleted TU: AmAGC/SBC(SWbell)---Deleted EXP: AmAGC/SBC(SWbell)---Remains CCM/Ameren UE--------Remains RMA/SWbell(SBC)------Remains VCS/Seligman Justice--Remains MY THOUGHTS ON THIS I am fairly happy with the EQ investigation...I may send an accord and satisfaction letter to CCM. I haven't really decided or finished researching my next course of action for this one (least of my worries). As far as the TU results I am Happy to say the least... Now the A#*holes EXP These guys just decided that everything remains without investigating (that's how it seems to me). I mean the SWbell/SBC tradelines are obviously the same (supposed) debt reported by two different CA's. Now they can't have both validated with EXP since only one of them can hold the debt. My guess is that AmAGC owns the (supposed) debt since the dates are the most recent. How they validated the (supposed) debt with RMA I don't know..Is there a violation or five here? Now AmAGC wasn't able to get there act together with the other CRAs but did for EXP, I don't think so. Another fishy thing about this so called investigation is that all these came back as "remains" on the last day of the investigation...hmm interesting they all got their acts together at the last minute.. . Well EVERYONE has been so helpful during my first round, I'll appreciate All thought on what to do for ROUND2....... THANKS EVERYONE I ANXIOUSLY AWAIT YOUR RESPONSES AND OPINIONS... fsher00
"Another fishy thing about this so called investigation is that all these came back as "remains" on the last day of the investigation...hmm interesting they all got their acts together at the last minute.." Oh that IS interesting. Fire off a demand for a detailed procedures description. Include the line: "THIS IS NOT A REQUEST THAT YOU RE-INVESTIGATE!. They have 15 days. They just stamped everything verified to move on to more important things. Here I thought only EQ did that crap. LOL
Re: The results are in I need your Thanks for the suggestion butch..Is there anyplace to find some sort of sample letter for this?
Re: The results are in I need your No I did not send Validation Demands to the CA's I know I should have sent them at the same time i sent disputes to the CRAs But by the time I realized I had goofed it was too late. I don't want to do it now because I am afraid of "waking a sleeping giant" on the TL's that were deleted. Also, about butch's suggestion..Butch suggests that I send a demand for procedures and include the line "this is not a demand for reinvestigation" I am a little concerned about consequenses if I screw the wording up so I am attaching a copy of the letter I plan to send. I am concerned about the wording of investigation and re-investigation. Mostly this letter just comes from the sample gallery. Any way the letter is as follows.. let me know what ya'll think. MY ADDRESS Experian PO Box 9556 Allen, TX 75013 September 16, 2002 Dear Sir/Madame: This Letter is not a request that you re-investigate, instead, it is a formal request for the description of the procedures used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information from a previous investigation ending on Sept 15, 2002. I am also requesting that you include the business name, address, and telephone number of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with this investigation. I am disappointed that you have failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure complete accuracy in the information you publish, and insist you comply with the law by providing the requested information within the 15 days allowed. For your benefit, and as a gesture of my goodwill, I will restate the relevant disputes: American Agencies ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor SBC Consumer Collection Management ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor Ameren UE Risk Management Alternatives ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor SouthWestern Bell Valley Collection Service ACCT#xxx/Original Creditor Seligman Justice Court As already stated, the listed items are inaccurate and incomplete, and are very serious errors in reporting. Please supply a corrected credit profile to all creditors who have received a copy within the last 6 months, or the last 2 years for employment purposes. Additionally, please provide the name, address, and telephone number of each credit grantor or other subscriber. Sincerely, «Signature» «Your Name» «Your SSN»
Re: The results are in I need your Provide in writing the procedures used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information from your reinvestigation, which ended September 15, of my file. Include the business name, address, and telephone number of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with this investigation. Here are the relevant disputes: American Agencies ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor SBC [WHAT IS INACCURATE ABOUT IT?] Consumer Collection Management ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor Ameren UE [WHAT IS INACCURATE ABOUT IT?] Risk Management Alternatives ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor SouthWestern Bell Valley Collection Service ACCT#xxx/Original Creditor Seligman Justice Court Following any deletion of information which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified or any notation as to disputed information, furnish notification that the item has been deleted or the statement, codification or summary to ["person A" ("any person SPECIFICALLY designated by the consumer who has within two years prior thereto received a consumer report for employment purposes, or within six months prior thereto received a consumer report for any other purpose")]. «Signature» «Your Name» «Your SSN»
Re: The results are in I need your Guys listen carefully. I suggested that you include the line about this NOT being a request for an investigation for a reason. These people are NOTORIOUS for using any item of correspondence as an excuse to launch an investigation. I would suggest you nip that in the bud before it even starts. Following Mr. Fishers letter completely and utterly ignores this reality. Furthermore, if they do use this as an excuse to re-investigate it'll be the 2nd investigation and any subsequent's might well be labeled frivolous. The next time you really want it investigated it'll be your 3rd time as opposed to your 2nd, thus potentially annihilating your chances of resolving. Not to mention that Fishers recommendation sounds like something from another planet. Do you want your letter to sound like it came from you, or from CreditNet? I VASTLY preferred your original letter!!!!!!!!
Re: The results are in I need your Another opinion would be nice..if anyone can add anything it'd be appreciated. Thanks for all the help guys..
Re: The results are in I need your If a CRA has a hard time understanding a simple request for a proceduarl request and re-investigates then have a judge decide what your letter implied. If a CRA tries the "we misunderstood" then they can tell that to a judge. I prefer when writing initial letters to keep it simple and "talk down" to whomever you are writing to. It also gives the impression that you are just a typical person instead of someone copying a letter a lawyer wrote.
Re: The results are in I need your either letter would be okay. Here is one that I use I am in recent of your response to my request to investigate , Report #123456, dated Sept 14, 2002 account #1 account#2 Your response indicated that the information was verified as correct and would remain on my credit report as listed. I know for a fact that the information is inaccurate as listed. I am requesting a description of the procedures you used to verify the accounts. I am not requesting a reinvestigation. If it was verified by mail, at what address did you send it and to whom was it addressed? (this includes e-mail) If it was verified by phone, what number did you call and who responded? My investigation results do not list this information. Pleaser respond to this request within 15 days as required by law. If you cannot respond within 15 days, I will assume that you are unable to provide me with the procedural descriptions for the accounts listed and will delete the accounts from my credit report.
Re: The results are in I need your you all are the greatest. I will adjust my letter so it is not an exact copy and keep you informed Thanks again to all.
Re: The results are in I need your "I suggested that you include the line about this NOT being a request for an investigation for a reason... Following Mr. Fishers letter completely and utterly ignores this reality." It is not our job to second-guess them. The demand is clear: Provide the procedures. I have first-hand experience with them doing something completely illogical based on a request for an action (http://creditaccuracy.com/0002.htm), and, while you may be right about that, the poster doesn't seem to be in any hurry. If that's the case, it is better to play it straight, and with as few words and confusing irrelevant demands as possible. Always prepare for a lawsuit. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20010906a.asp#legal Call me Greg. "Furthermore, if they do use this as an excuse to re-investigate it'll be the 2nd investigation and any subsequent's might well be labeled frivolous. The next time you really want it investigated it'll be your 3rd time as opposed to your 2nd, thus potentially annihilating your chances of resolving." Again, not our problem. We follow the law; it isn't our responsibility to make sure that they don't. "Not to mention that Fishers recommendation sounds like something from another planet." The words are taken directly from the law (U.S. government, Earth). That's the point: Make your demands lawful; don't take chances by paraphrasing the law with your own words. Also, give them bite with an active voice. Saying "I am also requesting... " just describes, meely-mouthed, what you're doing instead of doing it. Take out the "please"s, "gestures of goodwill," and qualitative "very serious [says who?] errors in reporting"s, and get to the point. Too flowery. But, if the demands are frivolous, then they're frivolous. The poster said they're afraid of "waking a sleeping giant." Why? What would that giant do?
Re: The results are in I need your Okay I have considered everyones advice and come up with a simplified version. I am still leaving a notice not to re-investigate (definately don't want that) About disputing with CA's I don't want to do that quite yet since some TLs were removed from other CRA reports I just don't want to mess with that unless I have to. anyway here is the letter I plan to mail tomorrow.. Dear Sir/Madame: This letter is a formal request for the description of the procedures used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information from a previous investigation ending on xx/xx/02 (report number xxx). I am also requesting that you include the business name, address, and telephone number of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with this investigation. I am not requesting a reâ??investigation, merely a description of procedures. I ask that you comply with the law by providing the requested information within the 15 days allowed. For your benefit, I will restate the relevant disputes: American Agencies ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor SBC Consumer Collection Management ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor Ameren UE Risk Management Alternatives ACCT# xxx/Original Creditor SouthWestern Bell Valley Collection Service ACCT#xxx/Original Creditor Seligman Justice Court I am not requesting a reâ??investigation, merely a description of procedures. Sincerely,
Re: The results are in I need your I still don't see any disputes. Are the listings inaccurate? Not yours?
your debt Hey dimwit, Look at the date of the post you're squeeling about. Fisher is long gone. I pushed the button personally. lol
