I am so po'd right now!! I have 3 negs left on TU which I disputed during Dec. Well, they all came back verifed. 2 of the 3 disputes stated verif'd on 8-2002 even though they supposedly "verified" in Dec. Well I sent a procedural request and I just received a letter from TU. It states that they previously verified this information and that they consider this dispute frivolous. They claim that they cannot reinvestigate the items unless I can provide court papers or an authentic letter from the creditor!! Is this what they send in response to a procedural request. What can I do from here?? Send an "intent to sue"? Help please!
Yes. Send an intent to sue and if no response do it. Of course, I am talking from emotion due to what they just pulled on me. I just emailed an intent to them since D Richman didn't feel my situation warranted a response yesterday. They have 1 day to fix this. I will sue on Tuesday.
Thanks LKH. I will sent it out on Monday. I actually faxed the procedural request to them. I think I will send the intent to sue by CRRR though.
I sent an intent to sue to TU, by e-mail, for not responding to my procedural request. I am being told by a supervisor at TU that "once a creditor verifies your correct ID for an account that you are disputing as not yours, you then need to direct your concerns directly to those creditors. If the creditors state those accounts do not belong to you, you will need to get a letter from them stating to remove the account in question". In the e-mail I was given the dates each creditor verified my dispute and that they verified name, address and social security number. Is this all TU has to give me??
I'm curious, so maybe I can avoid this problem. Did you dispute in both Aug and Dec as not mine? Or did you change in Dec to something like never late, or didn't open an acct on such and such date?
I disputed as "not mine" each time. 2 of the 3 accounts were never updated with a new verified date. They still list the old dates as the verified dates.
To be nit picky... I'd say then your credit report is not accurate and complete. The verified date has not been updated properly. Of cour this is nothing to sue off but still goes to show how they let things skimp along @ TU.
I requested "how" they verified these accounts and who was contacted. I was told one account verified by phone and two accounts were verified electronically. Is this really sufficient as far as my procedural request goes?
Yes actually it is sufficent. You cannot go by the date updated as an account being verified. If an account is updated electronically, the date verified will not change if everything was verified as accurate. Where do you get your info??
Sorry, but I do not wish to take advice from someone with 1 post. You are either a troll or you work for TU. Please go away!
Choice #2 is correct. Network lookup for IP ----------------------------- address :whois whois.arin.net 12.106.254.75: AT&T WorldNet Services ATT (NET-12-0-0-0-1) 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255 TRANS UNION CORPORATION TRANS-UNIO229-254 (NET-12-106-254-0-1) 12.106.254.0 - 12.106.255.255 ---------------------------- Hello person from TU! Are you here to post helpful advice? (welcome) or post misleading and disruptive propaganda ( get lost) Radi8
Well there is only 1 post because I just signed on and your comment was the first one I felt like responding to. That aside, you must think that I work for TU because my answer was reasonable and made complete sense. I know that to get the correct information, you must go to the source and listen to what they are telling you. There is no "Black hole" that I have seen written about them. They are very nice, considerate people who are willing to help people if they would only listen. Does D. Richman know you are writing about him?
Christi, Normally if you dipsute one way and it gets verified, and then you dispute it again, they needn't re-verify. They can label it frivlous. However, your response to procedures is not sufficient. They are required to give you name, address and phone number, if reasonably available. If the verify by phone could anyone (in their right mind) suggest this info. is not available?
I welcome reps from the CRA's here personally, nothing like the "horses-mouth" for information. However attempts to mislead will be quashed immediately. There are many people here, including atty's who know the FCRA as well as or better than TU. So, Welcome, but please play straight. Radi8
I don't think I ever referred to Mr. Richman in this post. Please don't make assumptions as to who I contacted. Also, it is common knowledge here that Mr. Richman and others from TU look at this board.
