That's a good question. I don't know if they would get deleted. I DO know that the stuff we disputed IS being reported INCORRECTLY and that they refused to investigate because they thought we were using a CRO. But if they deemed the dispute frivolous (which they're allowed to do right?), then ARE they in violation?? So what if we did this..what if we redisputed the same things all over again having it notarized? Since they didn't investigate the first dispute, it would be like starting all over again right?? To tell you the truth, I really don't know if I'm ready to go to court at this point in time..I'm so new at this it scares me to death! But I also don't want to let them get away with screwing us over either! What to do??? daisy
If you are looking for deletion you should have all you need. The point I was trying to convey when I started this thread, is similar to the 1-2 punch, (validate and verify). I thought this could be a good 'trick' to get rid of a stubborn tradeline. They have 30 days to investigate, they did not, they must delete. If they don't delete, ITS on the grounds that they did not investigate in 30 days. If they don't delete say 10 days after the ITS, then file suit. Since they have nothing to gain and only money to lose (they will have to hire and pay a lawyer to go to your county, licensed in your state), you are making it to easy for them to just delete. The judge is going to make them delete, and give you a grand or more. If this was a CA I can see where they would want to fight cause they have a financial gain, but for a CRA it is to easy to just delete. Keep the debt out of the picture it is no longer relevant to the lawsuit. I did this with TU and they deleted the same afternoon they signed for the ITS letter. I think this can be effective cause if it simplicity.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Well that's interesting b/c my letter didn't contain 1 word of case law and simply stated that I found the following errors on my report, please investigate and remove. Then I listed each credit item I was disputing and stated what the error was.......and they sent me the CRO letter?? So that's a bunch of crap the rep told you. Further, the rep told you not to worry, that they're still investigating your disputes (despite their letter to you), but my letter specifically stated that they "will not investigate my dispute." I don't know how they could've been more clear there. I'm looking forward to the 30 days running out, sending my ITS letter and then filing a suit in court. I want to get my $1000 bucks and the deletions. Does anyone have an opinion how long I should wait to file suit after I've sent the ITS letter? 10 days? I want to do it quick as possible.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Nevermind about my question of when to file suit, I didn't notice the post before me giving me the answer. I will file 10 days after the ITS letter was received by them, if filing is even necessary. I just hope that they accept my CRR ITS letter so that I get the card back in the mail. EQ didn't send my card back for a dispute I sent them.
FANTASTIC! Good job CM, If the dispute resolution procedure/process were actually followed the way it was contemplated, it would be a smooth, well oiled machine, involving ALL parties concerned, and ending in a fast AND ACCURATE resolution/deletion of TL's. It would all easily be done within 30 days too. When Congress put this together they had in mind the following; Consumer notifies CRA CRA notifies DF, (within 5 days) including all pertinent info. furnished by the consumer DF goes directly to the OC [where appropriate] to get updated, corrected or verified that they have the correct info. And to compare the info. the consumer furnished Then the DF reports the results back to the CRA for immediate update/deletion/correction. Note how smoothly it was designed to work it's way all the way down and then back up "the hierarchy". CRA to DF to OC, OC back to DF back to CRA. ALL 3 of the parties were envisioned to be involved in this process. The ENTIRE purpose for your dispute/validation rights is to prevent a CA from dunning the wrong person, or messing up the wrong persons CR". To do that we must start at the beginning, by alerting directly to the CRA. Curse it rarely owrks that way but it's supposed to. Kool how those "light bulbs" come on ain't it? ~ .
Now we can see the reasons why we don't even have an [FCRA] case until we first dispute with the CRA. And that's what I mean, and why I keep saying, the FCRA says we must first dispute with CRA. This is what was determined in the Nelson Case. If we don't give the procedure it's proper chance to do it's magic, then we are at fault for screwing the whole thing up, and it gets thrown outta court. ..
I guess an interesting "legal" question re: this TU letter is: "Did the letter state that they would NOT investigate BECAUSE they thought you were using a CRO? I think some caution is needed here in interpretation; if there is an ITS for this move, a judge would NEED the "link" to prove illegality, and hence, any "damages". Also, a response clarifying you are NOT using a CRO, eliminates the "additonal information" interpretation by CRA. The law itself is pretty straightforward and clear, they MUST investigate if you follow the legal requirements.
a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge what if the part in red up there simply means the consumer notifies the agency directly as opposed to notifying someone else directly. by crowmom ====================== OK but what does consumer notifies the agency directly mean? Example 1*I send the CRA a dispute 2*I hire Lexington and they dispute with the CRA 3*I hire a CRO and they dispute with the CRA 4*I retain an attorney and he disputes with the CRA 5*All the above. ------------------------Is the answer 1 2 3 4 or 5 ??????
Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" It should not matter; I beleive the FCRA is written to hold "liability" for CREDIT REPORTING, AS ON A CREDIT REPORT, to the CRA. In other words, if you notify the DF, this does not mean the CRA MUST investigate. I beleive this relates back to "assurring reasonable accuracy". Also, I beleive this is meant to imply you do not complain to the FTC regarding items on your report. Now, how the CRAs, (and their attorneys) interpret this is most likely a completely different version. BTW, my DW just received a letter of this type from Equifax. Now it DID say they were investigating the dispute. It said it was to "inform" that the consumer can do all of this by themself.
Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" light bulb moments are awesome, lol. I firmly believe the answer is 5. All of these scenarios are the consumer notifying the CRA directly, instead of indirectly going thru the DF or someone else to get the dispute to the CRA. get it? The question is, would a Judge 'get it.' Has anyone asked the FTC what their interpretation is?
Also, a response clarifying you are NOT using a CRO, eliminates the "additonal information" interpretation by CRA. bizwiz41 ===================== Why do you not have to use a CRO to require the CRA to investigate the dispute?
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by lbrown59 OK but what does consumer notifies the agency directly mean? Example 1*I send the CRA a dispute 2*I hire Lexington and they dispute with the CRA 3*I hire a CRO and they dispute with the CRA 4*I retain an attorney and he disputes with the CRA 5*All the above. Is the answer 1 2 3 4 or 5 ?????? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1*I firmly believe the answer is 5. All of these scenarios are the consumer notifying the CRA directly, instead of indirectly going thru the DF or someone else to get the dispute to the CRA. 2*get it? 3*The question is, would a Judge 'get it.' 4*Has anyone asked the FTC what their interpretation is? crowmom ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1*I don't see how it could be anything else. 2*Yeah I do but the CRAs don't! 3*Hard to tell. 4*Good Idea: The CRAs are twisting what the law says - !!!!!!
Well, let's try to analyze it ... 1. It could mean to go to them and to give them the letter hand to hand. Yeah, right ... then why do we have postal services at all? 2. Let say they receive a letter from John The Attorney, writing them on your behalf. Could they claim this is not a direct contact? Could they deny all of us the right to hire a lawyer? I don't think so ... 3. Let see what the word "frivolous" means ... [color=0066FF]a) of little weight or importance b) having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit> c) lacking in seriousness [/color] So, does the format of the letter affect in any way the importance or the seriousness, or the facts listed in the letter? I don't think so ... They want us to not use a lawyer or a CRO, 'cause the lawyer and the CRO know the law. If we write the letter all by ourselves, there is a big chance we might screw something up, this way giving them a chance to get away. In fact, their answer is frivolous and having no sound basis. I sent THEM a letter. Doesn't matter who wrote the letter. It's my name on it, it's my signature on it. That's it. Period. As a matter of fact, I'm going to look for some standard CRO's letters, so I can send them exactly the letter a CRO would send them, wait for their "it's frivolous" answer, wait the 35 days, then sue them and make some money ...
Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" no need for that. I think all you have to do is mail your dispute from a different city than the one on your Cert. Mail return label. I sent a very basic dispute letter for my sister. We got on the phone while I typed up the letters, I explained things to her in a nutshell, (she had NO clue about credit repair) and she gave me the OK to sign her name and go ahead and mail everything for her the next day. I live in a different ZIP Code. I filled everything out as if she'd done it, but the postmark ZIP on the letter was different from the return address ZIP. I think they have a department of monkeys at the CRAs who look for this as they sort the mail. (no offense to monkeys.)
Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" ALL MAIL in EASTERN CO (FRONT RANGE) is post marked in DENVER...as far as I know WHITTIER CA is post marked in LONG BEACH **CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTERS** You would have to have them sell you meter postage to have your "REAL" CITY ON IT...
Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Actually, I don't think the CRAs have ever used that part of the law to claim 'frivolous'. I think the reason this whole analysis came about was because someone feared they might try. The letter my sister received stated that her dispute was frivolous because CROs are known for disputing legitimate TLs. but when it comes to credit reporting, exactly what IS legitimate anyway? (that was a rhetorical question.) at any rate, the CRAs arent twisting anything yet are they? what have others' letters said?
Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" One of my favorite FRIVOLOUS answers was... WHOSE ACCOUNT---UNKNOWN "PLEASE CHANGE WHOSE ACCOUNT FROM UNKNOWN TO JOINT" CRA'S ANSWER---->FRIVOLOUS
