I say dispute it like you do anything else. Ask them what they are basing their claim that it is frivolous and then rebutt their answer, if you have a rebuttal.
Call them and dispute the items directly. This worked when there were duplicate judgements on my report and when I disputed them online, they sent me a letter saying that they couldn't be removed. I called and 2 weeks later, they had deleted them all. Sorry, forgot to add this in my rant earlier. ;-)
Robin, I couldn't have said it better myself - these techniques atleast alow us to level the playing field. Collection agencies and creditors use sleazy ruthless tactics to squeeze blood from a turnip regardless of the debtors situation. I cannot see any reason why someone would feel bad for the poor creditor - if they hand out credit like candy and it blows up in they're face...TOO BAD. Awarding Credit is the same as investing in stocks and bonds - ITS A RISK they take for a possible big reward. Me as a stock investor, if the stock drops like a rock, can I whine and cry about it.......TOO BAD, it's a risk I've taken. Food for thought; if collection agencies could get away with destroying your credit for 100 years, wouldn't they????? Just my ten cents, Sal
While I can not answer your question exactly I can offer you some insight. I did not have a frivolous "label" added when I disputed with Experian, but they DID refuse to verify a listing on subsequent requests to do so, because I had disputed in the past. Their reason was "We ALREADY verified this listing, we will NOT accept another dispute". I simply waited 2 months (one complete cycle between disputes, and re-re-disputed. They accepted the dispute, which was then deleted. I would say that you should wait a month, dispute again. If they refuse to accept your dispute, I would file suit for violation of the FCRA. Even if you dispute for the same reason, I think you will have a strong enough case that they will not let it get to court, they will delete the listing (it is FAR cheaper). -Peace, Dave
Bankruptcy frivolity Did you have a bankruptcy? What are you disputing: That you had it? Are you saying that you didn't have it when you really did have it?
Let me take these in order. How are the CRAs not following the law? How are they getting away with it? The high road is a metaphor for using honesty in dealing with the CRAs. If you are dishonest, your court cases or any other subsequent or escalated action will be treated with suspect (you might be lying again). Lizard King's lawsuits are a good example. For myself, I point to one, current project: My writing to Trans Union and asking them about dates of late payments. http://creditaccuracy.com/correspondence.htm#incomplete1 They responded that they "are providing full disclosure as required under the FCRA." I responded with actual documents proving that statement is a lot of hooey. http://creditaccuracy.com/0002.htm Stay tuna-ed to the Fisher Show. This discussion is not about Enron. Yes, there are corporate scoundrels. I will count you out. Good day. Don't lie still, lie.
I've always enjoyed this site because the participants don't mince words. If your comment is drected at me, in lieu of you submitting actual documents for my review, I will continue to judge you and and make reasonable assumptions about you based on your comments. When I awoke this morning, I judged that it would rain based on the weather forecast, I assumed that it was Sunday based on yesterday being Saturday, and I judged that you engaged in frivolous behavior based on your statement that you're using a "nutcase" letter. Let's face it, the credit bureaus are right SOME of the time, at least. But, is this some biblical ("Judge not let ye... ") thing? If that's the law now, we're going to have to shut down one complete branch of the three which comprise our federal government. So, if I'm wrong about all this with my judgement, please explain how so. And, to clear up this jazz about "false assumptions" (you stopped short of a direct accusation), is the entry on your credit file correct, or not? Is pandamonium better than order?
I want my credit report to be 100% ACCURATE, so I dispute a lot of imperfections, that's "FRIVOLOUS" ???
In reading your account of your dispute with TU, here is my summary. They say they don't have specific dates of deliquency and you say they do. Please correct me if this is incorrect. So, assuming that is correct, wouldn't it be fair to say that TU was violating the law in not disclosing all file information to you? Weren't they getting away with it because they did not correct the problem or even admit there was a problem? I understand fully what "high road" means. If an item on my report doesn't belong to me, then what else should I say about it? It's not mine. Why should anyone have to dispute the entry in little sections, ie. incorrect date, balance etc, just to avoid the dispute being called frivolous? It's just silly. As far as your last comment "Don't lie still, lie.", I don't appreciate it. Typing a word incorrectly is not indicative of my morality nor my intelligence. As many have found out, this isn't a level playing field. Honesty is always ideal but the other side doesn't utilize that principle.
Your summary of the dates of late payments disagreement is correct. Yes, it is fair to say they violate the law daily. I don't see any other conclusion, and even when I gave them a chance to explain, they responded with dopey, amateurish legalese. They get away with it because they have the audacity to deny their actions because they know nobody wants to cause self-humiliation by splaying out their credit file delinquency for the world to see to prove the point. One's privacy is at stake. It is a conundrum. This discussion isn't about being forced to fill out disupte forms, it is about lying. I don't see any words typed incorrectly. It was a play on words. Regarding the means-to-an-end argument, it reminds me of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destrution) theory of nuclear war. Scorched earth. But, I don't believe I have to make any sacrifice of integrity in this battle. The opponent is lazy, stupid, arrogant with little regard for how that arrogance affects its public perception, and has created its own untenable position from which it will not escape.
