Would sending the letter NOW but adjusting it to include "your attempt to extend the time of my dispute request is bullsh*t (paraphrased of course)" and "my original dispute to your company, bearing my signature, was received on XX date" be a good idea? I'm leaning towards jlynn's suggestion that sending now affords me more legal footing as I quickly deny their claims and that this also keeps them on the dispute clock since I'm not asking them to re-investigate but rather follow through on the initial dispute that I legally sent them. I'm still fairly new to this but I can see how all arguments here are valid. I'm still not 100% sold on which approach to take however. Anyone have any additional thoughts? Hoping to get this one out in the mail tomorrow if the "send it now" option proves to be the best course of action. Thanks everyone!
Taking the advice of you folks here, I've adjusted the "accused of using credit repair agency" letter for my case. I've tried to cover when the dispute was received by them and also that I'm not requesting "re-investigation". Dear Sir/Madame: I am very dismayed at your suggestion that I may be using a credit repair firm. But I am absolutely appalled that a major international firm of your stature would commit such an obvious infraction of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. If I were indeed using a Credit Repair company as you so insidiously suggest, I would immediately and without further ado file a lawsuit against you for TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS as well as a lawsuit for violation of THE DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT. Please do not insult my intelligence in such a fashion again or I will immediately refer the matter to my attorney with demand for immediate legal action against you. I have made lawful request of you to verify a report about me in my credit files. This request was received by your company on 5/X/03 and bore my personal legal signature. I respectfully suggest that you complete your investigation within the time period allotted you by law and in the event that you are able to verify this report that you supply me with the name, company address and company phone number of the person having verified the report and a full and complete report on the method you used to perform your investigation. Understand that his is not a request for you to re-investigate, but rather a demand for completion of my original request for investigation within the time period afforded to you by law. Youâ??ve made a grievous error by mistaking an informed consumer for a credit repair agency. This needs corrected immediately. Please be advised that your failure to complete your investigation and comply with the law may result in legal action against you for something much more serious than a violation of FCRA. Sincerely, Does this work/cover my bases? I'm always nervous about the verbage I guess. Especially if it comes down to possible law-suit.
Re: Re: Re: What to do with TU? Well ... here's one thought for you. One tactic that works VERY well with TU; 2 weeks after your initial dispute send something else, unrelated to the original dispute. Naturally they will claim the extra 15 days. 40 days later call and demand a deletion. They'll refuse. File an immediate suit. They WILL delete rather than be wrong in court. If you do this, you don't want to let them know what you're up to. We've used this tactic purposely with great success. Humblemarc will bear me out on this one. At any rate, as much as I like your letter SG, you're telling them toooo much. Playing dumb is part of this. My dispute letters began. Dear Sir, "A friend of mine told me that if I write to you, you can help me with a bad mark on my report that I don't recognize. If this is true, blah blah blah". Never let them see your cards. Don't forget, you're just a stupid, idiot consumer who can't find his butt with both hands. Keep it that way. They're FAR more likely to treat you like a moron, which is a good thing. ~
Just curious as to if you were disputing not mine and what letter did you send to cause all this hubbub in the first place? Was it one of the dispute letters off the board? And did you send it CRRR or just regular postage? Thanks, 0 p.s. - my vote would be to wait.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What to do with TU? Thanks for the thoughts Butch. Definately gives me more to think about.
Re: Re: What to do with TU? I had various flavors of disputes which included several "not mine". From what I've been reading, TU is sending this response letter out in bulk practically regardless of how you dispute (at least at the moment). I know they're reputed to do this allot duing CHOD. Why they are doing it now though?...who knows. The letter was based off of the forum letters presented here, but I modified it to be more personal sounding. I question if TU even read my entire letter. And yes, I send everything by CRRR. The thing that really gets me about their letter is that it doesn't even suggest you *might* be using a credit repair agency. It flat out says you ARE and that the dispute was received from said agency. I'm just wondering how in the bajesus they can expect to prove such a thing should I sue them? Maybe they know something I don't. But, that's why I'm here and why I started this thread
Re: Re: Re: Re: What to do with TU? SG-1: In that case, you're an entirely different person. FWIW, Butch's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. I'm only a 3 month newbie, so if I hear Butch say this works VERY well specifically with TU, that sounds very valuable to me. I won't argue either way. In fact, I have a "test case" I referenced in another thread as a candidate for dixidriftr's letter. The approach there is rather more complex. Butch's suggestion just reeks of simplicity (always appealing to an engineer to break out Occam's Razor !) and, if he doesn't mind me saying so, brutality. I love it. So, I will pass on further dabbling in this thread, as you're in pretty good hands, and I'll watch to learn ! BTW, I did read your letter before I saw Butch's most recent post and,just for giggles, I thought about this sentence: I think this would make more sense: Youâ??ve made a grievous error by mistaking an informed consumer for an easily duped and uninformed consumer. Granted, this is moot if you pursue Butch's suggestion ! My point here is to avoid acknowledging or implying that they made a mere "mistake". Hey, Butch ! Does the tilde (~) signify a goatee, or what ?
