My CA Vald/CRA Dispute Method

OK.....here is the EXACT form of my version of the cross-CA validation/CRA dispute method. 1st dispute letter I send to a CA, when you want to get deletion of a TL. What follows that is the letter I send to the CRA's AFTER the green card comes back from the CA, and if needed an ITS letter. No estoppel in this method and you'll see why. This process has worked for me to excellent success, as it indirectly directs the CA right into a violation from the receipt of the 1st letter. No, it's not entrapment but what would it matter!?!?! Take a look:


Date

Dips**t Collection Agency
Street Address
City, State Zip

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to settle this matter at the earliest possible opportunity. In order to facilitate the process, I must request that you validate the alleged debt as reported to credit reporting agencies by â??Dips**t Collection Agencyâ? or â??OC (if listed on CR)â? for myself, Mr. Innocent Consumer, for account 1234567.

Please be advised that I am requesting validation, i.e., competent, verifiable evidence that I have had some contractual obligation to pay this debt to you, as associated with this tradeline.

I would like to hear from you within 30 days from the tracked and confirmed delivery of this letter to either answer this request for validation or to remove the associated negative tradeline notations from the CRA reports.

I look forward to a timely resolution to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

**DO NOT SIGN!** (I just write a squiggly line)

Mr Innocent Consumer
Your Street Address
City, State Zip
-------------------------------------

--In the 1st paragraph, you are telling the CA you want to settle this matter, but you are not telling them HOW you want to settle it. They actually read into this as "SEND THE ALLEDGED DEBTOR A BILL FOR THE DEBT" and EVERY time I have used this letter, the 1st response I receive from the CA either does or does not include validation, but validation now is actually irrelavant. (Stay with me!) They always include a letter asking me to "pay this amount...yadd yadda yadda" or a blatant bill! That is a VIOLATION, and it considered continued collection activity of a debt in dispute, because once you ask for validation according to the FTC, you are disputing a debt. 1st $1000 to use as leverage!
And the rest of what's in the letter you sent is really irrelavant as well at this point.

(in the sentence ....as reported to credit reporting agencies by â??Dips**t Collection Agencyâ? or â??OC (if listed on CR)â?.....I do list the OC here where it says OC so there is no mistaking.

PS NEVER include your SSN in this letter to a CA!

You are also telling them you know a little bit of what you are dealing with, but nothing expert because I found quoting the FCRA or FDCPA at this point is pretty much useless. Save that if you need to send an ITS letter.

Now, once I get the green card back from the CA, I send this letter the CRA(s). It is almost a carbon copy of the CA letter. I never say "not mine", or "need accounting" or anything like that. Take a look:


Date

Consumer Relations
Equifax, Inc.
P.O. Box 740123
Atlanta, GA 30374-0123

To Whom It May Concern:

I must request that you validate this alleged debt as reported to you by â??Dips**t Collection Agencyâ? or â??OC (if listed on CR)â? for myself, Your Name, for account number 1234567.

I am formally requesting validation, i.e., competent, verifiable evidence that I have had some contractual obligation to pay this debt, as associated with this tradeline.

In accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I understand you will check the item with the creditor listed and remove it if it cannot be verified. I further understand you will reinvestigate and reply to my request within 30 days.

Sincerely,

Sign if you want, I do.


Your Name
SSN
Street Address
City, State Zip


This puts the CRA to work. If the CA verifies the debt (and they usually do) to the CRA, BAM...another $1000 to use as leverage. And as long as you wait at least 30-45 days, if the CA does not list the TL as in dispute, another $1000 to use as leverage. You'll need updated CR's about every 30-45 days to actully check this or call the CRA and ask if there is a dispute listed on the TL in question. I have little intention of actually suing. My point is to use the $2000-3000 in violations as complete leverage to get the debt satisfied to a $0 balance, and the TL deleted. Of course the debt amount has to be either under the total amount in violations or not too much more than it. If it is higher, you may want to wait to see if the CA walks into another violation.

In most of my cases, I actually sent ITS letters after 45 days because they had at least $1000 in violations, and the alledged debts were under $200, so I lucked out and got deletions along with the CA paying the debt off, and written documentation stating it.

--------READ ON TO THE NEXT POST-------------

 

My ITS letter, as one variation I have used is as follows:

Date


Dips**t Collection Agency
Street Address
City, State Zip

To Whom It May Concern:

This is my second letter to you. I have requested validation regarding a tradeline listing for â??Dips**t Collection Agencyâ? or â??OC (if listed on CR)â? for myself, Mr. Innocent Consumer, for account 1234567.

Please be advised that your company is currently in violation of the FCRA, Sec 623(a)(3) and the FDCPA, Sec 809(b) regarding these alleged debts:

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

§ 809. Validation of debts

b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

These violations carry a possible penalty of $1000.00 for each violation under federal law.

To avoid escalation to the proper authorities, I am requesting you adjust this account to a $0 balance, promptly delete the associated tradeline from all three credit reporting agencies and forward me written documentation that you have done so. Please satisfy my requests within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.

Respectfully Yours,

**DO NOT SIGN**

Your Name
Street Address
City, State Zip
-----------------------------------

Another ITS letter version I used was after the CA verified the debt w/the CRA and had not yet validated the debt with me, nor listed it in dispute and continued to report the TL. That version is as follows:

Date


Dips**t Collection Agency
Street Address
City, State Zip

To Whom It May Concern:

This is my second letter to you. I have requested validation regarding a tradeline listing for â??Dips**t Collection Agencyâ? or â??OC (if listed on CR)â? for myself, Mr. Innocent Consumer, for account 1234567.

As of the date of this letter it is now past 30 days since you received that request. You have not supplied me with this validation request, yet you continue to report this tradeline to the CRAâ??s. You have also verified such information as valid with the CRAâ??s; both actions are considered by the FTC to be continued collection activity. You have also failed to notify the CRAâ??s that this debt has been in dispute; another violation, all of federal law.

Please be advised that your company is currently in violation of the FCRA, Sec 623(a)(3) and the FDCPA, Sec 809(b) regarding this alleged debt:

623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

809. Validation of debts
(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

Each violation carries a possible penalty of $1000.00 per violation under federal law.

To avoid escalation to the proper authorities, I am requesting you adjust this account to a $0 balance, promptly delete the associated tradeline from all three credit reporting agencies and forward me written documentation that you have done so. Please satisfy my requests within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.

Respectfully Yours,

**DO NOT SIGN**

Your Name
Street Address
City, State Zip

Two things I want to point out:

1-It DOES NOT matter if the CA actually sends you validation unless you have signed for something, which we are all smart enough not to do (right?) ahem.....so they are not the wiser, we are! Ignore the fact if you have rcvd any validation, lame attempt or not.

2-You are not threatening anything at all (but even if you were, who gives a flying f**k?! You are merely pointing out:

a) that they are in violation of either the FDCPA or FCRA or both, the actual violation(s) and what the amount is;

b) and that you are going to "report" them to the "proper authorites", whomever they are if they don't comply to your requests. Let them guess to whom you will notify. I did not feel the need to spout off agencies or names, except the FTC which can go a long way in itself.

BUT!!! Please remember this method can only be effective if your debt is rather low. I would not attempt this on a $10k debt. If it does go to court, the judge will more than likely still rule in favor of the Dips**t Collection Agency. This method has worked successfully for me in several situations, and I hope someone may find this method useful.

Good Luck!

 

Re: Re: My CA Vald/CRA Dispute Method

Yes, u r correct. However, my reason for doing it this way is two fold here:

1- it tells the CRA that I kinda know what I am talking about, even though I FULLY know what I am talking about. It's a play on playing the partially informed consumer playing on their psyche; they don't know I have more fuel for the fire;

2- it gets them thinking and possibly confused enough that they delete it with little effort on research

It has worked very well for me. I got deletions in the first round of about 20 collection accounts total for all 3 CRA's; EXP has been the worst no matter what you tell them or evidencr you send as backup.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My CA Vald/CRA Dispute Method

Sassy,

No bluffing here. The confusion aspect was used because every debt was under $200 that the CA's were attmpting to collect on and very old. I was serious when I told the CA that they made $3000 worth of violations for a $126 debt they were trying to collect on from 6 1/2 yrs ago. A violation is a violation, period. It does not matter whether the debt is valid or not. Again, I felt strongly I had the foothold here, not the CRA nor the CA. No bluffing.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My CA Vald/CRA Dispute Method

Oh, this method is really geared toward the CA, not the CRA. Is set up so they walk into violations.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My CA Vald/CRA Dispute Method

Sassy,

I am unsure of what you are saying would be inaccurate in my letter(s) and what is what about the verbage regarding violations.

My mere intent with this series is to get the job over with within 30-45 days or 45-60days days of the 1st letter going out. I hate long, drawn out processes and my thinking here was to stray from the obvious. I have great fear that the CRA's know a typical dispute letter when they see one. I was not interested in nailing the CRA though. That to me from what I have read (namely on this board) is somewhat tough. I always figured that a CA can do more when their future livlihood is threatened. The CRA's can care less; that's their way of doing business.

I have been in customer contact and sales for years and can generally get a person to say yes, even when they don't want to. You just need to know which buttons to press. I have never needed to threaten a CRA for deletion. This method even worked on a 2 yr old debt for $190, and a 3 yr old debt for $159.

Thanks for the advice though, and Butch for the kind words! It's appreciated