fairpractice

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About fairpractice

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Texas
  1. This is my first time through it. I wrote this up based on the Methuss statements which I only tried to clarify in the spreadsheet. So far (since sending both letters on the 9th), I have gotten some green cards back and correspondence with 2 creditors supplying sorely limited verification information. My guess is that I can get both to realize the error and remove the account based on it's age and lack of available information. I am sending a follow-up letter as a direct response to those two creditors (a local dentist, and TXU Energy).
  2. I completely agree! In the form letter doc which is embeded into the spreadsheet are links to other form letters as opposed to the letters themselves. I agree that this doesn't go far enough because the bureaus and collectors are on to them. What I would like to do is list the important "elements" that should be included for each of the two (2) letters (one for the creditors and one for the bureaus). If the elements could be listed here then I will list those elements so that it makes it easy for folks to "roll their own". Any help listing the elements would be greatly appreciated. Elemen
  3. As originally defined by another forum member, here is the one-two punch dispute strategy as confirmed by the author via private message. I have put the timeline in a spreadsheet and attached a doc to the sheet for form letter creation. Links are included in the doc for lots of choices. Import the doc into google docs once you change the template to your liking, and formulating many letters can't be any easier. For those that are as confused as I was on what the one-two punch was about and how to get started, here it is in a nutshell (nutshell v1.1). This way it should contain all the n
  4. So following that train of thought, I compiled the outline below and am now trying to very clearly define the optimal timing for each letter. Precisely when to send each punch is the question?: Premise of the 1-2 Punch! The 1-2 punch is sending a DV (debt 'validation') letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing the item(s) with the credit bureau(s). The idea behind the 1-2 punch is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau simply has to delete the tradeline. Action: Punch >
  5. If the hope is to have the two cross then it it matters. I based my outline on this post below by Methuss:ORIGINAL METHUS POST HERE OUTLINING THIS ONE-TWO PUNCH METHOD Let me put a simple answer out there for you Aussie. Hopefully this answers it for you. The 1-2 punch is sending a DV letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing with the credit bureau. The idea behind it is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau is simply has to delete the tradeline. It works like this. Onc
  6. So is the best scenario then to send to ca and cra at the same time or wait for green card?
  7. What I am concerned about is hitting the 45 day 'window'. Some say send right away while others say, 'wait for green card' from ca before sending to cra. just wondering if anyone has outlined a "most probable" senario?
  8. The guy that wrote the 1-2 punch is who said those things I thought. That was just my 'interpretation' though. Can you point to a good description of 1-2 punch better than what I have posted?
  9. My current understanding of the 1-2 punch is this: Premise of the 1-2 Punch! The 1-2 punch is sending a DV (debt 'validation') letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing the item(s) with the credit bureau(s). The idea behind the 1-2 punch is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau simply has to delete the tradeline. Action: Punch > collector Punch > bureau (a few days later) Behind the Action: The bureau is required to ask the collector to respond with 'verification'
  10. I did not know they were at the top. That's great. In specific reference to the 1-2 punch method only (DV letter to CRA followed by dispute filed with CA), I'd like to have a better overview of which parts are affected. So far I think I understand: FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) - governs how the credit reporting agency can collect FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) - entitles you to validation/verification from both the credit reporting agency and the collector What I don't have a good handle on: What are the most important parts with reference to 1-2 punch? Where is the wording
  11. Question about defining the window? Based on that GREAT post by Methuss, I came up with the following outline to help understand where I should define my window and am still a little confused? Premise of the 1-2 Punch! The 1-2 punch is sending a DV (debt 'validation') letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing the item(s) with the credit bureau(s). The idea behind the 1-2 punch is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau simply has to delete the tradeline. Action: Punch >
  12. Just the important parts of these statues were clearly posted somewhere and I can't find them anymore despite search efforts? Does anyone know where these are? Statutes FCRA how credit reporting agency can collect - did not require credit reporting agency to provide written proof of anything until the recent FACT ACT FDCPA entitles you to validation/verification from both the credit reporting agency and the collector
  13. Points taken. Right wrong or indifferent, the plan is to use the one-two punch method and my questions are about the 'correct way' to use THAT method. Can you suggest a specific rewording for my post assuming I DO want to use the one-two puch method)?
  14. This was the basic citing for each letter followed by pictured proof of identitiy for the bureaus which I understand is now important and including other text compiled from various templates. Specifics asside, am I citing everything in a manner most consistent with obtaining the desired result? Does this follow the "attack on two fronts" method correctly? [TO CURRENT CREDITOR as listed on bureau report] ...This letter is being sent to you in response to a recent letter I recieved. Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Prac