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. Elements of letter to bureaus: 1) 2) Elements of letter to creditors: 1) 2)
  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 necessary doc attachment embedded inside. The password for the download is creditinfocenter
  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 > collector Punch > bureau (a few days later) Behind the Action: The bureau is required (by FCRA) to ask the collector to respond with 'verification' of debt, which; the collector can't do yet because of their own (FDCPA) requirement to FIRST fullfill the request for 'validation' that they must obtain from the OC and send on to you. IF: The bureau can't 'verify' the debt with the collector within 45 days (30 days if CR was not obtained online as noted in the FACT ACT, and no follow-up is provided, which might involve not responding to requests for more info), THEN; they delete. IF: The collector violates the law by responding to the bureau 'before' they respond to you with the results of thier 'validation' (collection activity), THEN; you can claim a $1000 offset against them.
  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. Once the collector gets your DV letter, they are forbidden to continue collection activities until they respond to the validation. Courts have time and again said that reporting to a bureau *is* collection activity since collectors use it as a tool to force payments out of consumers. Since the collector has to get verification from the original creditor and then forward the OC's response to you, this can give you a window to work with. At the same time, the bureaus are required to ask the collector to verify the tradeline within 30 days of receipt of your dispute and if they get no response, they must delete it. The hope is that once the DV lands in the collector's hands that their response will cross with the bureau's attempt to verify. If the collector responds to the bureau without first getting the validation from the OC and sending it to you, they broke the law by continuing collection activity and you can claim a $1000 offset against them. If they don't respond to the bureau, the bureau has to remove it and cannot put it back in unless the collector provides some proof that the tradeline is correct. Now all this is in a perfect world where they all obey the laws. Sometimes it works; sometimes not. But when it doesn't work, it is usually because someone broke the law and opened up a $1000 claim in your favor.
  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' of debt, which; the collector can't do yet because of their own requirement in the FACT ACT to get 'validation' from OC and send it to you first. IF: The bureau can't 'verify' the debt (FCRA) with the collector within 30/45 days, THEN; they delete. IF: The collector violates the law by responding to the bureau 'before' they respond to you with the results of thier 'validation' (collection activity according to the FDCPA), THEN; you can claim a $1000 offset against them. I now need to know what sections of the code are affected for these items below: What are the most important parts with reference to 1-2 punch? Where is the wording with respect to any 'written' validation or validation I am entitled to by either CA or CRA? Year of Act's inception FDCPA 1977, FCRA ?? Where does an "act" fall in the chain (federal levels > state levels > down)? Where does the FACT ACT factor in and where is it?It's these subsections and paragraphs that I would like to specifically find and mention in the 1-2 punch letters. Any help is greatly appreciated?
  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 with respect to any 'written' validation or validation I am entitled to by either CA or CRA? Year of Act's inception? Where does an "act" fall in the chain (federal levels > state levels > down)? Where does the FACT ACT factor in and where is it?
  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 > collector Punch > bureau (a few days later)Behind the Action: The bureau is required to ask the collector to respond with 'verification' of debt, which; the collector can't do yet because of thier own requirement to get 'validation' from OC and send it to you first. IF: The bureau can't 'verify' the debt with the collector within 30/45 days, THEN; they delete. IF: The collector violates the law by responding to the bureau 'before' they respond to you with the results of thier 'validation' (collection activity), THEN; you can claim a $1000 offset against them. Question: How long should you wait before sending punch #2? Plaudit, Thanks for your post. I'm curious about your statement "Watch your report, the CA's must mark the account in dispute." .... Does it matter who has marked it? What do I do if it isn't marked? Methuss, Thanks for your post. I did order from https://www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/index.jsp. Considering the 45 days you mentioned for the CRAs investigation, do you agree with Plaudit that you should send to CRAs immediately upon reciept of green cards from the CA's? What does your window look like? I'll put the window in a calendar graphic if we can really nail this down.
  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 Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( that your claim is disputed and validation is requested. This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section of the United States Constitution. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay you. Please provide me with the following:[Listed]... [TO THREE (3) MAJOR BUREAUS (ex, ef, tu)] ... Under the provision set forth in the 1977 Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, I hereby request your agency prove to me in writing the accuracy of the reporting of these accounts. Under the terms of the Act and succeeding court cases, you have 30 days to prove such accuracy in writing or remove the account entirely from my report.