results from first round of disputes with tu

[candyman826]

i got seven items deleted from my tu file, i dont remember how many i disputed, as i did it online, but i'd say i was 7 for 10 or 7 for 12. i'm somewhat impressed. i had 2 medclr entries removed, 1 from gulf state, 2 from powell inc, 1 from cingular and an eletric utility updated to never paid late. i dont see a score on this report but i'd say it might have went up some.

[kb9tbq]

Definately wonderful results - really made a big dent in things.

Keep up the good work

[Capepuffin]

Awesome Candy :sweet: man!

[cookiemnster]

Watch for the Gulfstate to reappear under another CA name. Most likely Sherman Acquisitions.

If they can't verify or validate, they'll sell it to one of their subsidiaries.

[candyman826]

it already appears as sherman acqusition, they verified their entry, and raised the balance they say i owe by $714, reckon i'll have to send a validation letter to them, and some other accounts. when i started, i just disputed a bunch of entries online, basically to see what would happen, i guess now i need to start writing some letters and cracking some skulls

[Edit by candyman826 on Sunday, March 16, 2003 @ 01:38 PM]

[Capepuffin]

I too disputed everything on-line just to see what happens. Now, I wonder if I should have just sent them all my dispute letters CMRR. I got a little anxious! :cheesy:

Do or should I wait the full 30 days for the on-line disputes to run out? or should I send them my dispute letters now? I definately want a papertrail. I figure that everything will probably come back verified with my on-line disputes.

[cookiemnster]

<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin

I too disputed everything on-line just to see what happens. Now, I wonder if I should have just sent them all my dispute letters CMRR. I got a little anxious! :cheesy:

Do or should I wait the full 30 days for the on-line disputes to run out? or should I send them my dispute letters now? I definately want a papertrail. I figure that everything will probably come back verified with my on-line disputes.

</blockquote>

Patience, grasshopper.

When you get your results back from Experian, sit back and take a deep breath for about two week.

Then send out your DV or goodwill letters CRRR.

Get the green cards, send disputes to the CRA's.

That should give you enough time between disputes that they don't label you frivolous.

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin

I too disputed everything on-line just to see what happens. Now, I wonder if I should have just sent them all my dispute letters CMRR. I gt a little anxious! :cheesy:

Do or should I wait the full 30 days for the on-line disputes to run out? or should I send them my dispute letters now? I definately want a papertrail. I figure that everything will probably come back verified with my on-line disputes.

</blockquote>

Should have sent CMRRR initially. The risk of sending it now is that they extend the investigation period by 15 days. The FCRA states that they can do that if they get documentation by the consumer relevant to the dispute and in their mind, they could use this excuse.

[Capepuffin]

<blockquote>

Patience, grasshopper.

</blockquote>

LOL, Cookie your so funny!!!!!!

:upsidown:

Okay, I'll wait..............and wait..........

Cookie now I got my 4th star

[Edit by capepuffin on Sunday, March 16, 2003 @ 09:36 PM]

[Capepuffin]

So, are you saying that, if I send them any info. on a debt(while in dispute) they will extend the 30 days for another 15 days on that specific dispute?

For example: I disputed with all 3 CRA's, a judgement that was on my report as not mine. A week later I went to the court and found out that the judgement in fact was dismissed. So I faxed the CRA's a copy of the court papers that said it was dismissed. So does this open the window for another 15 Days from the date of my original dispute?

So then I should wait right, to re-dispute and send all letters CMRRR?

In actuality/reality I just possibly slowed my credit repair by 30 days! No papertrail!

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin

So, are you saying that, if I send them any info. on a debt(while in dispute) they will extend the 30 days for another 15 days on that specific dispute?

</blockquote>

Yep.

§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information.

(1) Reinvestigation required.

( Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph ©, the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation.

[Capepuffin]

Can I now dispute with the CRA (CMRRR)as 'account not mine' or 'no knowledge of account?'

When I disputed on-line, I disputed as 'not mine.' Of course some of them came back verified. Now, I want to dispute to CRA's via CMRRR! Can I dispute again as 'not mine?' or should I dispute another tradeline, like 'wrong account status?'

Also, these accounts were verified by CRA while I was validating with OC. At the same time. The CRA should not have been able to verify, because it was under investigation with OC. The OC is not suppose to release any info. to CRA while they are investigating my account.

Anyways, back to my original question. What is my best approach?

Can/should I re-dispute as 'not mine' via CMRRR with CRA?

Or will they consider it/me frivolous?

Or, re-dispute as 'wrong account status?'

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin

Can I now dispute with the CRA (CMRRR)as 'account not mine' or 'no knowledge of account?'

When I disputed on-line, I disputed as 'not mine.' Of course some of them came back verified. Now, I want to dispute to CRA's via CMRRR! Can I dispute again as 'not mine?' or should I dispute another tradeline, like 'wrong account status?'

</blockquote>

Wouldn't do that, they've already verified that dispute and may label you frivolous. Would send a letter requesting procedural description. Don't launch a new dispute immediately after the first one comes back.

<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin

Also, these accounts were verified by CRA while I was validating with OC. At the same time. The CRA should not have been able to verify, because it was under investigation with OC. The OC is not suppose to release any info. to CRA while they are investigating my account.

</blockquote>

Not true, they may respond but not without a notice that the account is in dispute.

<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin

Anyways, back to my original question. What is my best approach?

Can/should I re-dispute as 'not mine' via CMRRR with CRA?

Or will they consider it/me frivolous?

Or, re-dispute as 'wrong account status?'

</blockquote>

Ask for procedural request with the CRA. If the 30 days are up on your dispute directly with the OC, write them a letter too stating they are in violation of the FCRA and demand they remove the information asap. The CRA will most likely ignore your request but I'd wait a while before launching the next dispute and at that time, you should dispute something else.

[Capepuffin]

<blockquote>Originally posted by Swede

If the 30 days are up on your dispute directly with the OC, write them a letter too stating they are in violation of the FCRA and demand they remove the information asap.

</blockquote>

How can the OC be in violation of FCRA? I thought that there was not a time limit when trying to dispute with OC's. Am I missing something here?

:notsure:

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin

How can the OC be in violation of FCRA? I thought that there was not a time limit when trying to dispute with OC's. Am I missing something here?

</blockquote>

Anyone reporting anything on your files are bound by the FCRA. The violation wouldn't be failure to respond to you within 30 days but responding to the CRA dispute without a notice that the account is in dispute. I thought you said you'd disputed this directly with the OC as well....

<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin

Also, these accounts were verified by CRA while I was validating with OC. At the same time. The CRA should not have been able to verify, because it was under investigation with OC. The OC is not suppose to release any info. to CRA while they are investigating my account.

</blockquote>

[Capepuffin]

Yes, I did dispute with OC's at the exact same time that I disputed with CRA's.

Just trying to clear the cob-webs out of my head! It is spinning from all of the intake on this board. Plus the war! My brain is tired!

How would I word my letter to the OC's in this case? And what do you think it will do for me?

Thanks for the info. Swede, I definately will persue this further!

[Edit by capepuffin on Sunday, March 23, 2003 @ 08:35 PM]

[Sky Warner]

ALWAYS ALWAYS send letters to the CA's first before disputing online if you KNOW there are collections on your report...

This gives you the edge.. cause if they verify they are breaking the law.. its a legal sorta loophole but hey.. thats what makes america so nifty

[Guest KARENMW67]

Now, I'm lost.You mean that if the CA verifies a debt, they are in violation???Please tell.

[candyman826]

only if they verify it with the credit reporting agency before they send you validation

[Capepuffin]

<blockquote>Originally posted by Sakiawarner

ALWAYS ALWAYS send letters to the CA's first before disputing online if you KNOW there are collections on your report...

This gives you the edge.. cause if they verify they are breaking the law.. its a legal sorta loophole but hey.. thats what makes america so nifty

</blockquote>

There are no CA's involved with me here. Only OC's!

[Edit by capepuffin on Monday, March 24, 2003 @ 05:49 PM]

[Sky Warner]

Well here is the catch. if the debt is not yours and you can prove it isnt and they still report then you can get them for violation of Section 623 FCRA.

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by KARENMW67

Now, I'm lost.You mean that if the CA verifies a debt, they are in violation???Please tell.

</blockquote>

No, they are not in violation for verifying with the CRA. They are however in violation if they verify with the CRA after they have recieved your DV letter but not responded to it WITHOUT a notice that the accont is in dispute.

§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(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.

FDCPA Staff Opinion LeFevre-Cass

December 23, 1997

Robert G. Cass

Compliance Counsel

Commercial Financial Services, Inc.

2448 E. 81st Street, Suite 5500

Tulsa, OK 74137-4248

Dear Mr. Cass:

Mr. Medine has asked me to reply to your letter of October 28, 1997, concerning the circumstances under which a debt collector may report a "charged-off debt" to a consumer reporting agency under the enclosed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In that letter, you pose four questions, which I set out below with our answers.

I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g.

II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g( requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.

III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992).

IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(: reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g( after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8).

I hope this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

John F. LeFevre

Attorney

Enclosure