on a mission Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Experian just verified 4 accounts that are currently in the validation process with the CA, I just disputed the items on jan 22 with CRA, and already they have verified on Feb 04. How can that be. Can anyone help me on what my next move should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharpenu Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 If they verified after receiving the validation letter, but before validating, the CA has just violated. Send a second validation request, pointing out they haven't validated yet. Don't let them know that you have them on a violation. Let them rack up a few violations, and then go get 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on a mission Posted February 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Should I send second validation to CA even though 30 days isn't up on first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollypc Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by sharpenuIf they verified after receiving the validation letter, but before validating, the CA has just violated. Send a second validation request, pointing out they haven't validated yet. Don't let them know that you have them on a violation. Let them rack up a few violations, and then go get 'em.</blockquote>I am sorry but can you explain that a little but. I am waiting for responses and would like to know just in case it happens to me.Your saying that if the CRA verified after the CA got the validation letter then the CA must have validated with the CRA but not with you????Please help cause I am not getting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by hollypcYour saying that if the CRA verified after the CA got the validation letter then the CA must have validated with the CRA but not with you????</blockquote>If you have requested validation or informed of inaccuracies, they cannot verify with the CRA's without a notice that the account is in dispute. FCRA§ 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§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (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. [Edit by Swede on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 @ 05:31 PM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharpenu Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Not only that, but the reporting of a debt is considered to be continued collection activity, which is prohibited until they have validated.Also, many people are confused about the 30 day thing, so I have quit calling it a "30 day letter", "15 day letter", etc. There is nothing in the law that says a CA has 30 days to validate. What it says is that a CA must not attempt to collect after a validation letter is received, until validation is sent to the debtor. Once the CA has attempted to collect after validation has been requested, but not provided, they have violated the law. OTOH, if a CA never again attempts to collect, they don't EVER have to validate.The 30 day limit was set as a "reasonable" time to wait for validation. I don't personally follow that. What I do is wait for the green card for my validation letter and then file my dispute with the CRA. If they verify, the CA has violated and if they don't, it gets deleted. It worked every time for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by sharpenuNot only that, but the reporting of a debt is considered to be continued collection activity, which is prohibited until they have validated.</blockquote>Yea but if the dispute is recieved after the debt has been reported, they don't have to remove it but they are obligated to inform the CRA of the dispute so when they respond to the investigation from the CRA, they cannot do so without the notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on a mission Posted February 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Ok say i don't even believe Experian even tried verify the information again, they just pretended to so. I have sent them a letter requesting verifying procedures. And areu saying 30 days isn't really written in stone for any CA, that is ok if they take a little longer. If so then i will go ahead and get them out another letter, But anyway I think I still have them on a violation since the Ca are supposed to inform the CRA of my dispute. Am I on base with this or way off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by on a missionAnd areu saying 30 days isn't really written in stone for any CA, that is ok if they take a little longer. If so then i will go ahead and get them out another letter, </blockquote>The only 30 days is the time the CRA has to investigate your dispute. They have 30 calendar days, from the reciept of your dispute, to complete the investigation. If you send a validation letter to the CA directly, and not dispute via the CRA, there's no timeframe in which they have to respond to you, in fact, they don't ever have to respond to you if they discontinue collection efforts but IF they do respond to the CRA's dispute, they must include the notice of the dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on a mission Posted February 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Thanks so much for all the info. I guess the CA haven't done their job. I just disputed with Transunion and they didn't even bother to reinvestigate, just sent me another credit report saying already verified. Then I called and some rep told me with the way their system is it won't allow me to re dispute in a short period of time. Is that a crock or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by on a missionThanks so much for all the info. I guess the CA haven't done their job. I just disputed with Transunion and they didn't even bother to reinvestigate, just sent me another credit report saying already verified. Then I called and some rep told me with the way their system is it won't allow me to re dispute in a short period of time. Is that a crock or what.</blockquote>That's why dispute different things within the listing. Start out by "not mine" then move onto something else like balance, open date etc. This way they shouldn't be able to say "it's already been verified" (should being the key word as they do what they damn well please) Yes, that is a major crock. [Edit by Swede on Wednesday, February 5, 2003 @ 01:08 PM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiedebt Posted March 12, 2003 Report Share Posted March 12, 2003 i am interested to learn a little more about this thread....i can follow the green card then cra dispute just fine....what i am lost on is the...CA must note that it is in dispute with the consumer....does this notation show up on the bottom of the trade line in the same spot as say..paid in full or paying as agreed...and does the notation...in dispute help the score any or is this just a way to get a violation and sue?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by Swede</blockquote>IF they do respond to the CRA's dispute, they must include the notice of the dispute.</blockquote>How do I KNOW whether or not the CA provided this 'customer disputes' info. to the CRA?Would it show up on my CR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookiemnster Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffinHow do I KNOW whether or not the CA provided this 'customer disputes' info. to the CRA?Would it show up on my CR? </blockquote>Yes. In slightly different wording than what you get when you dispute with the CRA. Like on EQ, if you dispute the tradeline with EQ, it says "Consumer disputes - reinvestigation in progress". If the CA tells EQ that you dispute the info, then it will say something like "Consumer disputes account information." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by cookiemnster<blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffinHow do I KNOW whether or not the CA provided this 'customer disputes' info. to the CRA?Would it show up on my CR? </blockquote>Yes. In slightly different wording than what you get when you dispute with the CRA. Like on EQ, if you dispute the tradeline with EQ, it says "Consumer disputes - reinvestigation in progress". If the CA tells EQ that you dispute the info, then it will say something like "Consumer disputes account information." </blockquote>"Consumer disputes - reinvestigation in progress". All of mine say this, yet I have sent DV to CA's and OC's. I sent my DV's at the same time I disputed w/CRA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookiemnster Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffin"Consumer disputes - reinvestigation in progress". All of mine say this, yet I have sent DV to CA's and OC's. I sent my DV's at the same time I disputed w/CRA's. </blockquote>The other wording wouldn't show up until your dispute with the CRA's has run its 30 day course, IME. The reinvestigation notation is what EQ will put on your report when you dispute it with them. [Edit by cookiemnster on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 @ 04:25 PM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 Gotcha!My investigations with CRA's are over. There is one that states 'verified-consumer disagrees' and all of the others say verified on 03/2003. Nothing about it being disputed w/CA or OC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookiemnster Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by capepuffinGotcha!My investigations with CRA's are over. There is one that states 'verified-consumer disagrees' and all of the others say verified on 03/2003. Nothing about it being disputed w/CA or OC.</blockquote>Then you have the CA and OC's in violation of the FCRA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by cookiemnster<blockquote>Then you have the CA and OC's in violation of the FCRA </blockquote>Yes, I do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetpea Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 What did I tell you guys? 1st time out debt was validated. Then what? stuck with the debt, court battle or cease com.You Make the ChoiceIf you report any more adverse info agaist me I will be forced to file a formal complaint. (Now that worked)Hummmmmmmmm [Edit by sweetpea on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 @ 09:25 PM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrow Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Okay, I have 5 or 6 collection (with the SAME CA) listed on my credit report. They are also for the same thing, old doctors bills (same doctor). They have all the accounts with almost the same account #, just slightly off. This is really making me mad cause it shows up as 5 seperate collections!My question is, these collections have gone unpaid. I havent made any effort to get rid of them. When I first got my CR, before I even started sending out letters, I looked over it and noticed that these collections were listed as "customer disputes, meets FCRA requrements" Now at this point I havent even sent out ANY kind of validation letter or disputed anything. Why would they put this on my collection acct. when I have never made an effort to pay, settle, dispute or anything?And will this work to my advantage with the CRA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retmar Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Sweetpea, there you go again!You need to read the whole post to understand what has happened. The CA verified w/CRA w/o validating to consumer. That is a violation. It has nothing to do with "your letter". So, do everyone a favor and stop. Admin warned you already.BTW, I have used the DV myself, just like many others and it works just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrow Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by sweetpeaWhat did I tell you guys? 1st time out debt was validated. Then what? stuck with the debt, court battle or cease com.You Make the ChoiceIf you report any more adverse info agaist me I will be forced to file a formal complaint. (Now that worked)Hummmmmmmmm I thought that I was the only one who noticed that post was kinda nutty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retmar Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Morrow, That is how CA's list multiple Medical bills w/same provider as they are seperate bills. It is legal.As to your question, I would dispute them w/CRA as "not mine" and see what happens. You would also include your other question as to how they came to make that entry as you have never disputed this before because you never knew about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrow Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by retmarMorrow, That is how CA's list multiple Medical bills w/same provider as they are seperate bills. It is legal.</blockquote>That is so unfair!Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts