Jump to content

Please explain what happens after you send a dispute....


NoCal
 Share

Recommended Posts

After you dispute it, then they contact the account (whether it be an original creditor, collection agency, etc.). They have 30 days to contact them and get a reply that it is indeed yours by your address, social security number, etc. If it isn't, they must delete. If they don't get a reply back, they must delete.

On public record stuff, many times a third party company is the one that does the court house searches and is contacted for verified information.

Now this is what is suppose to happen. In reality, many times it's after 30 days, they don't contact the right source and say they did, etc.

You can dispute it as not yours, wrong dates, wrong amount, wrong name, ex's account, etc. If they can't verify-they delete-in the perfect world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many cases, the CRA contact the creditor/CA and asks them if what they have on their computer matches what is on their computer.

Guess what?

It matches. Probably because it was the creditor/CA who put it there.

Case closed.

That is where you have to be more diligent in your disputes. It is easy for a creditor/CA to confirm what is on the CRA computer because they were the ones who put it there.

You have to come up with support documentation or additional evidence, cite federal law and FTC opinion letters so that you can make it more difficult for the CRA to easily confirm what the creditor/CA already has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many cases, the CRA contact the creditor/CA and asks them if what they have on their computer matches what is on their computer.

Guess what?

It matches. Probably because it was the creditor/CA who put it there.

Case closed.

That is where you have to be more diligent in your disputes. It is easy for a creditor/CA to confirm what is on the CRA computer because they were the ones who put it there.

You have to come up with support documentation or additional evidence, cite federal law and FTC opinion letters so that you can make it more difficult for the CRA to easily confirm what the creditor/CA already has.

What I did last month, was call the OC once a week, and strike up small talk. I figured out they use Win 3.1, to do thier dirty work, so from MyFICO, disputed something 3.1 couldnt hold. Result......DELESHUN!!!!!!!....I also got a repo deleted same way last year!!!!!!!!! :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how they REALLY handle disputes:

CRA (over the phone): Hi, someone wrote to us and says he doesn't owe you any money and has never had an account with you. Is this true?

Creditor (while playing solitaire on computer and not checking any records): No, he does indeed owe us that money and the date of last activity is really 01/2005.

CRA: Ok, then. It is verified as his debt. I'll go ahead and re-age the account for you while I'm at it. Thanks for checking.

:lol::evil::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many cases, the CRA contact the creditor/CA and asks them if what they have on their computer matches what is on their computer.

Guess what?

It matches. Probably because it was the creditor/CA who put it there.

Case closed.

That is where you have to be more diligent in your disputes. It is easy for a creditor/CA to confirm what is on the CRA computer because they were the ones who put it there.

You have to come up with support documentation or additional evidence, cite federal law and FTC opinion letters so that you can make it more difficult for the CRA to easily confirm what the creditor/CA already has.

What I did last month, was call the OC once a week, and strike up small talk. I figured out they use Win 3.1, to do thier dirty work, so from MyFICO, disputed something 3.1 couldnt hold. Result......DELESHUN!!!!!!!....I also got a repo deleted same way last year!!!!!!!!! :twisted:

could you elaborate more on "something win 3.1 cant hold"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many cases, the CRA contact the creditor/CA and asks them if what they have on their computer matches what is on their computer.

Guess what?

It matches. Probably because it was the creditor/CA who put it there.

Case closed.

That is where you have to be more diligent in your disputes. It is easy for a creditor/CA to confirm what is on the CRA computer because they were the ones who put it there.

You have to come up with support documentation or additional evidence, cite federal law and FTC opinion letters so that you can make it more difficult for the CRA to easily confirm what the creditor/CA already has.

What I did last month, was call the OC once a week, and strike up small talk. I figured out they use Win 3.1, to do thier dirty work, so from MyFICO, disputed something 3.1 couldnt hold. Result......DELESHUN!!!!!!!....I also got a repo deleted same way last year!!!!!!!!! :twisted:

HUH??? Win 3.1 as in the OLD windows operating system? why on earth would ANYBODY be using that lol!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I did last month, was call the OC once a week, and strike up small talk. I figured out they use Win 3.1, to do thier dirty work, so from MyFICO, disputed something 3.1 couldnt hold. Result......DELESHUN!!!!!!!....I also got a repo deleted same way last year!!!!!!!!! :twisted:

What specifically did you dispute that Win 3.1 couldn't hold? Something to do with Y2K date compliance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 95 98.. have one internal kernel

DOS.. Disc Operating System (which is a shell itself) is surrounded by the GUI of Win 95,98 & also 3.1(which is not exactly the same OS)

Now Windows NT (the NT stands for New Technology) had/has it's own kernal. Windows 2000 was built around the NT kernel.

ME was a result of not being able to build the NT networking capability on the 9x kernel. They built that in about 6 weeks. It sucked.. It's gone.

Windows XP Home, Pro and the Windows 2003 Servers were all built around the NT kernel. The XP boxes do not have DOS.. it's been retired. The command prompt handles DOS commands and Network commands but it is not DOS...

Onward Ho....

The only thing I can think that 3.1 could not hold would be the y2k threat.

I have no clue why any financial data would be held in a Win 3.1 machine or a database that would run on something that old. Most large institutions would probably run at least an NT or later box with a database like SQL Server or Oracle or an IBM database... expensive software.. but a lot more reliable and secure. Alternatively they may be running some flavor of UNIX like FreeBSD or Linux. That is an entirely different beast (OS)... and does support Oracle databases etc..

What really concerns me.. is that I believe there are legalities in the security of your financial data that is stored by anyone. With a Win 3.1... if that machine is in anyway hooked up to an external network it becomes very vulnerable to outside hacker attacks. My boss told me there are legal repercussions similar to HIPAA regarding financial data. I'm not familiar with it.. but it might be something to look up.

I look forward to hearing from Waxwerks about what he figured out they couldn't verify.

Des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could you elaborate more on "something win 3.1 cant hold"?

I pulled MYFICO, and looked for something they could not verify. Case in point..DAIT Payed out. KNowing this, there was no way they could verify, hence deletion.

Another item I used a few months back. I did small talk with a major bank, and made sure the peron was the only who handled the UDFs. Figured out when they took vacations, and made sure the dispute got there they day the vacation started. Now, we know that the bigshots usually take 2-3 week vacations, and the stuff just pile up. When they get back, disputes are a lower priority than the ones who just fell behind. Makes any sense? Therefore, I got 3 deletions that way. The major CC companies are tougher nuts to crack, so I am going for computers purging me off the system, anywhere from 6 months to a year of NO CONTACTING WHATSOEVER. That works also :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many cases, the CRA contact the creditor/CA and asks them if what they have on their computer matches what is on their computer.

Guess what?

It matches. Probably because it was the creditor/CA who put it there.

Case closed.

That is where you have to be more diligent in your disputes. It is easy for a creditor/CA to confirm what is on the CRA computer because they were the ones who put it there.

You have to come up with support documentation or additional evidence, cite federal law and FTC opinion letters so that you can make it more difficult for the CRA to easily confirm what the creditor/CA already has.

What about these MAJOR OCs, that have all the goods on ya. What part of the FCRA can I utalize on them, to get them barking? Also, I saw a posting somewhere in the last few days, saying that you can give creditors your own mini maranda, to delete, or you'll see them in court. Any successes, anyone, and is there a tepmlate i may utalize?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.