New debt validation flowchart

[admin 884]

 

Just one question:  This tactic calls for disputing the debt with the CRA and sending a DV to the CA or attorney representing them concurrently right at the start.  Can you tell me why this should be done (sorry, I'm just not quite getting it)?  

@ - you should always dispute with the credit bureaus FIRST.  Then, you can DV.  

[h8spleadingpaper 132]

I really appreciate the input and don't mean to sound disrespectful or unappreciative.  But no one seems to be answering my basic question:

 

"I'm thinking that if I start disputing the debt with the CRA at the beginning of the process, then I've already allowed them to verify the account with the OC or CA prior the the NDA agreement and lost before I've begun, as far as my credit report.   :("

 

Please, if anyone has experience with using the NDA approach, I'd really appreciate an answer on this one.  Thank you so much!

 

 

[ToddW 1]

We are in this game personally and sharing education for consumers across the country. Personally I serve debt val that I know they cannot substantively comply with per state and federal mandate. When they are defaulted on debt val I include the debt val as an attachment to the credit bureau dispute letter. here is 1st dispute letter I use.  There is very specific language as my end goal is settlement or I'll file the suit if they don't settle. I use debt val and credit bureau dispute letters (x3 bureaus) as evidence/exhibits to the complaint.

 

You can copy/paste below into Word doc and make sure you put your info in there. Believe it or not I've shared this and people forget or are just rreckless and don't per their info in there since they are moving so fast. 

 

Note to self- make sure you UNDERSTAND what you are sending both extrajudicially (outside of court) and judicially so that you are 100% accountable and responsible. That is a winning formula and will collectively help not only yourself, but those that come after you. Pass it on.

Todd Wetzelberger

P.O. Box 24702

Baltimore, Maryland 21220

TransUnion                                                                                                      

Mark Marinko: President, Consumer Services

555 W. Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60661                Cert Mail No. 7012 2210 0000 7532 9153

5 August 2013

Re: Purported Acct No. Citibank, N.A./ PYOD LLC # ************4188

Mr. Marinko:

I am writing to inform you of Transunion 's erroneous, slanderous reporting of purported Citibank, N.A./ PYOD LLC Acct No. ************4188.  PYOD LLC (“PYOD”) has reported the account to your credit reporting agency as 30 or more days late.  The fact is, the claim of PYOD is a sham and a fraud, and aforementioned account is erroneous.

The preceding fact is based upon facts personally known to me as the document custodian, in possession, custody and control of evidence of said error (Attachment A).

Northland Group, Inc. (“NGI”) as a defined “debt collector” attempting to collect on a sham claim for PYOD, as a fictitious payee, had a duty pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) upon receipt of a Complaint, Dispute of Debt and Demand for Validation discovery request, to refrain from reporting any negative, slanderous information to any credit reporting agency until a substantive response, supporting a bona fide claim with strict proof (admissible evidence) has been produced.

NGI failed to substantively respond to pre-suit extrajudicial discovery by providing strict proof as is its duty.

PYOD had a duty pursuant to FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §1681 to also remove all/any negative comments on the defined consumer’s credit report, until a bona fide claim is produced. 

NGI had notice and opportunity to validate, substantiate and authenticate the purported account and failed/ refused to do so.

NGI is in default per the FDCPA, FCRA and additional state and federal mandates. I have initiated civil and administrative complaints due to fraud, unjust enrichment and other injuries as a direct and proximate result of NGI’s violation of civil and criminal statutes. 

PYOD violated the FCRA by willfully failing to comply with the FCRA in the following respects:

1. By reporting information relating to the credit profile of Todd Wetzelberger to consumer reporting agencies with actual knowledge of errors in the information provided:
2. by reporting slanderous and erroneous information to credit reporting agencies relating to the credit profile of the legal person Todd Wetzelberger, when PYOD knew the reported information was inaccurate;
3. by failing to inform Todd Wetzelberger in writing about the information which PYOD had reported to credit reporting agencies. 

 
The erroneous reporting by PYOD of false, derogatory, slanderous information to TransUnion has caused injury to the good name and credit score of the legal person Todd Wetzelberger, thereby diminishing the ability to access credit. Todd Wetzelberger is entitled to statutory damages pursuant to the FCRA, 15 USC § 1681n.

Pursuant to the FCRA, investigate this information referral, confirm the public record evidence substantiating the erroneous, slanderous reporting of purported Citibank, N.A./ PYOD LLC Acct. No. ************4188, by PYOD LLC and update your records to reflect the admissible evidence in the record, within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

Update the TransUnion credit report to remove inaccurate, slanderous information to prevent any further damage to the good name and credit profile of Todd Wetzelberger.

Failure to comply with this request will result in civil and possible criminal penalties per the FCRA and reporting to the Federal Trade Commission to compel compliance with the Federal Trade Commission Act.


                                                Sincerely,

 

                                                ____________________________________

                                                Todd Wetzelberger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

            I, _____________________________, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served via USPS Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested in a sealed envelope on or about this ____ day of _________________, 2013 to the following recipients:

 

 

TransUnion                                                                                                      

Mark Marinko: President, Consumer Services

555 W. Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60661                     Cert Mail No. 7012 2210 0000 7532 9153

 

c. John Blenke: TransUnion Corporate General Counsel

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

 

Executed this ___ day of _________________2013, at  _______________County, Maryland

 

 

                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                        Todd Wetzelberger

[BV80 2,652]

It's difficult to comment on the above considering no background information leading up to the letter has been offered.  If and until such information is provided, the above can be assumed to be nonsense.

[Credator 297]

We are in this game personally and sharing education for consumers across the country. Personally I serve debt val that I know they cannot substantively comply with per state and federal mandate. When they are defaulted on debt val I include the debt val as an attachment to the credit bureau dispute letter. here is 1st dispute letter I use.  There is very specific language as my end goal is settlement or I'll file the suit if they don't settle. I use debt val and credit bureau dispute letters (x3 bureaus) as evidence/exhibits to the complaint.

...

 

Failure to comply with this request will result in civil and possible criminal penalties per the FCRA and

...

Being "personally" involved in this "game" I am curious what the specific causes of action and their underlying elements that have been successfully litigated (as well as which state or federal court and jurisdiction assuming you are willing to share).

 

I have never experienced a substantive compliance failure with the FDCPA (lacking state mandates in my jurisdiction) in preventing a party from filing a suit. Many post experiences that indicate that an adversary merely throwing some statements in the mail is close enough. The courts in my jurisdiction appear to concur with such.

 

For me being a defendant prevailing against a couple of OCs was hard work. Being a plaintiff against well funded opponent is even harder from my experience.

 

The FCRA http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf appears to only mention "criminal penalties" once:

§ 603. Definitions; rules of construction

[15 U.S.C. § 1681a]

(q) Definitions relating to fraud alerts.

(4) The term “identity theft report” has the meaning given that term by rule of the Bureau,

and means, at a minimum, a report –

(C ) the filing of which subjects the person filing the report to criminal penalties

relating to the filing of false information if, in fact, the information in the

report is false.

Perhaps there are other "criminal penalties" that are also applicable under the FCRA that posters can share.

 

It's difficult to comment on the above considering no background information leading up to the letter has been offered.  If and until such information is provided, the above can be assumed to be nonsense.

"nonsense" or possibly merely inapplicable.

[nascar 961]

It's difficult to comment on the above considering no background information leading up to the letter has been offered.  If and until such information is provided, the above can be assumed to be nonsense.

 

@BV80 It isn't difficult at all. It's pure nonsense.