jackfrost Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Glade to see alot of people helping each other out.I have been reading alot of posts on the board for the past week.What I have read about charge off is to say (not mine) is that the first choice or can you say (do not owe) which one is the better way to send to the cra's for co accounts on your first round of dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vapeer Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 I'm very new but I see a lot of advice to say "not mine", I guess the thinking is that it leaves you another option to later say "do not owe". Plus there is a defense you can build around having them prove that it is in fact your debt. And in the process of them trying to prove the debt is in fact yours, they may make mistakes and violate rules which also gives you ammo to fight them off. Even if the debt does turn out to really be yours, they still would have been responsible for following the rules and proceedures, not doing so gives you a lot of leverage on them to negotiate. Just a theory from a rookie, but good luck to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adminppdotcom Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Glade to see alot of people helping each other out.I have been reading alot of posts on the board for the past week.What I have read about charge off is to say (not mine) is that the first choice or can you say (do not owe) which one is the better way to send to the cra's for co accounts on your first round of dispute.Disputing an account as "not mine" when it truly is, is a very BAD idea. It takes VERY little to verify an account holder. Unless you can PROVE the account is not yours, dispute DETAILS of the account. This leads to more PROVEABLE violations. CRA's are declaring more disputes frivilous. Once you got on the frivilous files, ANY more disputes have a credibility problem. These disputes are kept on records.If a consumer later sues, the debt collector and CRA will bring this up. "Was the consumer lying then, or are they lying now your Honor?" WHY create a valid defense for them?That's why there is many changes in the FACTA to include ID Theft, because it is so easy to verify a "not mine" dispute.The only "not mine" dispute which can lead to a "good" civil suit is a dispute with a police report attached for ID Theft, or some other evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackfrost Posted January 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 I should have posted this way in the first place It was late when I wrote this post.Last year in 3/2004 my bk7 was done, and some of the co should have been listed in the cra's as included in bk. I was trying to see what was the better way to go about this so that I can just get it off my cra's. I'm trying not to get them listed as included in the bk.Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentWA Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 adminppdotcom, the issue of not mine is simple to defeat. I saw this on my CR and did not know what it was, might be might not be. The dispute form from the CRAs do not have a selection for "It might be mine but I am not positive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDon Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Or "no recollection of this account", "do not recall doing business with this company". If you dispute online you can click "other" for reason, and go into more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luperu123 Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Disputing an account as "not mine" when it truly is, is a very BAD idea. It takes VERY little to verify an account holder. Unless you can PROVE the account is not yours, dispute DETAILS of the account. This leads to more PROVEABLE violations. CRA's are declaring more disputes frivilous. Once you got on the frivilous files, ANY more disputes have a credibility problem. These disputes are kept on records. If a consumer later sues, the debt collector and CRA will bring this up. "Was the consumer lying then, or are they lying now your Honor?" WHY create a valid defense for them? That's why there is many changes in the FACTA to include ID Theft, because it is so easy to verify a "not mine" dispute. The only "not mine" dispute which can lead to a "good" civil suit is a dispute with a police report attached for ID Theft, or some other evidence.I managed to get a few items deleted off my credit report by stating that the items were not mine.. I figured thats what was suggested we do in a general way. Should I worry about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDon Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 It has it's place, but "not mine" is too vague. The response usually is, "yes, it is", or you are sent a fraud investigation form.Be as specific as possible in your disputes. Even though they eventually categorize your dispute into a two-digit code, you can show you clearly pointed out what is was you were disputing, and their failure to properly investigate."Not mine" just doesn't seem to cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts