Jump to content

Is Timing of CA-DV & CRA Dispute Important?


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I have multiple disputes that were sent to the Credit Bureaus before I came across this site. I am very enouraged by the resources and support here, and will be using the processes outlined by this site going forward.

For the CRA disputes I have already sent in (mailed 5/16), but not completed, would now be a good time to send out DV's to the CA's as well? Is the timing an integral part of this process?

Also, for others CA items on my Credit Bureaus I wish to remove, but that dont have outstanding disputes, should I just DV em all now, or wait until those exact same items are in dispute with the credit bureaus?

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most cases you can't DV oc's. You can only DV OC's in certain states. And be careful with DV's. If you do owe the debt and it's not past SOL it can mean trouble. For debts past SOL you can do wonders by requesting pay-for-delete. Generally for the DV process, yes, you would DV and dispute with CRA's at the same time.

But be careful. IMO it sounds like you need to do a lot more reading. The answers to questions you've asked very basic and all over the board and the site. Not trying to be rude, just dont want you to get yourself into a mess. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Your reply wasnt rude, it was on the money. I think I typed that one after being rather bleary eyed reading my credit reports. I edited the original post to clarify my question.

The basic issue is, is the timing with CRA disputes and DVing a CA or disputing with an OC critical to the process? Is it intended to be a one-two punch?

I'm asking for the purpose of deciding on sending out DV's to a batch of CA now, or waiting until my next cycle of CRA agency disputes, so they hit at the same time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good question... I've been struggling with it myself.

Some say it makes no difference, while others believe disputing with the CRA's first (and DV the CA's later) might work; DV'ing first or at the same time might "warn" the CA.

I bet that there is an EXTREME volume of consumers in the system. My guess is that it makes no difference because CA's and CRA's are far too busy to notice who sent what and when. I'd say do them both at the same time.

But, I'm new at this... hopefully the more experienced here will chime in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Determined1, thanks for understanding how I was trying to come across.

I think doing both at the same time is easier because in a lot of cases it will eliminate some waiting as well as eliminating the steps that won't work so that you can figure out what to do next more quickly.

I sent some DV's that I wish I had also sent CRA disputes for, because now that I have some CA's not validating, I can see if the CRA verifies and then ask for Method of Verification, because I know good and well the those CA's don't have the proper documentation, yet they are still reporting. So I've now disputed those with the CRA's, but now I have to wait a month. I guess it's a matter of preference, but I wish I had gone ahead and disputed with the CRA's on those to begin with. It depends on how much paperwork you feel comfortable with keeping up wth at one time. Certain instances WILL have time limits, so IMHO it's easier just to do both and be sure. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, it's best to send the DV to the CA (CMRRR). When you recieve the green card back, (or check USPS online and see that they have signed for it and it's on it's way back to you) then send your CRA dispute.

That way you have proof that the CA has recieved your DV. And, if the CA verifies the TL "before" sending you validation - violation.

I agree with the previous poster, don't send a DV while still in SOL... unless you are planning on doing a PFD.

Also, do not dispute with the CRA's if you already have them working on a dispute. Wait until they finish the current disputes. If you contact the CRA's for "anything" while you have a dispute in the works, that could mean an extra 15 days for them to complete the current dispute.

If the CRA writes to you saying that they need "whatever" information to finish the dispute, do not send anything until the 30+5 days is up. Sometimes it's a stall tactic to get an extra 15 days added to your dispute.

Do not use the free FACT-ACT reports or the 3 in 1's to dispute with. The free reports gives them an extra 15 days to complete your disputes and the 3 in 1's are basically crap, incomplete and often inaccurate.

That extra 15 days could have the effect of a TL remaining instead of being deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello - Good discussion thread and I've often wondered about this myself. It seems quite possible that the "One" in the "One-Two Punch" may provide sufficient information on which to make a determination if legal action is in order.

From my perspective, I have found that when a Consumer disputes a collection account, most CAs will not update the TL to reflect the disputed status, which as I understand it, places the CA in violation of FDCPA Section 807(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."

This has already happened for my spouse for three collection accounts (all medical) that she has disputed. The CAs never noted the TL as Disputed. We could go for the "Two" in the "One-Two Punch", but I believe there exists sufficient documentation to bring up the legal card, especially when the CA is located ~50 miles away, making legal action more logistically feasible.

As an aside on medical collection accounts, the OC seems very willing to place in collection very fast, ostensibly due to the increasing number of problems with insurance companies paying claims in a timely manner (again, this is what I see from my perspective). I will also note that paid medical collections do seem to drop off a CR in a more timely manner that other paid collections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Fury,

As for legal action, you really need all of your ducks in a row before considering it.

First ask yourself, what will a judge "want" to see in the case, which would be - have you done as much as possible in dealing with this to get the problem resolved?????

If you do not do everything in your power concerning the CA's, which includes disputing with the CRA's, it does nothing but weaken your case.

If you are dealing with medical that was supposed to be paid by insurance and the medical provider dropped the ball, or, if it is medical and you had no insurance but want to pay, that is a whole other ball game. There is a totally different way to deal with the issue, in which you would have no contact with the CA "at all", you would deal only with the CRA's and the medical OC.

If it is the insurance company that is dragging their feet in paying, you need to be on their butts about it.

If you are dealing with medicals such as I listed above, either post what is going on or do a search on this board about HIPAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello remmie,

The insurance company (Cigna) requested an itemized bill for services rendered. Specifically, they wanted procedure codes provided by the medical provider. This was for services rendered in late 2004. I requested two times this information from the provider - they did not provide. It is a provider issue.

I've been reading more about the "Two" in the "One-Two Punch". I am trying to find the relevant FCRA and/or FDCPA citation on why a CA responding to a dispute via a CRA before addressing a debt validation request (in this case filed within 30 days of receiving the initial CA notice)is a no-no for the CA. Is responding to a dispute via a CRA considered "collection activity"?

If this goes to court, it will initially be in a village court where the CA is located.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Reporting to a credit file is "Continued collection activity." violation

2. Reporting a tradeline that is disputed without disclosing that it is disputed is a violation of the FDCPA

3. Verifying a tradeline that is incomplete or inaccurate is an FCRA violation. If the notice of the dispute is not there, it is inherently inaccurate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello remmie,

The insurance company (Cigna) requested an itemized bill for services rendered. Specifically, they wanted procedure codes provided by the medical provider. This was for services rendered in late 2004. I requested two times this information from the provider - they did not provide. It is a provider issue.

I've been reading more about the "Two" in the "One-Two Punch". I am trying to find the relevant FCRA and/or FDCPA citation on why a CA responding to a dispute via a CRA before addressing a debt validation request (in this case filed within 30 days of receiving the initial CA notice)is a no-no for the CA. Is responding to a dispute via a CRA considered "collection activity"?

If this goes to court, it will initially be in a village court where the CA is located.

Did you do your two requests for itemization to the medical provider by mail, or by phone. If by mail, do you have proof?

A medical provider is obligated to give a full accounting of your account when requested.

I would suggest:

Opt out and update your personal info on your credit reports.

Contact the insurance provider and request, in writing, a full and complete reason why they had refused to pay the medical OC. (be sure that they list out the reasons and not just say that the OC is ineligible for payment.)

If you "had not" done your requests to the medical OC in writing, send another letter to them (CMRRR) and request a "full" accounting.

Go to Why Chat's site and reading his HIPAA page.

http://whychat.5u.com/

Send the pre-HIPAA medical CRA dispute letter to the CRA's concerning the CA's TL. (follow Why Chat's instructions on sending it)

Wait the 35 days after sending your CRA dispute for a full written response from the CRA's. If you are using the paid reports - 35 days, if you are using the free reports you have to wait 50 days. The CRA's should completely verify, with the name of the OC and the correct amounts or delete.

:

If the CRA does not completely verify - or delete, file an online complaint with the FTC, include with your complaint, copies of your disputes and copies of the RR from online USPS proving that you had sent the disputes to the CRA's. Then redispute with the CRA's including a copy of your FTC complaint.

By the time you hear back from the CRA's you should have a response back from the insurance company showing proof that the medical OC refused to comply for payment.

Once you have a full verification or deletion from the CRA's and a written statement from the insurance company proving that the medical OC dropped the ball on getting paid:

Send the HIPAA letter to the medical OC using insert b. (Which basically tells the OC that they screwed up and because of it, they have to eat the cost)

Be sure to read the HIPAA pages fully, click on any links and read those pages also.

FOLLOW all of the steps that Why Chats lists out.

When using the HIPAA letters, do not have any more contact with the CA's.

Using HIPAA, the OC is required to recall the accounts from the CA, request that the CA delete anything about the accounts from their own files along with deleting from the CRA's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HIPPA is an odd animal.

1 There is no right to private action under HIPPA. Your only option is to complain to the state, and see if the OC will get in trouble.

2 If they have a business partner agreement with the CA, it is acceptable for a provider to send the unpaid bill to the CA.

3 If you DV the CA, your written DV can be construed as written permission for release of the records, so they can be forwarded to you.

4 There are 2 halves to every report. There is the identifying information, like name, address, ssn, etc. and there is the "PHI," or protected health information, which is the part covered by HIPPA. I really do not think that HIPPA is a good law to use for credit repair. The law itself is several books thick, and I do not think ANYONE understands it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote:

"This has already happened for my spouse for three collection accounts (all medical) that she has disputed. The CAs never noted the TL as Disputed. We could go for the "Two" in the "One-Two Punch", but I believe there exists sufficient documentation to bring up the legal card, especially when the CA is located ~50 miles away, making legal action more logistically feasible. "

We sent an ITS letter based on a template that Recovering_Attorney posted ona another thread. The CA wrote back and indicated that the "information" (I believe they mean the fact that my wife disputed the debt) was provided to TransUnion, Experian and Equifax. Strange that the dispute notation is not noted on *any* credit files from the above three CRAs.

In any event, I believe we can demonstrate that this was not a bona fide error on the part of the CA, and legal action will be initiated. We both agreed that we should not be sending an ITS if we were not willing to in fact sue. We did and we are.

We've opted out on the HIPAA (sp?) method to disupte this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This flowchart is very helpful. I noticed the flowchart doesn't speak to whether the SOL is a consideration. I'm confused about when or when not to DV a CA because I've seen various threads that seem to say one should DV a CA regardless as part of the process for dealing with CAs and/or clearing the credit report, while other threads seem to say not to DV a CA unless it is SOL because you can open a can of worms.

I'm fairly new to this website, so perhaps I just haven't come across the link or thread that provides definitive guidelines. Actually, I've found various threads that seem to provide definitive guidelines, but then I read on and find other threads that seem to contradict certain aspects of guidelines. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the importance of the SOL varies for each circumstance. In my case, I just discharged by BK this year. I'm not waiting for the SOL before I try to repair my credit.

IMO, a DV is almost always a good idea at the same time as the dispute letter. If they verify to you, they'll probably verify to the CB, so at least you know what you're dealing with. If they don't verify to you, chances are they won't to the CB either, so the DV (or lack thereof) gives you ammo to use with the CB dispute. If you send the DV the same time you dispute, you save yourself 30 days if you decide you need it with the CB.

Remember that accuracy is not your goal. Credit repair means using the FCRA to your advantage. Usually, the CA doesn't follow the rules, so patience will often win out. The key is to NOT help them do their job. Make them verify, etc. When they don't...poof...bye-bye negative tradeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...For debts past SOL you can do wonders by requesting pay-for-delete...

The question is "how do you force the CA to comply with a written agreement with you to delete?" Once they get the payment, they can report it anyway. You have to take them to court for violation of agreement your pay-for-delete agreement; however, the CA can offer extenuation by showing that the basic rules of the CRAs prevent deletion of reports of valid arrears accounts. :cool:

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.