Jump to content

TU now saying my dispute is frivolous...

Recommended Posts

I sent TU a letter disputing a TL from A$$et and they sent me a letter dated the very next day they received my certified letter, claiming that they verified. I sent them a letter back asking (again) for the procedure they used and what information they had for the account and told them I thought it was unlikely that they could have investigated my account in less than 24 hours throuroughly. Today, got a letter back from them dated the same day they received my second letter saying that they consider my request frivolous and they won't reinvestigate without court papers or letter from the creditor. They also sent me a form letter claiming that verification documents are not available. I am currently in the DV process with A$$et and it has only been a week so far and have not heard from them as of yet. Should I send TU another letter threatening legal action or do I have to wait on A$$et to reply? What are my options with them at this point? Thanks for all the help everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There must be some lazy individuals at TU. TU verified every account that the other bureaus could not. I think TU does not follw the FDCA. TU employees obviously do not care. How would they feel if it were them with fraudulent information on their CR. Just a comment. I am going to keep fighting them. TU will not state how they verify any information with a written response. I think consumers should file a class action suit against TU. That is the ony way to get TU to adhere to the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the same issues with Trans Union, one online dispute, two written with pretty much the same response as you.

I sent a forth scathing letter asking for the method of verification and telling them if they didn't remove the bad tradeline they should include a check to me for $1000.00 and expect to be in court shortly thereafter. I worded it better (this was the short version,) but they finally did the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaithis714, could you be a bit more specific? Did you give them so many days to respond? Can they actually verify while one is DV'ing the CA? Again, I have not heard back from A$$et as of yet. This whole thing is stressing me out big time. What suggestions can you or any other readers give me on dealing with the CB's when they say that they have verified and/or that my dispute is frivolous and I'm waiting on A$$et (and who knows when or if they will reply :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 3rd dispute with Trans Union included new evidence showing clearly from a previous copy of their report that the debt was obsolete, they didn't re-investigate saying it was "frivolous".

This is the content of my 4th letter to them:


Attached please find a copy of my letter to <agency name>, (aka <agency alias>) dated May 22, 2006 requesting that their entry be verified or deleted from my credit file. Also included is a copy of the return receipt showing the letter signed for on May 25, 2006 by the principal of <agency name>, Mr. XXXXX.

I would like to point out to you Section 611-a-4 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

“(4) Consideration of consumer information. In conducting any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) with respect to disputed information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in the period described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information.”

The previous documentation I provided was clearly ignored by TransUnion as shown in your letter of your refusal to re-investigate and considered the matter “frivolous.”

<agency name> (aka <agency alias>) is required by law to change the status on my credit report of their entry to “In Dispute” within 5 days of receiving my letter, which obviously they have not. This is a clear violation of the FCRA.

<agency name> is unwilling/unable to verify with me the accuracy of their information, which I have consistently maintained is false. If I cannot get verification as the alleged “debtor” of this account I challenge that TransUnion did not take the appropriate steps to accurately verify the same information when I sent my initial dispute(s) in to you, along with supporting documentation originally supplied by yourselves, TransUnion. The simple reason <agency name> is unwilling/unable to verify is because no such account was opened on 02/11/2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 or 1998 or any dates thereafter.

I’m also requesting as is my right in writing, the method of verification that TransUnion utilized when previously “verifying” and then reporting the data as accurate, knowing full well your automated verification process, including but not limited to e-Oscar is not considered an acceptable verification method. TransUnion appears to be the only one of the “Big 3” that doesn’t accurately verify information.

It would be my position that since FDCPA states that Validation must come from the ORIGINAL CREDITOR (FDCPA Section 809(a)(4)), a Chaudhry Affidavit by itself fails to even satisfy this minimal effort to Validate and is therefore a Continued Collection Effort prohibited by FDCPA Section 809(B) and a misleading and false statement prohibited by FDCPA Section 807(a)(2), 807(9) - an Affidavit is a legal document and Chaudhry Affidavits just are NOT legal documents, and 809(10) and the Congressional Intent of Section 807 generally.

Given the above, if the creditor is basically telling TransUnion “yea, he owes it” in regards to the “alleged” debt, then you obviously disregard law in favor of taking the “easy way out” regarding verification and this is not a sufficient method of dispute investigation.

I refer you to Section 616-a-1 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

“(a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of

(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000;”

Should you decide, for any reason, not to delete the offending inquiry, please arrange immediate payment to me at the above address One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars Statutory Damages. If the offending inquiry is not removed from my credit file within 5 days of your receipt of this letter I shall consider that to be your statement that you refuse to accurately verify and remove it and I will commence suit immediately thereafter.

I would respectfully suggest TransUnion not respond to this letter with one of their typical “Frivolous” response form letters.

edit: It took nearly a month after this letter for the change to occur, my previous responces from TU had about a week turn around for a reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is indeed awesome! Since my dispute involves the JBD and not necessarily the obsoleteness of the TL, I think your case was more clearcut that they were in fault. I feel like TU is trying to place the DV ball in my court and trying to pacify me with these stupid form letters. I guess my question then is, after receiving a DV letter, a JBD has how many days to respond after receiving my certified letter? Is it five (5) days or thirty (30) days? If it is 5 days, then I could send TU a letter similar to the one you posted. If it is 30 days, I will have to wait till the end of July. Thanks again for your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.