please clarify

[bridgett68]

I am in the process of disputing with CRA. I also sent Dv to CA.

A few TLs were removed. For the TLs verifed ............

!. I have not recieved a response to DV request, are they in violation for verifying without validating to me ?

2. I have recieved unsatifactory validation on the CAs letterhead, I send a second DV request and wait 15 days, if they still dont validate I request for removal, if not removed I sue ?

3. I recieved proper validation , I try to settle for removal.

Please help me with the process of # 1 and 2. Should I MOV the CRA ?

[sjokinley]

!. I have not recieved a response to DV request, are they in violation for verifying without validating to me ?

Send a second DV, CMRRR, and as soon as you get the green card back, you should immediately start another dispute w/CRA's.

Legally, the CA doesn't have to respond to you, but if they verify twice with the CRA's without validating with you, you have a violation.

[sjokinley]

3. I recieved proper validation , I try to settle for removal.

If you do end up trying to settle, make sure you negotiate for a pay for delete, and get it in writing. Remember, having a paid collection on your CR's is no better for your score than having it unpaid. This is leverage in negotiating to get the entry deleted. If it's not in writing, it didn't happen. And make sure the person who guarantees the delete has the authority to offer it.

[hiblues]

Read this,

there is a process to the DV-CRA dispute.

it's about timing.

Read how here....

Primer

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263069

[bridgett68]

Send a second DV, CMRRR, and as soon as you get the green card back, you should immediately start another dispute w/CRA's.

Legally, the CA doesn't have to respond to you, but if they verify twice with the CRA's without validating with you, you have a violation.

What is the violation ?

[MadinKS]

Did you DV within 30 days of initial contact or are these old CA's? It makes a huge difference.

If within the first 30 days the statute says:

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

And that would be a violation. Not so sure about after the 30 day period. I'm sure some of the more versed people on the board will chime in about the other situation.

[hiblues]

also FCRA 623(a)(3) applies and it doesn't matter how old the debt is.

This is the law that saves a lot of people who forgot to dispute in the 30 day period.

layman terms:

The FCRA 623(a)(3)

states it is the duty of the furnisher

(in this case the CA)

to provide accurate information to the CRAs,

thus if you are disputing the information of a furnisher

(the debt you have with a CA) ,

the furnisher (CA) must

report to the CRA that the information is in dispute.

There is no mention of a time limit that a person can dispute the information,

it just states that if the consumer disputes the information then the furnisher has to report that.

If the CA reports your debt (to the CRA) as "verified" instead of "disputed", they are in violation of the law.

actual wording....

FCRA 623(a)(3): Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.