Confusing TransUnion Form Letter

[Stevon]

I searched everywhere and could not find this particular subject.

I sent a dispute letter to TU (2DV's 3 SOL's in plain freindly english)and got the green card back and also rec'd a weird form letter. I've now rec'd 2 copies of the same letter.

It looks like this:

File Number 123456789

00009999

My name

My address

My address

Thank You for contacting TransUnion. Our goal is to maintain complete and accurate blah blah blah. We have provided the information below in response to your request.

Re: Need Additional Information ( I sent a copy of my Driver's license and a recent W2 form showing all pertinent info)

Our records show that TransUnion has provided you with a consumer disclosure free of charge, Pursuant to the FACT act, within the past twelve month period. If you would like to receive an additional .....(send $8)

You may contact us at ............except major holidays.

If you have any additional ........... File number 123456789

PO Box 1000

Chester, PA.

THEN the next page (2 of 3) is :

Disclosure Request - File number 123456789 - Date: 4/24/2007

To rececive a copy of your credit report ( I did not ask for this )

the following is a form letter for a CR.

at the botton it asks for proof of ID (which I already supplied)

Then the third page (3 of 3) is:

SSN Proof only includes Social Security Card, letter from the SSA, military ID.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Internal Use Only:

CRS9REQF 03

IBO= Facta

Are they trying to get me to respond to this false CR request?

Do they think the 30 day clock has stopped?

Confused

[hiblues]

I've heard it common, especially from TU to send that letter out. If you respond, it gives them 15 extra days to respond.

I think most here would say. Ignore it.

(2DV's 3 SOL's in plain freindly english)

Did you DV a CRA? You can only DV a CA.

[nascar]

That is TU's standard response to any requests received via mail.

[SecretAgentWoman]

I got it to, it is confusing. I ignored it, especially since it didn't even specify what I was disputing, etc. I couldn't figure out what communication it was referring to...