Online Dispute or Snail Mail

[qtptute]

I want to thank you for making this statement. I keep telling this to everyone until I am blue in the face.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, DO NOT PHONE OR USE ON-LINE DISPUTE METHODS WITH THE CRA'S!!

SEND IN ALL DISPUTES IN WRITING (YOU CAN TYPE THEM, THEN PRINT IT OUT) CMRRR TO THE CRA'S FOR PROOF OF SERVICE.

[June]

I 2nd that Amen.

Thank you Methuss. You are so cool.

I never could understand why a consumer would dispute online or by telephone. By telephone, you must speak with some #$%! CRA clerk who will Update your "new" telephone number and any other identifying information.

I never could trust those "free" methods for my Disputes. I ALWAYS put everything in writing AND send via CMRRRs for $4.64 each. It may be costly and very time-consuming but, I do what I gotta do.

Also, Thanks to Qtptute.

[SecretAgentWoman]

Now I don't feel like a dunce having done this all along. I've been told by people on this very board that me using CMRRR to the CRAs was inviting their wrath and it's not needed. Like hell it isn't needed.

[divemedic]

It depends- I have no intention of ever suing the CRA, so I don't need to have documentation to prove it.

Not once have I had a problem disputing on line.

[SecretAgentWoman]

I don't want to sue the CRAs, I want to sue the CAs, and as such, I need proof of my communication with to the CRAs, including dates, to show the CAs verified the debt to the CRAs without validating the debt to me.

[LNY]

It depends- I have no intention of ever suing the CRA, so I don't need to have documentation to prove it.

Not once have I had a problem disputing on line.

Me either. I do all my disputes (and get all my deletes) that way. Even a BK. That one was by phone.

How you do your disputes depends on what your ultimate goal is. If you are trying to catch them in violations and sue, absolutely get everything in writing and CMRRR. And if you have proof that something that they're verifying is wrong... yes, in writing. But garden-variety disputes? Online and phone have worked well for me. I don't worry about them having my phone number because I don't have and never have had any collections.

It all depends on your circumstances and what you need to achieve. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this.

[qtptute]

I don't want to sue the CRAs, I want to sue the CAs, and as such, I need proof of my communication with to the CRAs, including dates, to show the CAs verified the debt to the CRAs without validating the debt to me.

Might I ask, why wouldn't you want to hold the CRA's to be responsible for doing their part of their job of the reinvestigation and then sue the CRA's? It's not just a one way street, both the CRA and the CA have to be held accountable for what they are "ponging" back and forth to each other in less than 3 seconds. See Cushman v. TransUnion, Apodaca v. Discover, Johnson v MBNA.

[Methuss]

The point is not what has worked for you in the past. If you rely on that the next time you run into a real problem getting something taken care of, those slack ways will haunt you.

Remember the new FCRA rules allow the CRA to label any dispute as frivolous once they verify the tradeline is correct. If you don't dot every i in the beginning, you may have an uphill battle later if you do have trouble.

I speak from personal experience. It took 4 long years of fighting with all three CRAs to get an IDTheft item (AMEX) off my credit reports. I took the easy road of calling (no on-line back then) to try and deal with it and only deprived myself of proof needed to show they were not seriously investigating my claim. When you have all your documentation it makes all the difference in the world when you are forced to file suit to get compliance.

[June]

Our firm litigates against the CRA's and Collection Agencies in the Federal and State Courts of Virginia

Just noticed this. We may have to relocate to Richmond, Virginia. We cannot find any attorney in Florida.

[divemedic]

You guys are being overly paranoid. Read the statute. They still provide you with plenty of proof. It says they don't have to comply with 2, 6, or 7:

if the agency

(A) provides prompt notice of the deletion to the consumer by telephone;

( includes in that notice, or in a written notice that accompanies a confirmation and consumer report provided in accordance with subparagraph ©, a statement of the consumer's right to request under subsection (d) that the agency furnish notifications under that subsection; and

© provides written confirmation of the deletion and a copy of a consumer report on the consumer that is based on the consumer's file after the deletion, not later than 5 business days after making the deletion.

Note that the law doesn't say that it only applies to online disputes. The same thing can happen to a written dispute, as long as the deletion comes within 3 days. You don't need the proof of the delete, they still have to send you documentation that you can use as proof.

The reason I don't sue the CRA? I am going to have to do business with them for the rest of my life. Why make that more difficult? I have had much success going after furnishers. It worked. Going after CRA's may be what works for you, but don't try and scare people into believing that CRA's don't have responsibilities under the law.

[nascar]

It depends- I have no intention of ever suing the CRA, so I don't need to have documentation to prove it.

Not once have I had a problem disputing on line.

Me neither. I have generally found the CRA's to be very easy to work with. I have never submitted a dispute in writing and have never had a problem getting the CRA to cooperate.

[gypsie]

Same here, I've never sent a dispute via snail mail. Never had one problem with phone or on-line disputes.

In fact, I've had more TLs deleted with Equifax's online dispute than any of the others.

for me CMRRR for a CRA is only if I plan on going to court, and none of my disputes have been "serious" enough for me to contemplate court.

[Methuss]

You guys are the lucky ones. Most people do not share those good feeling experiences with the CRAs and have to use the stick to get them to cooperate.

The biggest problem of all is that the CRAs will take the word of the furnisher over proof submitted by the consumer nearly every time. If you've had luck with furnishers not contesting your dispute, count yourself as it is ... lucky.

My personal experience was 4 years of hell getting the CRAs to cooperate on identity theft related tradelines. If the furnisher said it was mine, it didn't matter if I had proof out the wazoo and a lawyer speaking to them, they would not budge. My use of phone calls to try and resolve things led to even more work later for my lawyer when it finally did escalate to legal action against the CRA and the furnishers.

So I will counter what has been said here with one simple thing to point out. It is NEVER correct to advise someone to not take the proper course of action that ensures maximum legal protections. And advising to use on-line dispute systems does exactly that.

[divemedic]

Who cares if they take the furnisher's word? Sue the furnisher. That is how I did it- it works. I still say that CMRRR the CRA only if you plan on suing the CRA. Since my method is to sue the furnisher, I don't need to go after the CRA. You way isn't wrong, niether is mine. They both accomplish the same goal, just in different ways.

The point here is that the FCRA requires an investigation upon dispute. If the furnisher doesn't do that, then I get some money.

[Methuss]

Point taken. Yet most people just want the credit report fixed and suing the furnisher does not always accomplish that, suing the CRA does. You're hitting the head of the snake rather than the tail.

I'm sure you're aware that once you file suit on a furnisher, the furnisher is barred from updating with the CRA until the case is resolved. It's an impropriety thing. That could tie up the bad reporting for months without resolution. But if you end up suing the CRA, the CRA has to supress the tradeline while the court action is going otherwise you can heap on more punitive damages.

Oh and the fear of having to deal with the CRA for the rest of your life? Hogwash. I'm sure you are familiar with the term "Act of Retaliation." After suing TU, I've had nothing but cooperation from them since. Experian is on my short list right now, but I haven't taken them to court yet. I'm letting them rack up the violations.

[Gary Craig]

Thanks for posting this important piece of information. Over the last few years many times with sub prime borrowers, I have done on line dispute with the big 3. After two to three weeks, their credit reports would be updated.

Last fall noticed transunion updated its web site, changing the way it accepted online disputes. Since then I instruct my borrowers to do it online themselfs.

After reading this - will create an email package instruction what/where to mail. Changing the way I work with borrowers with low credit.....

Again thank you for posting....

[Big Time]

I think both sides of the argument have very good points. Try giving good phone or online disputes first, then if that doesn't work, start the legal sounding CMRRR letters. Documenting the initial calls and online sessions in writing will still help your case.

It may be a bit tedious, but you can always hit "Print Screen" and paste the screenshots into microsoft paint as you do the online disputes. The bad guy lawyers might cry "photoshop!" but if you follow up with CMRRR's you will still have a good paper trail.

As for the CRA's ability to declare "frivolous dispute" to cut you off at the knees; it's never happened to me, but such a decision by them would accelerate my letter writing campaign to the ITS phase with a draft of the lawsuit. It's not like they can't change their minds if they decide it's less expensive to do so. The CRA's need to be made to understand that it isn't a Trump card that they can just whore around. We have the right to challenge any such decision.

Lastly, filing against both the CRA and the data furnisher(s) can be very effective, as none of them want to be drug into court to and be made to point fingers at one another. Sometimes the furnisher will blame the CRA and the CRA will blame the furnisher hoping you will just go away.

So depending on your situation, you may have to be brave and defiant and risk your good relationship with the CRA's to obtain justice.

just my $.02

[Big Time]

It may be a bit tedious, but you can always hit "Print Screen" and paste the screenshots into microsoft paint as you do the online disputes.

I'm such a 'tard. Just save the entire webpage.

[needtradelines]

Thanks for the advice I am in the process of disputing items with the CRA and CA and I am sent out a notice to experian online. They did remove the information, but now that I have read this can I follow up with that dispute by sending them a CRMM's of these items?

All the other disputes I sent has been CRMMS so hopefully it is not too late and I would have the documentation that it was removed, also I have the documentation from the CA showing this went out CRMM

[MissaFraQ]

I just call on my vonage line. Within a few minutes I can log in and print out the record (with transaction ID #) to show that I just had a 10 min conversation with the CRA.

But then again, I can be a little anal that way and believe in C.Y.A.

[Methuss]

I just call on my vonage line. Within a few minutes I can log in and print out the record (with transaction ID #) to show that I just had a 10 min conversation with the CRA.

But then again, I can be a little anal that way and believe in C.Y.A.

You can prove you had a call in. But you can't prove the contents of such a call. You could have been sitting on hold for 10 minutes and can't prove either way. So that is hardly sufficient to take to court.

[hipsociety]

Sending proof via US mail with CRRR's, doesn't prove the contents of the letter sent. I had one CA show up in court and claim I sent them cash in the envelope and used the CRRR's only to show proof of delivery. The judge agreed that I was unable to prove that the letters I sent contained validation requests and not cash.

This is how I sent future VOD requests:

1- Type out (2) copies of each VOD request and add a place for a notary to sign as a witness.

2- Type out the following statement on a seperate piece of paper:

I (notary), have read the VOD request dated (date), being sent to (CRA/CA) from (your name) and have personally placed those letters into the provided envelopes and sealed them. I then signed/dated my name along the back seal of each envelope. You keep this statement for your records.

3- Have the notary sign the second copy, but on that copy include the following statement:

The attached letter is a true and acurate copy of the letter I personally witnessed and sealed in the envelope signed and dated by me on (Date), and mailed to (CRA/CA).

Keep this copy for your records in the event you have to go to court.

4- Type out another short statement that reads:

On (date), I (postal employee) received an envelope(s) addressed to (CRA/ CA) which were signed and dated by (name of notary). This/these letters are being sent to the addressee by CRRR. Keep this statment for your records.

I have never had a postal employee refuse to sign the statement. This method seems long but it actually isn't, and my bank notorizes for free, which doesn't add to the overall expense. This method provides a chain of custody which verifies the actual contents of the envelope.

If anyone knows a different/better way...please post it.

[Big Time]

That Judge was a tool. I'd appeal that and file a complaint on the judge for being an idiot. I'd also file a serious complaint with the AG for that CA saying you sent them cash by certified mail.

I keep a supply of green cards and certified mail slips and always Put:

CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

USPS TRACKING # 0000 0000 0000 0000

On the actual letter. But yeah, a notary is even better security.

[admin]

I've done it both ways. But I still have had better luck with snail mail.

[Methuss]

Sending proof via US mail with CRRR's, doesn't prove the contents of the letter sent.

See my post here http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264902 about rules of evidence.

"Written documents signed by one or both parties may be admissible."

Which also kinda settles an old argument about signing or not signing your letters. If you don't sign, not admissible.