Method Of Verification ? ? ?

[Michael925]

Yesterday I Bought The E-Book Of " Good Credit Is Sexy " And The Book Has Answered Most Of My Questions But I Dident See Much About Method Of Verification. I Got My Results Back From My First Round Of Disputes Last Week And Most Account Came Back Verified. I Was Planning On Doing Method Of Verification But Should I Do It Right Away, Should I Wait 30 Days, 60 Days, Etc ? What Do You Guys Think And How Long Do You Guys Wait Between Disputes ?

[2001Badyear]

My reading through the posts here shows that most that know say the MOV is basicly worthless and likely won't be answered anyway. Once the debt is "verified you need to either DV the CA or ask for a "investigation" of the OC, depending on your situation.

Last, you'll find it's most useful to briefly give the pertainent data you are refering to.

Your SOL for your state,

What steps you have done and when to date

DOFD on the disputed item(s)

Any collection activity, if so who, when, how

Etc...

It's impossible to answer many questions without all this.

Stay brief, IE:

Crap one

DOFD 03-3003

Have verified with CRA on date

SOL has run in my state (xxxxxx) which is xxx years.

Careful on SOL, which many think means they are judgement proof if beyond. Not the case, just means if you go to court (and YOU HAVE TO IF SERVED), you will essentially win. That is your defense, not your get of court free card.

Last, avoid talking to any CA's on the phone. Never ignore their letters though. Everything in writing and properly mailed (lots of threads here on that) Keep records and timeline.

[TheRoadBack]

MOV is worthless. The cra's just send some bs form letter or start another investigation.

[Michael925]

Well the accounts Im disputing at the moment are 5 accounts with a bunch of late payments and reporting negative, not collections. Can I DV accounts for late payments ?

[2001Badyear]

Michael,

Read through the posts and much of this is covered.

If you say not in collection, do you mean no CA's??

You can't DV a OC, that's an "investigation"

Find the newby thread on "acronyms" it will all become second nature in a short time.

I'm here only weeks and already speaking alien.

[n00b]

Hi Michael,

I'm *completely* new here so anyone please feel free to chime in if what I'm saying doesnt sound true/accurate. Also, let me be clear, I've been on this site for a whopping two days; my opinions are that of a total and complete amateur. I've written my letters but havent even mailed them yet because it's Sunday and the PO is closed.

So, warranties and disclaimers aside, my understanding is that MOV is a strategy used when you have tried everything else and are at wits end. The ultimate culmination of an MOV is likely court, so if you're not prepared to sue someone, that might not be the strategy to use.

In a weird way, it reminds me of my grandfather's quip that, if you can't shoot to kill, you don't need to live in the house with a gun. Because if you have a gun, and you aren't confident in using it, the people who ARE comfortable using them can tell. And, if you try and use it to scare someone, and they're more comfortable with guns than you, chances are reasonable that they would be able use it to harm YOU instead of the other way around.

My sense is that the MOV is the equivalent to playing hard-ball, and it's probably best that you not start down the road if you don't have the intent to follow-through, or the CA's BS-detectors will go off. Now, I don't know what the consequence of that would be, but I would imagine that it doesn't lead to a higher FICO or more stress-free life.

To put it in context, think about what you do for a living. Now think about a situation where someone with substantially less experience in that field has tried to pull the wool over your eyes in your field of expertise. You could probably tell how slick they thought they were being from a mile away, and you probably thought it was pretty darn cute but werent terribly threatened.

That just my humble n00b two cents.

Anyone, please feel free to chime in if this sounds off-base because it's also the underlying philosophy on decisions that I'm making in my own credit repair process.

[Amerikaner83]

Hi Michael,

I'm *completely* new here so anyone please feel free to chime in if what I'm saying doesnt sound true/accurate. Also, let me be clear, I've been on this site for a whopping two days; my opinions are that of a total and complete amateur. I've written my letters but havent even mailed them yet because it's Sunday and the PO is closed.

So, warranties and disclaimers aside, my understanding is that MOV is a strategy used when you have tried everything else and are at wits end. The ultimate culmination of an MOV is likely court, so if you're not prepared to sue someone, that might not be the strategy to use.

Yes that's true.

In a weird way, it reminds me of my grandfather's quip that, if you can't shoot to kill, you don't need to live in the house with a gun. Because if you have a gun, and you aren't confident in using it, the people who ARE comfortable using them can tell. And, if you try and use it to scare someone, and they're more comfortable with guns than you, chances are reasonable that they would be able use it to harm YOU instead of the other way around.

My sense is that the MOV is the equivalent to playing hard-ball, and it's probably best that you not start down the road if you don't have the intent to follow-through, or the CA's BS-detectors will go off. Now, I don't know what the consequence of that would be, but I would imagine that it doesn't lead to a higher FICO or more stress-free life.

True....but remember - MOV is for the CRAs (Equifax, TransUnion, Experian) - and has nothing to do with CAs.

To put it in context, think about what you do for a living. Now think about a situation where someone with substantially less experience in that field has tried to pull the wool over your eyes in your field of expertise. You could probably tell how slick they thought they were being from a mile away, and you probably thought it was pretty darn cute but werent terribly threatened.

That just my humble n00b two cents.

Anyone, please feel free to chime in if this sounds off-base because it's also the underlying philosophy on decisions that I'm making in my own credit repair process.

Makes sense - besides the little clarification I posted earlier...

[brokeinok]

Michael

Because these debts are still with the OC (original creditor), you need to approach them from the standpoint of the FCRA. Go to the main CIC page and look up "disputing with the original creditor". The statute and all the instructions for doing this are right there.

[Michael925]

Michael

Because these debts are still with the OC (original creditor), you need to approach them from the standpoint of the FCRA. Go to the main CIC page and look up "disputing with the original creditor". The statute and all the instructions for doing this are right there.

Thanks Brokeinok, Thats the answer I was looking for, ( whats my next step ). I Will look that up next !