Jump to content

No Debt Validation, CRA Say "Verified"


asylum23
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can you please help we w/ the next step?

I have sent 3 letters to the CA asking for debt validation, used the outlines on this site. They never validated, continued to report the "debt" on my credit report and call me about every other day.

I have tried to dispute w/ the CRA, they say the debt is "verified" or validated, refuse to remove it. No doubt the CA sent them something, but I do not know for sure what as I have never received anything from them.

I have recently done the BBB, ACA International and NV Attorney General complaints. Please tell me what I can do next, seems like everything is a dead end. I am being denied credit for anything I apply for b/c of this $150 debt. I realized if I pay it off, that does not help my score either. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send the following: (to the CRA)

"Your alleged verification of (list the debt) is not sufficient to prove it is my debt. Please remove by X date or I will be forced to file suit for its removal."

"Thank you in advance for following the FCRA in a timely manner concerning this issue."

Sincerely,

Mr. Goodguy

Keep it simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send the following: (to the CRA)

"Your alleged verification of (list the debt) is not sufficient to prove it is my debt. Please remove by X date or I will be forced to file suit for its removal."

"Thank you in advance for following the FCRA in a timely manner concerning this issue."

Sincerely,

Mr. Goodguy

Keep it simple.

I like the response have you ever used with a positive outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for the final result from Experian and equifax.

I started with my 1st dispute as "please verify these derog accounts are mine through an affidavit of someone at that OC" and then listed all the derogs.

With Transunion I had 24 charge offs from OC's which were the sum total of my derogs with them.

Transunion deleted 9 and verified the rest. (but provided no OC affidavits as I requested) They use E-oscar to verify. (read up on this site about E-oscar)

I sent the 2nd letter I indicated above and they deleted 13 more derogs and were investigating the other 2. (maybe those 2 will be sending an affidavit, who knows?)

I followed up by saying they have until 4/1/08 to prove those 2.

I will tell you that all the derogs were legitimate in the sense that they probably were mine. All I did was ask for proper verification. They could not or did not want to do it.

NOW IF THEY RE-INSERT THE DEROG INFORMATION WITHOUT PROPER NOTIFICATION TO ME UNDER THE FCRA, I could, in a technical sense file suit against the CRA. The validity of the derogatory TL would not matter, because the CRA did not follow proper procedure on re-insertation of the derog.

Do what you will or what your conscience allows you to do. I'm just telling you what I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...affidavit of someone..."

CRA's don't obtain affidavits or other 'proof' of debt and won't get one to send to you. It's not required for them to report or verify. They do, indeed, verify electronically by means of E-Oscar.

"...proper verification..."

Unfortunately, it's not up to the consumer to determine what 'proper verification' or 'validaton' consists of. Courts have taken on this task and case law varies in judicial districts/circuits. The CRA's follow established procedures based on their (panel of highly paid) legal counsel's advice. Upon receiving a dispute, they contact the Data Furnisher electronically, via the E-Oscar system, and parrot whatever the DF says with an update to the TL. If the DF fails to respond in time, the entire TL is suppressed. CRA's are only repositories of the data supplied by their client-subscribers and of specific Public Records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but CRA's assign codes and numbers to disputes. They do not investigate by picking up the phone, writing a letter, or contacting the creditor through human means, they only use their computer through E-Oscar. If you challenge their method of verification (E-Oscar) as insufficient, its been my experience, they remove rather than actually investigate.

So would you advocate I write Transunion to have all those derogs put back on?

The point is to get them off! If they re-insert the negative TL, even if accurate, CRA's must jump through FCRA hoops to do by giving you proper notice.

MY MAIN POINT IS: IF YOU DEMAND IT, IT REALLY IS UP TO THE CONSUMER TO DETERMINE WHAT PROPER VERIFICATION IS, IF YOU HASSLE ABOUT WHAT PROPER VERIFICATION IS.

So far, I'm pleased with the results.

Ahntara presents sound legal theory, but in practice CRA's seem to embrace something much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This subject is separate from a DV you would send to a debt collector or JDB.

I am talking about disputing tradelines with Credit Reporting Agncies. If disputing TL's with CRA's I highly reccomend NOT talking to the OC about it if it is a potentially accurate tradeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clear up debt verification done by the CRA's since some of you think it is something it is not.

First off, Many of you seem to think that they have to call the CA's about your little problem and do an investigation.... they don't.

The CRA's don't call the CA's about every joe bob dead beat over some TL. If they did the world would stop. There isn't enough manpower to accomplish the task.

ALL a CRA has to do and all they do is an electronic confirmation. IF a CA says to them Joe Bob dead beat owes $150 because he didn't pay his phone bill. Then it is reported.

It is your responsibility to prove to them that something on your CR is incorrect. That's pretty hard to do if you actually didn't pay your bills.

Your CR is really constructed by whatever records are out there and what the CA report to them.

That's all the CRA's do. They report what is told to them. Little more.

Take your battle to the CA and dispute to the CRA(and you can have ecxcellent results)...but don't expect anything from the so called debt verification process. It generally produces little if any results.

It is like a redundancy to a dispute. It is like asking them to do another dispute but you haven't changed your angle of attack(REASON for DISPUTE).

Just re-dispute on another reason.

Remember...IF you didn't pay your bills and it isn't past CRP-SoL the CRA has the right to report your screw ups.

Lesson....Don't screw up in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRA's do not investigate anything. This is why it is difficult for someone to get something off that is inaccurate if its being reported by a slimeball.

Disputing the "method of verification" provides a tool for consumers to help get the record clean. To me, its better than wasting time with an OC or JDB who could care less about updating your file properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q

When you admit the accuracy of the credit history information but then scam the system to delete accurate history... well, your action is flat unethical. You already know that and seemingly are not concerned.

What is a legitimate concern of all is the fact that actions such as yours drive up the cost of credit for everyone -- me, the next guy, etc. etc.

As much as you find it offensive, lenders use credit history to assess risk of default. That is a legitimate concern of a lender. Also, as you well know, lenders use credit history to price for risk of loss. A person with poor history should pay more than a person with good history -- the economic reality is well recognized.

By rewriting your credit history you are presenting a false and unreliable picture to a potential creditor. That is not right and is not fair to everyone else who sucks up the incremental cost of that action.

I know that you had a serious financial calamity in your life and I know why you are attempting to preserve assets. I understand that and I accept it as a action that you are required to take for reasons that make sense. I know the tools you use to address the litigation are radical and far beyond the ability to 99% of the people on the board.

I have a serious and sincere empathy for your situation. In that regard, I do not wish you any harm.

What you are doing to address your credit history exceeds my understanding. I don't know how you can rationalize such dishonesty except some sort of "my life sucks" mentality.

My respect for you just went way down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRA's do not investigate anything. This is why it is difficult for someone to get something off that is inaccurate if its being reported by a slimeball.

Disputing the "method of verification" provides a tool for consumers to help get the record clean. To me, its better than wasting time with an OC or JDB who could care less about updating your file properly.

Thanks for all your practical information. Since the credit industry is making billions and billions and the credit reporting companies don't really seem to care at all about the accuracy of their information.....

And since your entire life is affected by your credit score and it's accuracy is very important......I think every person should use every legal method at their disposal to clean up their credit.

The only people paying for bad credit from the mistakes of their past is the ones with bad credit. Those with good credit get great rates and deals, so I don't think anyone need feel bad about legally correcting their credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my poor country upbringing comes out in situations like this. I have a very simple code I follow:

1. OC's, CA's, and CRA's make rules they expect you to follow.

2. FCRA and FDCPA sets rules the OC's, CA's, and CRA's are expected to follow.

3. If number 2 happens, and the debt is mine, then number 1 happens and the debt gets paid.

4. If number 1 is broken they use the court system/credit reports to enforce their will.

5. If number 2 is broken I use the court system to enforce my will.

I have filed 3 lawsuits and won 2. Number 3 is just starting. I personally feel that Number 4 is about a month away from being ready.

Number 4 involves DW. DW went to Doctor's office for appointment and signed in at desk, was waiting to be called back. Doctor is called away for emergancy. Desk person tells patients waiting that it will be at least two hours before Doctor is back, if you cannot wait, come to desk and reschedule.

DW cannot wait so goes and reschedules appointment.

Doctor's office sends us bill for an office visit for that day. DW tells them what happened and they state that they are aware but since she signed in at the desk, it does not matter if she saw the Doctor or not. She owes for a office visit. DW knows about all there is to know about medical billing and has been fighting this for a while.

Now CA has it and says they will ruin her credit if she does not pay a 30.00 bill that has grown to 105 now. CA has committed 2 violations already and I am giving them time to add to the total before I involve the court.

Will this debt ever be paid? NOPE!!!! Does this make me a deadbeat? Could really care less. :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could make an argument about the morality of the ethics of my position on this. No doubt. Thats why if your conscience does not allow it, don't do it!

But (brace yourself for the ethics rationalization....)

Does demanding an in person (human to human contact) investigation to verify its a correct TL out of line?

If the CRA feels delete is better than all that trouble, is that the consumer's fault?

CRA's are required to investigate by Federal Law. Computers can be wrong and the CRA has no real ability to investigate outside of the computer. Where does that leave the consumer in case of an inaccurate TL?

Exploiting the loophole is no different than using court rules of evidence to beat a lazy creditor lawyer in court.

Debt Guy....I have an ethics question for you...

If a lazy cashier gives you too much change back, do you return it? If it was $10? $5? $1? 50 cents?

To me, this is the 50 cent ethics scenerio. I would just put in my pocket and not bother. (especially if the cashier was busy with someone else) But I would return the $10.

I will admit that my ethics are not perfect, but they exist for the important life issues.

Keep me on the straight and narrow Debt Guy. Maybe, I will consider bothering the cashier to return the 50 cents in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for the final result from Experian and equifax.

I started with my 1st dispute as "please verify these derog accounts are mine through an affidavit of someone at that OC" and then listed all the derogs.

With Transunion I had 24 charge offs from OC's which were the sum total of my derogs with them.

Transunion deleted 9 and verified the rest. (but provided no OC affidavits as I requested) They use E-oscar to verify. (read up on this site about E-oscar)

I sent the 2nd letter I indicated above and they deleted 13 more derogs and were investigating the other 2. (maybe those 2 will be sending an affidavit, who knows?)

I followed up by saying they have until 4/1/08 to prove those 2.

Did you ever send a MOV after the initial dispute and their response that the information was "verifed"? Or did you just immediately send the letter back saying their verification was not proof....?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL a CRA has to do and all they do is an electronic confirmation. IF a CA says to them Joe Bob dead beat owes $150 because he didn't pay his phone bill. Then it is reported.

It is your responsibility to prove to them that something on your CR is incorrect. That's pretty hard to do if you actually didn't pay your bills.

I have searched extensively through the FDCPA and FCRA and have found the term "verification" and it's sidekicks "verify", "validate", "validation" and the one thing they all have in common is they are legal terms with very specific legal definitions.

Verification -

  1. an act or process of verifying
  2. a sworn statement of truth or correctness

Verify - to confirm or substantiate by oath, affidavit, or deposition

Furthermore in Title 15 Chapter 41 of the US Code it clearly states the CRA will provide ALL relevant information received from the consumer to the information reporter.

Please show me where it says the CRA only has to send electronic confirmation?

So if your statement is accurate then you would have no issue with the following scenario:

I call up Experian and tell them that you owe me $1000 and have not paid so please report it on your credit report. You review your CR and see this entry and rightfully, immediately dispute it. Code reduced to "not mine"by CRA.

CRA faxes me form or calls me on phone and asks me to verify (match up) the information they have with my records. I click on Microsoft Excel and find your name in my database and say yep all the information is correct.

CRA reports results as verified account remains until March 2015.

Now I realize that this is very simplified, however based on your statement you would have to say this remains on your CR. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider my second letter I suggested near the beginning of this thread a "Method of verification" dispute.

I'm just a little harsher, and abrupt in the language I use than what is suggested on this site's MOV page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a lazy cashier gives you too much change back, do you return it? If it was $10? $5? $1? 50 cents?

Of course. And you should be ashamed of yourself if you think differently.

An ethical lapse is not a matter of degree. Is is OK if I commit murder just a little?

Apparently, you have an ethics-o-meter that I've never seen.

We are all flawed human beings. Such is the nature of man.

I've had enough life experiences to tell anyone that bad behavior results in way bad Karma. If you think your life sucks now, don't ever underestimate the power of it being worse as the result of dishonesty and unethical behavior. I truly believe the only way to dig out of that situation is through conducting oneself ethically and honestly.

Or, said more simply "what goes around, comes around".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t, and would not feel shame. Just this morning I got an apology from KHEA for student loans I defaulted on and then paid off 5 years later. I did it. and although I got the apology, I will still continue to sue them for their FCRA violations, especially now that I have it in writing that they messed up. I have been setting them up for the past nine months and know I was doing it, but I sure feel good about getting rid the last negatives I had. So long as agencies want to hold a person down with credit reports and inaccurate reporting, I am all for the consumer using their rights to use the laws that were put here to protect the consumer. I believe this is the wrong place to be trying to preach morality and ethics, as there is nothing wrong with consumer’s morals or ethics for making cra, and cb follow the LAWS that are in place to protect the consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda like that.

I guess it disqualifies ALL the candidates for president in Debt Guy's world.

Debt Guy... Let's say the 50 cents was a "drive-thru" transaction at a bank, and you did not discover it until you got home...you would still take it back?

Even though the transaction cost of the trip, (time, gas, car, etc) would exeed the mistake?

Transactional cost Economics plays a role in ethics whether we like it or not.

I view it as the same situation on my credit report. The law allows me to decide. (Whereas murder, the law does not allow me to decide)

I call it "vigorous representation of my consumer interests".

The banking industry lays out millions in lobbyists for vigorous representation of their interests against consumer, how ethical is that?

When the consumer vs. banking interest playing field is level, I think the morality of your ethics argument becomes more salient. However, there is a striking imbalance, and its not in favor of the consumer, making your position somewhat less convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you talk about trying to GEt out of payig a real debt as being morally unacceptable and that it makes that person a dead beat.

WEll after 5 tours in Iraq I dont care what anyone thinks. I have done things that some of you would consider grose and sick. But I made it home. I am not in one piece But I am home If I had to kill to get home than I did. I dtoped counting dead bodies on the other end my my hands after I ran out of fingers.

Then I come home to find out I was sued time and time again while on

active duty.

So the way I see it even if the bill is mine I aint paying it because of they way the CA went about getting a default judgment. If they dont care about the fact that i was being shot at and having to kill in order to protect what America is then I dont care how I have to go about putting these people in there place.

I have learned a lot from a lot of people on here. But some of you make statements and do not know anything about the other persons life.

I fought for this country and I am proud to have served in My Marine Corps. Not a lot of people have what it take to become a marine or understad what it is to be a Marine. I served MY Marine corps for 26 years. So if these people want to sneak around and get default judgments on me while I am getting shot for my country, then to hell with them. All the CA's had to do was run my CR and see my active duty notice on my report. some of them did run my cr so they knew I was gone, but they still entered an affidavit of non military service because they knew I would not show up in court. Thatr is dirty and un American. IWILL NOT STAND STILL AT LET THESE VULTURES RUIN ME OR ANY ONE ELSE THAT HAS HAD TO SERVE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. I am right now talking with some lobbyists and we are going to make some changes to force the courts to comply with the SSCRA.

To those that have not made any of these comments I apologize for tis post but I had to say it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.