Use of letter sent to CRA after a failed validation

[LoveToGod]

CMI has failed to provide debt validation. All they provided was a computerized printout. I sent CMI the FTC opinion letters that say no signature, no DV. I also sent opinion letter that says you can't continue to report to CRA if you can't validate.

I sent the form letter the EX & EQ that basically says how could you validate this, when the CA couldn't validate. If you are not familiar with it search the form letters on the site.

Here is the question: Who here has had success using that form letter?

It is the first one like that, that I have sent out.

[swirlgirl]

The CRAs can verify (not validate) the TL if the creditor responds that it should remain on your CR.

The CRAs do not investigate the background of TLs. They just contact the creditors and ask if the TL should remain. If the creditor says yes, then it's verified.

Do a search for E-Oscar. You'll learn a lot.

[Debt Guy]

I sent CMI the FTC opinion letters that say no signature, no DV. I also sent opinion letter that says you can't continue to report to CRA if you can't validate.

What opinion letters would those be? What names? I thought I had read every single one but I don't remember anything quite like that.

To the contrary, the FTC has refused to define validation. There are a number of court cases that dance around the definition but all are very narrow and, as I recall, some even conflict with each other.

[TTigggers]

When I first started my clean up process I did this.

Let me tell you that it is a waste of time don't bother.

All they are going to do is send you a response that says "you need to contact the Data Furnisher to have the TL corrected" or "We have already verified this account and deem your request frivolous"

I have learned a lot since then and won't bother sending such a letter as well as a MOV letter. They are both useless and a waste of time.

If you feel that what they sent you Isn't proper Validation, ask again if that doesn't work try filing a complaint with the AG and BBB.

I would also like to see that FTC Opinion letter I have never seen such a thing in all of my research.

[LoveToGod]

When I first started my clean up process I did this.

Let me tell you that it is a waste of time don't bother.

All they are going to do is send you a response that says "you need to contact the Data Furnisher to have the TL corrected" or "We have already verified this account and deem your request frivolous"

I have learned a lot since then and won't bother sending such a letter as well as a MOV letter. They are both useless and a waste of time.

If you feel that what they sent you Isn't proper Validation, ask again if that doesn't work try filing a complaint with the AG and BBB.

I would also like to see that FTC Opinion letter I have never seen such a thing in all of my research.

It not a MOV letter though. I know those don't work. It it like a letter that calls someone on carpet for lying. I will post what i sent in my next post.

[LoveToGod]

Experian

P.O. Box 9556

Allen, TX 75013

Date: March 31, 2008

RE: Credit Management, LP Account # XXXXX, FileID #:MY FILE ID#

Dear Sir/Madame:

I am writing to dispute the account referenced above. I have disputed this account information as inaccurate with you, and you have come back to me and stated you were able to verify this debt. How is this possible? Under the laws of the FDCPA, I have contacted the collection agency myself and have been unable to get them to verify that this is indeed my debt.

This debt is not mine and I was given no evidence of my obligation to pay this debt to this collection agency.

The FCRA requires you to verify the validity of the item within 30 days. If the validity cannot be verified, you are obligated by law to remove the item. There is a clear case of unverified debt here, and I urge you to remove this item before I am forced to take legal action.

In the event that you can not verify the item pursuant to the FCRA, and you continue to list the disputed item on my credit report I will find it necessary to sue you for actual damages and declaratory relief under the FCRA. According to this regulation, I may sue you in any qualified state or federal court, including small claims court in my area.

While I prefer not to litigate, I will use the courts as needed to enforce my rights under the FCRA. I look forward to an uneventful resolution of this matter.

Sincerely,

Joseph E. Lopez

MY ADDRESS

File ID#: MY EXPERIAN FILE #

[Ahntara]

"CMI...failed to provide...validation...computerized printout..."

So then, CMI thinks they HAVE provided validation. They would therefore ignore any FTC letter you referenced or copied about validation and probably scratch their heads.

"...EQ & EX...how could you validate this, when the CA couldn't..."

CRA's don't validate, they get their data verified, electronically via E-Oscar. What they do has no bearing on your interaction with the CA.

"...form letter..."

Generally a bad idea. Form letters have been used for decades. The CRA's have the same access to them as anyone else on the net and read them every day. Most consumers don't understand their content or context. It's always better to gain a thorough understanding and compose a letter in your own words. Many consumers want to sound threatening and sophisticated. Actually, sounding simple and naive is more effective. Standards in the FCRA are directed towards the 'least sophisticated consumer'.

You may wish to rethink/rework your letter.

The first paragraph is essentially a MOV. They will respond with an explanation of their electronic verification process.

The next paragraph (sentence) is between you and the CA and has nothing to do with the CRA.

The next one is incorrect. You specifically said that EX & EQ did verify. This will also leave them scratching their heads. You then threaten legal action, but it seems baseless and makes no sense. Remember, threatening to sue rarely works. Actually suing is quite effective.

[LoveToGod]

"CMI...failed to provide...validation...computerized printout..."

So then, CMI thinks they HAVE provided validation. They would therefore ignore any FTC letter you referenced or copied about validation and probably scratch their heads.

"...EQ & EX...how could you validate this, when the CA couldn't..."

CRA's don't validate, they get their data verified, electronically via E-Oscar.

Yes. We all know they use E-Qscar, but that program does not exempt them from actually doing the verification. They get by with that E-Oscar. They point is if the CA could not prove that it was my debt, then how could the CRA? So it challenges their "investigation" which we know really is not an investigation using E-Oscar.

It is a challenge to question the validity of their investigation is being legit.

[TTigggers]

The above letter you posted is nothing more than a request for verification from the CRA

You Keep missing the point so I will post it again!!

CA's don't ever have to verify or validate the debt to you.

They are not required by law to do so.

The only place that has to delete a TL if not verified is the CRA's.

Just because the CA doesn't validate to you doesn't mean that they don't have the information to verify with the CRA's.

#1 As long as the CA's (Data Furnisher) information matches the CRA's info there will be no change.

#2 If the info doesn't match what the CRA's have they will update the TL to match what the CA reports.

#3 If the CA fails to respond or has no info on the TL being verified it will then be deleted.

As I stated in my last post these letters do not work they are a waste of time.

If you actually bothered to read the entire post and not see just what you want to see you would have noticed that this is what I said "I have learned a lot since then and won't bother sending such a letter as well as a MOV letter" I guess you missed the "as well as" part.

Again I ask to see this FTC opinion letter you mentioned earlier.

Once again you don't seem to understand that when a CRA verify's info all that they do is check to see if their records match what the CA, OC is reporting to them.

As long as their information matches, the TL is "verified" If the info is different the TL will be "Updated" If there is no information the TL will be "Deleted"

You have no legal case here If you pursue legal actions I am afraid it will not turn out well for you as you have no evidence of any wrong doing on the CRA's part.

[LoveToGod]

The above letter you posted is nothing more than a request for verification from the CRA

You Keep missing the point so I will post it again!!

CA's don't ever have to verify or validate the debt to you.

They are not required by law to do so.

The only place that has to delete a TL if not verified is the CRA's.

Just because the CA doesn't validate to you doesn't mean that they don't have the information to verify with the CRA's.

#1 As long as the CA's (Data Furnisher) information matches the CRA's info there will be no change.

#2 If the info doesn't match what the CRA's have they will update the TL to match what the CA reports.

#3 If the CA fails to respond or has no info on the TL being verified it will then be deleted.

As I stated in my last post these letters do not work they are a waste of time.

If you actually bothered to read the entire post and not see just what you want to see you would have noticed that this is what I said "I have learned a lot since then and won't bother sending such a letter as well as a MOV letter" I guess you missed the "as well as" part.

Again I ask to see this FTC opinion letter you mentioned earlier.

Once again you don't seem to understand that when a CRA verify's info all that they do is check to see if their records match what the CA, OC is reporting to them.

As long as their information matches, the TL is "verified" If the info is different the TL will be "Updated" If there is no information the TL will be "Deleted"

You have no legal case here If you pursue legal actions I am afraid it will not turn out well for you as you have no evidence of any wrong doing on the CRA's part.

Well, the book that I got it out of said that this is what should be used, and it was so right about so many other things that i figured it was pretty credible. That letter was not my idea or even composed by me. It is the letter that was setup up to use from the good credit is sexy book.

[LoveToGod]

The above letter you posted is nothing more than a request for verification from the CRA

You Keep missing the point so I will post it again!!

CA's don't ever have to verify or validate the debt to you.

They are not required by law to do so.

The only place that has to delete a TL if not verified is the CRA's.

Just because the CA doesn't validate to you doesn't mean that they don't have the information to verify with the CRA's.

Again I ask to see this FTC opinion letter you mentioned earlier.

Are you sure about that first statement? What about the FCRA and FDCPA. Have you read them? I have copies of them, and it says that when you send a DV to them they have 30 days to respond. The time frame is even given in there too. That too is also in that other thread. I posted the entire applicable text in there. Look for the thread that says "question" under colletions:

Ok, I think it is redundant to post the FTC letter here since I have it in another thread, but here it is:

As the the law section: The FDCPA sect 809 deals with validation of debts

The 809 deals with continued collection activity without a DV

First here is the link: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/eBoo...nLawsuit.shtml

Straight from the horses mouth: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/cons...edit/cre27.pdf

§ 809. Validation of debts

( 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 credi-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. Collection activities and communications that

do not otherwise violate this title may continue during

the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the

consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the

debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer

requests the name and address of the original creditor.

Any collection activities and communication during the

30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with

the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or

request the name and address of the original creditor.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Credit Practices

Bureau of Consumer Protection

March 10, 1993

Jeffrey S. Wollman

Vice President and Controller

Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.

1261 Broadway

New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Wollman:

This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809( of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .” in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer.

The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer.

Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it.

Sincerely,

John F. LeFevre

Attorney

Division of Credit Practices

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa...rs/wollman.htm

As the song goes.. WOOF! THERE IT IS!

[TTigggers]

If I told you you could make 1 million dollars in a week would you do what I told you to do or would you ask other people who have actually done it?

[Ahntara]

Okay, it's the Wollman letter. Thanks for posting it. Now we know what we are talking about here, always a good thing.

"...actually doing the verification..."

Are you willing to take the CRA's to court over this issue? If so, then proceed as planned and make this a point in your lawsuit. If you are simply looking for suppression without a court battle, the CRA's have verified the data they have with the Data Furnisher. They do not have to obtain validation, nor do they care if the CA sent validation, or verification, to you. Your interaction with the CA has little to do with their client/subscriber, the DF.

The CRA's don't 'prove' it's your debt. They assume that the info their client has provided is accurate. When the accuracy is challenged by a dispute, they request verification via E-Oscar. If you send a MOV, they will respond with a form letter indicating that.

"...challenge to question the validity of their investigation..."

You can only successfully issue such a challenge in court. If you wish to do this, I wish you the best of luck. We only want you to know that sending a letter to challenge isn't likely to produce success.

We are also sticklers for specifics around here, not trying to be difficult, but for clarity.

The FDCPA concerns the actions of debt collectors. The FCRA concerns credit reporting = Two separate things.

[TTigggers]

Are you sure about that first statement? What about the FCRA and FDCPA. Have you read them? I have copies of them, and it says that when you send a DV to them they have 30 days to respond.

Yes, I have read them (many times)and it does not say that. You posted the proof below.

The time frame is even given in there too.

The timeframe listed is the time that you must request a timely DV

"If the consumer (You) notifies the debt collector (CA) in writing within the thirty-day period"

That too is also in that other thread. I posted the entire applicable text in there. Look for the thread that says "question" under colletions:

Ok, I think it is redundant to post the FTC letter here since I have it in another thread, but here it is:

As the the law section: The FDCPA sect 809 deals with validation of debts

The 809 deals with continued collection activity without a DV

First here is the link: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/eBoo...nLawsuit.shtml

Straight from the horses mouth: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/cons...edit/cre27.pdf

§ 809. Validation of debts

( 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 credi-or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector

They can give any of the following as validation.

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.

Again the following is the timley DV

Collection activities and communications that

do not otherwise violate this title may continue during

the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the

consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the

debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer

requests the name and address of the original creditor.

Any collection activities and communication during the

30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with

the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or

request the name and address of the original creditor.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Credit Practices

Bureau of Consumer Protection

March 10, 1993

Jeffrey S. Wollman

Vice President and Controller

Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.

1261 Broadway

New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Wollman:

This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809( of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .” in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer.

The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer.

Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it.

Sincerely,

John F. LeFevre

Attorney

Division of Credit Practices

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa...rs/wollman.htm

As the song goes.. WOOF! THERE IT IS!

Here is your first post.

CMI has failed to provide debt validation. All they provided was a computerized printout.

We all agree on this a printout does not validate the debt But this is what the FDCPA states as validation as mentioned above

"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."

Under the FDCPA the name and address of the OC is Validation.

I sent CMI the FTC opinion letters that say no signature, no DV.

I still don't see where this letter says that.

I also sent opinion letter that says you can't continue to report to CRA if you can't validate.

Where is this opinion letter?

[LoveToGod]

Okay, it's the Wollman letter. Thanks for posting it. Now we know what we are talking about here, always a good thing.

"...actually doing the verification..."

Are you willing to take the CRA's to court over this issue? If so, then proceed as planned and make this a point in your lawsuit. If you are simply looking for suppression without a court battle, the CRA's have verified the data they have with the Data Furnisher. They do not have to obtain validation, nor do they care if the CA sent validation, or verification, to you. Your interaction with the CA has little to do with their client/subscriber, the DF.

The CRA's don't 'prove' it's your debt. They assume that the info their client has provided is accurate. When the accuracy is challenged by a dispute, they request verification via E-Oscar. If you send a MOV, they will respond with a form letter indicating that.

"...challenge to question the validity of their investigation..."

You can only successfully issue such a challenge in court. If you wish to do this, I wish you the best of luck. We only want you to know that sending a letter to challenge isn't likely to produce success.

We are also sticklers for specifics around here, not trying to be difficult, but for clarity.

The FDCPA concerns the actions of debt collectors. The FCRA concerns credit reporting = Two separate things.

Yeah. This is the first time I have used a letter like this. Equifax started another investigation instead of deleting it. Experian hasn't done anything yet, and I am waiting with TransUnion, because I don't want to give then a 15 day extention...

I may take them to court as the next step.

[TTigggers]

Yeah. This is the first time I have used a letter like this. Equifax started another investigation instead of deleting it. Experian hasn't done anything yet, and I am waiting with TransUnion, because I don't want to give then a 15 day extention...

I may take them to court as the next step.

Like I stated in post #9 that is what you are asking them to do.

They are doing what you ask. You are grasping at straws here.

"The above letter you posted is nothing more than a request for verification from the CRA"

I'm trying to help you out here not fight with you.

Take it for what its worth IMO you should spend less time sending letters to the CRA's and work on the CA a little bit more.

[LoveToGod]

Like I stated in post #9 that is what you are asking them to do.

They are doing what you ask. You are grasping at straws here.

"The above letter you posted is nothing more than a request for verification from the CRA"

I'm trying to help you out here not fight with you.

Take it for what its worth IMO you should spend less time sending letters to the CRA's and work on the CA a little bit more.

No. I am telling them they need to delete it since they did not actually verify it.

[LoveToGod]

Under the FDCPA the name and address of the OC is Validation.

I sent CMI the FTC opinion letters that say no signature, no DV.

I still don't see where this letter says that.

ITS RIGHT HERE:

it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose.

does not accomplish this purpose., IE. NOT DEBT VALIDATION.

[LoveToGod]

The above letter you posted is nothing more than a request for verification from the CRA

You Keep missing the point so I will post it again!!

CA's don't ever have to verify or validate the debt to you.

They are not required by law to do so.

The only place that has to delete a TL if not verified is the CRA's.

Just because the CA doesn't validate to you doesn't mean that they don't have the information to verify with the CRA's.

#1 As long as the CA's (Data Furnisher) information matches the CRA's info there will be no change.

#2 If the info doesn't match what the CRA's have they will update the TL to match what the CA reports.

#3 If the CA fails to respond or has no info on the TL being verified it will then be deleted.

As I stated in my last post these letters do not work they are a waste of time.

If you actually bothered to read the entire post and not see just what you want to see you would have noticed that this is what I said "I have learned a lot since then and won't bother sending such a letter as well as a MOV letter" I guess you missed the "as well as" part.

Again I ask to see this FTC opinion letter you mentioned earlier.

Once again you don't seem to understand that when a CRA verify's info all that they do is check to see if their records match what the CA, OC is reporting to them.

As long as their information matches, the TL is "verified" If the info is different the TL will be "Updated" If there is no information the TL will be "Deleted"

You have no legal case here If you pursue legal actions I am afraid it will not turn out well for you as you have no evidence of any wrong doing on the CRA's part.

It is an escalated tone with the possibility that I will sue.

Re read the text: Here are the last 2 paragraphs.

The FCRA requires you to verify the validity of the item within 30 days. If the validity cannot be verified, you are obligated by law to remove the item. There is a clear case of unverified debt here, and I urge you to remove this item before I am forced to take legal action.

In the event that you can not verify the item pursuant to the FCRA, and you continue to list the disputed item on my credit report I will find it necessary to sue you for actual damages and declaratory relief under the FCRA. According to this regulation, I may sue you in any qualified state or federal court, including small claims court in my area.

[TTigggers]

No. I am telling them they need to delete it since they did not actually verify it.

But they did verify it with the CA that's why it's still on your report.

If it wasn't verified by the CA it would be removed.

[Debt Guy]

Joseph

You don't get it. You have been asked at least 4 times now for the source of authority "they must delete if they can't verify". You ignore the question because you just can't admit you are wrong.

There is no such FTC Opinion Letter.

You continue to confuse FDCPA and FCRA. They address different issues.

I've never read these books you refer to but it sure sounds like they are both a waste of money and grossly deceptive. Either that or you are reading into them what you want to hear.

If you have a beef, instead of wasting time on nonsense letters that are not going to impress anyone, go down to the courthouse and file your lawsuit. Please let me know when you lose. Maybe you will start listening to people who know when the judge tells you to pay the legal fees of the other side.

[Amerikaner83]

sounds to me like OP is trying to get the CRAs to remove based on a DV in which there was no repsonse...correct?

If so, I doubt it'll work. the CA does NOT ever have to provide you validation...except in cases where it tries to collect from you again. The CRA/CA dispute is different.

[TTigggers]

It is an escalated tone with the possibility that I will sue.

I agree with that but you have nothing to sue over there is no violation and the CRA knows that. Now if the CA told you they had no record of you or that they would stop collection efforts and you had proof of that then you could get the CRA on wilful noncompliance.

Re read the text: Here are the last 2 paragraphs.

The FCRA requires you to verify the validity of the item within 30 days. If the validity cannot be verified, you are obligated by law to remove the item.

Yes they need to use the E-Oscar system to verify the TL which is what they are doing. The CRA verify's that the info on your TL matches what the CA is reporting to them This is the KEY the CA is reporting this info to the CRA therefore Verified.

There is a clear case of unverified debt here,

As far as the CA responding to you about the debt yes there is.

I agree this needs to be dealt with but this is between you and the CA not the CRA they only report what the CA reports to them.

Between the CA and CRA there is no case of unverified debt.

The CRA asked for verification and the CA gave it to them plain and simple.

and I urge you to remove this item before I am forced to take legal action.

There is no Violation therefore no legal action.

In the event that you can not verify the item pursuant to the FCRA, and you continue to list the disputed item on my credit report I will find it necessary to sue you for actual damages and declaratory relief under the FCRA. According to this regulation, I may sue you in any qualified state or federal court, including small claims court in my area.

Please before you go to file a lawsuit, consult a lawyer on this.

I don't want to see you loose your case and money in court and if you loose the CRA will probably file a counter suit against you to recoup legal fees.

[LoveToGod]

But they did verify it with the CA that's why it's still on your report.

If it wasn't verified by the CA it would be removed.

How? Just because they said they did? I am to take their word for it?

[LoveToGod]

Joseph

You don't get it. You have been asked at least 4 times now for the source of authority "they must delete if they can't verify". You ignore the question because you just can't admit you are wrong.

I may not have the terminology down 100% correctly, but you do know that if the CRA can't verify anything that you dispute they are obligated to delete it, because it is not ACCURATE and COMPLETE don't you? You do at least agree with that right? They are not allowed to report inaccurate information.

There is no such FTC Opinion Letter.

No? I posted it in the a previous post and I even provided the link to it on the FTC web site straight from the horses mouth. How much more documentation do you need? How can you say there is no such FTC Opinion letter?

You continue to confuse FDCPA and FCRA. They address different issues.

Both play a role in the process. the FCRA is the Fair Credit Reporting Act that CRAs must follow. the FDCPA is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that the Collection Agencies and creditors must follow.

Actually a CA can be in violation of of both if they also report inaccurate information...

I've never read these books you refer to but it sure sounds like they are both a waste of money and grossly deceptive. Either that or you are reading into them what you want to hear.

They are both for sale on this web site. Good credit is sexy, and Poor mans class action lawsuit. I can read plain English and they are written rather plainly.

If you have a beef, instead of wasting time on nonsense letters that are not going to impress anyone, go down to the courthouse and file your lawsuit. Please let me know when you lose. Maybe you will start listening to people who know when the judge tells you to pay the legal fees of the other side.

If you will spend about $15 and get a copy of the Poor Man's Class Action Lawsuit book you will see that it shows you:

1. How to sue.

2. What you can sue for (in a nice clear cut table citing the various FCRA & FDCPA laws)

3. It tells how suing will work.

Suing is as a last resort. It is a tactic to get CRAs to fix the problem, plus a judge will want to see that you tried in good faith the correct the problem first before taking up the courts. AND I FOUND THIS IN THE BOOK TOO GET A COPY BEFORE COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT I POST

I DIDN'T JUST MAKE THIS STUFF OUT OF THIN AIR!