Devildawgjj Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 I read this from one of Methuss's post.....The 1-2 punch is sending a DV letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing with the credit bureau. The idea behind it is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau is simply has to delete the tradeline.........The hope is that once the DV lands in the collector's hands that their response will cross with the bureau's attempt to verify. If the collector responds to the bureau without first getting the validation from the OC and sending it to you, they broke the law by continuing collection activity and you can claim a $1000 offset against them. If they don't respond to the bureau, the bureau has to remove it and cannot put it back in unless the collector provides some proof that the tradeline is correct.How do (can) you prove that the CA did this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Nashville/Savannah Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 I read this from one of Methuss's post.....The 1-2 punch is sending a DV letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing with the credit bureau. The idea behind it is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau is simply has to delete the tradeline.........The hope is that once the DV lands in the collector's hands that their response will cross with the bureau's attempt to verify. If the collector responds to the bureau without first getting the validation from the OC and sending it to you, they broke the law by continuing collection activity and you can claim a $1000 offset against them. If they don't respond to the bureau, the bureau has to remove it and cannot put it back in unless the collector provides some proof that the tradeline is correct.How do (can) you prove that the CA did this??A lot of assumptions there nor is getting money out of them that easy.It's perfectly possible for the data furnisher to comply with both the FDCPA (assuming this isn't the OC) and the FCRA; the hope, of course, is that they don't comply.Also, this tactic may work "for a while" but nothing stops the data furnisher from correcting any mistakes and re-submitting the tradeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildawgjj Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Yes I understand this, but how would you prove that the CA did infact talk to the CRA's while you were DV'ing....?Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildawgjj Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Bump for Mr. Nashville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Nashville/Savannah Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 I’m not sure why you would want to prove they talked or what difference you think it would make?The 1-2 punch is about trying to get the data furnisher to refuse to validate the debt to you while concurrently "validating" the debt to the bureau - hence, the trap for the data furnisher.In any case, I'm no expert on the process...there are threads here with far better information about it than I can give you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts