Jump to content

1-2 Punch


Devildawgjj
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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.