cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Lexington Law Funny

tag
Anonymous
Not applicable

Lexington Law Funny

If you have ever had Lexington Law send a letter out on your behalf, you really should take a moment to read what it is they are sending out.  I got one of them sent to me by a creditor who wanted to know if I had a stroke. 

 

Verbatim:

 

Dear <creditor's full name>:

I request that you provide validation for all account history information you reported to the credit bureaus for me, <my name>, with regard to the so-called account number <account number>. Since damaging errors may be contained within in that information, I must request that your company forward this documentation within one month. Additionally, include documentation which shows that any third-party collection agency, if engaged is bonded to collect in my state of residence. I need more than a simple statement without detail. Instead I am asking for a full audit.

 

If these requests cannot be met within a reasonable time frame, any abstracts forwarded from <creditor's full name> to any credit bureau must not be considered veracious and may evince a statutory violation. Given that outcome, you should retract such tradelines at once.

 

I remain appreciative regarding <creditor's full name> investigating this matter."

 

This creditor better get veracious pronto or I am gonna start evincing.  

Message 1 of 11
10 REPLIES 10
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Lexington Law Funny

I think they use obscure language to increase the chances of the deletion of the account.

 

All that sentence says is that any further documents sent to the credit bureaus after receipt of the letter are not necessarily truthful and could be considered a violation of the law.

Message 2 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Lexington Law Funny

Well that actually makes sense. 

Message 3 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Lexington Law Funny

This use of evince made me e-wince

Message 4 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Lexington Law Funny

I feel like my written disputes to the CRAs are more successful because I use some pretty archaic legalese in most of them and I assume the person handling the dispute tires of looking words up.

 

But that legalese is also generally right out of various lawsuits I've looked up that were against different reporting agencies, so I feel like at least it comes from a place of doughtiness.

Message 5 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Lexington Law Funny

So really what we need is a huge database of every dispute letter ever written and a determination of whether or not it was successful and we can run it through Watson to determine which words to use in which letters to ensure success.  

 

Simple really. Smiley Happy

Message 6 of 11
marty56
Super Contributor

Re: Lexington Law Funny

More likely the CSR would push the auto GW button because they were laughing so hard and their hand slipped.

1/25/2021: FICO 850 EQ 848 TU 847 EX
Message 7 of 11
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: Lexington Law Funny

What is totally lacking is their purported basis for demanding validation of all account history reported to the CRAs.

Validation only applies to debt collectors, and then only as to the validity of the debt, not reporting of account history to CRAs.

 

Any requirment to verify reported information must be based on a specific dispute that identifies the purported inaccuracy.

A shot-gun request for verification of all reported information can be dismissed without any need for any investigation as being frovolous or irrelevent.

 

Message 8 of 11
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Lexington Law Funny

 

What is totally lacking is their purported basis for demanding validation of all account history reported to the CRAs.

Validation only applies to debt collectors, and then only as to the validity of the debt, not reporting of account history to CRAs.

 

Any requirment to verify reported information must be based on a specific dispute that identifies the purported inaccuracy.

A shot-gun request for verification of all reported information can be dismissed without any need for any investigation as being frovolous or irrelevent.

 

* Shot gun and frivolous or irrelevent is generally how LexLaw rolls, no shade that's just WHO they are in the market....

Their McDonald's, WalMart...Big n' Cheap...you know going in you aren't buying QUALITY!

 

They serve their customer, exactly what they want, to buy, at the price point they want to pay....

Again they sell BIG, DUMB BRUTE, CHEAP SPEED @ a lazy, hands-off discount consumer price point, to folks willing to

take their chances based upon the price point and not having to 'cook'....

 

You guys have heard me say before...it's one of the reasons I don't offer a paid repair service anymore...folks are surprised that 

WalMart stuff needs to be replaced and McDonald's mucked up the fries but darn sure don't want to ante up and PAY for professional help, at a wage comparable to the quality they seek nor do many want to get their hands dirty assisting in the kitchen....

= Go cheap and 'hope'

 

LexLaw delivers exactly what they are set up to deliver mill quality work from the country's biggest mill....

 

The reason they and others just THROW B.S. towards the wall is...hey it works...often enough to be plausible across enough clients to stay in business, keep shuffling enough chit n shinola and you don't have to actually be good just go enough....

 

Again McDonalds is the perfect model emulate, anybody who feels that, THAT is a quality burger vs just something to eat, hasn't eaten a quality meal in their life but again McDonalds fulfills their mantra 'relatively' fast, cheap food in bulk NOT a 4-5 star dining experience nor food quality is what it is....there's room for everybody in the market ( and some will cook their own foodSmiley Indifferent)

Message 9 of 11
BamBam2000
Contributor

Re: Lexington Law Funny

I decided to give them 90 days to see what they could help with. I'm still working it a little on my side. My Chapter 13 is pending discharge now that I paid it off. They sent letters out for me last week do I will review them to see if they make any sense at all. After the first of the year I will cut them loose and finish the work on my own. Jury still out on them.

Message 10 of 11
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.