I hate disputing online because cra will only allow you to dispute an item so many times. I would advice you to have paper trails starting DV letter to CA then if they don't provide you with what you requested send a second DV telling them if they fail to comply you will file complaints with bbb, FTC and state attorney general. I have clean up my report doing so with this method. If they still on your report send cra copies of the letters along with copy of id and ssn. Its call the 1-2 punch on collections. The cra are require to provide you with method of verification if you so requested. If they can't provide you with documents or the name and number who they contact during the investigation they are require to remove the item. Disputing online only helps when you have already sent a DV letter to CA. If they verify and you didn't get anything from the CA they are now in FDCA violation.
_______________________________________
I disagree with almost everything opined in this post.
1. There is no statutory requirement for a debt collector to respond to a DV request. Their statutory requirement is to cease collection on the debt until such time as they have provided verification.
2. The CRAs are not a party to the DV process. It is a debt collection practices issue under the FDCPA between the consumer and the debt collector.
Disputes sent to a CRA deal with inaccuracies in credit reporting, not debt verification issues under the FDCPA. Lack of resonse to a DV is not a disputable issue under FCRA 611(a).
3. So-called method of verification requests sent to a CRA deal with their providing a description of their method of reinvestigation. If a CRA fails to provide the requested description, the issue is one of their non-compliance with FCRA 611(a)(7). CRA failure to provide the required description does NOT require deletion of the disputed information. The dispute remains verfied.
4, The so-called 1-2 punch process is, in my opinion, nonsense. It is a theory that while a debt collector is under a cease collection bar as a result of a timely DV, they are prohibited from responding to a CRA under their statutory obligation to investigate the dispute and report the results to the CRA.
There is no statutory or case law support for the theory that conducting their statutorily required dispute investigtation and response of their results is a prohibited debt collection activity that places them in violation of the FDCPA for communicating those results to a CRA.
It's basically an argument that congress enacted one statute that prevents compliance with another.
Starting Score: FAKO: TU 602 EQ 550 EX 565 - 08|2012