Valued Contributor
Posts: 1,206
Registered: ‎02-19-2012
Re: Dunning Letter

I wasnt aware of what you referred to as the one two punch but wouldnt the lack of validating the debt conclude that they dont have the necessary proof of it being a legitimate debt that is owed otherwise CA would just put on any debt to ones CR and the consumer would never be able to legitimatly have it removed(not correct not owed  zombie etc.)Then DV is nothing more than bull and a CA is really free to do whatever they wish. therfore the consumer is in the water without a paddle. If anyone else has any info on this please chime in. While there may not be any caselaw directly associated with this issue, I feel that the CRA would in their part at least understand that due dilligence has not been done by the CA and therefore delete. Not arguing the point merely stating common sense.  I do not think the FCRA would give such a liberty to the CA's as it was written I believe mostly to protect the consumer. Anyone on this????????????????

Starting Score: 0
Current Score: TR??FICOEQ ?? FICO
Goal Score: 760

Lowes7,000 Discover More 2800. Jcpenny 6,000
Chase freedom 800 Never take NO for an answer!!