Why can't CRAs just ignore if CAs dont DV after dispute?

[Anonymous]

Since I'm about 1/2 through my 30 day waiting period after DVing, a question occurs to me;

Say the CA ignores me. Now I sent the CRA the Certified Return Reciept, and a copy of my request for Document Validaiton that went unanswered. Since the CRA just finished verifying that themselves, can't their reply simply be 'sorry, we are satisfied with the dispute results' and tell you to piss off?

[ngerasimatos]

They can, and sometimes that is their reply.

[Anonymous]

I *think* -- and mods will weigh in if I'm wrong -- the CRA DIDN'T do any validation in the first place, which is why you're now asking full DV from CA.

The CRA only does a *verification* which is a process a toddler with two sippy cups and a dirty diaper could manage, as it really only involves one computer talking to another. It just makes sure the SSN, DOB, NAME and ADDRESS match up. And if you're named ivyalmighty, NONE of those have to match as long as the ADDRESS is MOSTLY the same....

What you wrote to the CA requesting is a debt VERIFICATION, which is a request for lots of slightly more complex information to prove that the debt really truly is yours and they really truly have the authority to ask you to pay them for it.

If you want the pucker factor to increase for the CRA in the mean time, you can always MOV the CRA. That way you'll have both ends of the problem looking into it for you.

-ivyalmighty

[Anonymous]

I won't be surprised if they do; I sent Experian a pretty stern letter regarding the fact that they verified incorrect information from a collector; I included cancelled check, copy of PIF/Satisfied debt from CA and a copy of their own VERIFIED dispute report to show that they had verified that an account they listed as PIF still had me as 90+Days Late and In Collections 4 months later (also disputed how they could list 'Balance' and 'Due' as Not reported since they should by definition be $0). I had copies of the report with teh offending data in highlighted yellow, and arrows pointing to it with the relevant queries, asking how THEY could verify THAT data.

I pointed out how they were violating the law as they had a responsibility to verify tradelines and could not ignore/report incorrect data.

They sent me back a letter that my information could not be used and that they were contacting the CA. Again.

[ngerasimatos]

Bastards!