Why do basic DVs differ from the OC letters I've seen here?

[Anonymous]

Sorry about all the posts today, big push to get the last baddies off so I can rebuild by Springtime.

I noticed a couple sample letters here for both CA and OC, basically demanding FULL documentation (bills, contracts, right to collect, et.c) in lieu of which demanding removal of tradeline.

My question is this; when I dispute to the CRAs, and they come back verified, don't they in fact have to provide all of that to the CRAs, or just state that they have verified it and that is that? If I dispute an account/DOFD etc don't the OC/CA have to provide that exact same documentation to the CRAs?

I did just that, most came off, two remain, and I definitely dispute the DOFD/DOLA but it remains ('verified' first time, CRAs said 'frivolous' the second). Will this method (direct contact to the OC/CAs, demand FULL docs, cite FCRA, fines, etc.) be more effective?

[Anonymous]

nyccc2 wrote:

I noticed a couple sample letters here for both CA and OC, basically demanding FULL documentation (bills, contracts, right to collect, et.c) in lieu of which demanding removal of tradeline.

There is nothing in statutes or caselaw that requires either a CA or OC to send "Full Documentation", whatever that means.

My question is this; when I dispute to the CRAs, and they come back verified, don't they in fact have to provide all of that to the CRAs, or just state that they have verified it and that is that?

The CRAs are required to investigate, but frequently that means they simply consult an internal database which confirms that which is on one's CR. Courts have repeatedly smacked CRAs for failing to investigate, not for failing to receive "Full Documentation".

I did just that, most came off, two remain, and I definitely dispute the DOFD/DOLA but it remains ('verified' first time, CRAs said 'frivolous' the second). Will this method (direct contact to the OC/CAs, demand FULL docs, cite FCRA, fines, etc.) be more effective?
The law is very different for CAs, CRAs and OCs. It's not one size fits all.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

I noticed a couple sample letters here for both CA and OC, basically demanding FULL documentation (bills, contracts, right to collect, et.c) in lieu of which demanding removal of tradeline.

There is nothing in statutes or caselaw that requires either a CA or OC to send "Full Documentation", whatever that means.

My question is this; when I dispute to the CRAs, and they come back verified, don't they in fact have to provide all of that to the CRAs, or just state that they have verified it and that is that?

The CRAs are required to investigate, but frequently that means they simply consult an internal database which confirms that which is on one's CR. Courts have repeatedly smacked CRAs for failing to investigate, not for failing to receive "Full Documentation".

I did just that, most came off, two remain, and I definitely dispute the DOFD/DOLA but it remains ('verified' first time, CRAs said 'frivolous' the second). Will this method (direct contact to the OC/CAs, demand FULL docs, cite FCRA, fines, etc.) be more effective?
The law is very different for CAs, CRAs and OCs. It's not one size fits all.

---

I just don't get it. All they have to do is verify that the debt exists in their database? A CA (or even OC) doesn't have to verify/prove the dates they are posting as being date paid, the amounts, the ss, etc are in fact valid and documented? That is ridiculous.

I also the think the 30 day window for requesting validation is ridiculous. If a creditor posts undocumented/unverified info you should be able to require them at any time to provide at the very least;

1) Original Contract you signed
2) Statements of amounts including date, your address, name,etc.

I've contacted a credit attorney who is reviewing my files, I'll get back to y'all later.

[Anonymous]

nyccc2 wrote:

All they have to do is verify that the debt exists in their database?

...

I also the think the 30 day window for requesting validation is ridiculous.

It's not all that they have to do, but it is frequently all they end up doing--until someone sues.

I agree with you on the 30 day window, and Texas has state law which says you can DV anytime--even if it's paid. Model legislation for the rest of the nation.

It's not fair to the consumer that the consumer is made to show proof they sent a letter, but the CA can often get away with "Well your honor, you see we have a system in place whereby we ..." No proof they actually sent you anything, called and spoke with you, or proof that you actually received the notice they sent. Only that they have a system.

The ability of consumers to share info and experiences on credit forums across the Net has been devastating to the credit industry. Knowledge is power, and consumers are sometimes educating judges about TILA and SOL, FCRA, FDCPA, et al. to win in court.

Congress remains oblivious. While I'm not one to buy into conspiracies, I am persuaded by Shreveport attorney David Szwak's assertions in Maxed Out. He claims the CRAs maintain databases of "important people" who together with their lawyers could make the CRA's lives a living h*ll through civil litigation. These "important people" never have to worry about their credit files because the CRAs are meticious and methodical when handling their files.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

All they have to do is verify that the debt exists in their database?

...

I also the think the 30 day window for requesting validation is ridiculous.

It's not all that they have to do, but it is frequently all they end up doing--until someone sues.

I agree with you on the 30 day window, and Texas has state law which says you can DV anytime--even if it's paid. Model legislation for the rest of the nation.

It's not fair to the consumer that the consumer is made to show proof they sent a letter, but the CA can often get away with "Well your honor, you see we have a system in place whereby we ..." No proof they actually sent you anything, called and spoke with you, or proof that you actually received the notice they sent. Only that they have a system.

The ability of consumers to share info and experiences on credit forums across the Net has been devastating to the credit industry. Knowledge is power, and consumers are sometimes educating judges about TILA and SOL, FCRA, FDCPA, et al. to win in court.

Congress remains oblivious. While I'm not one to buy into conspiracies, I am persuaded by Shreveport attorney David Szwak's assertions in Maxed Out. He claims the CRAs maintain databases of "important people" who together with their lawyers could make the CRA's lives a living h*ll through civil litigation. These "important people" never have to worry about their credit files because the CRAs are meticious and methodical when handling their files.

---

Well I have my files in front of two Credit Attorneys. Both say from our initial conversations it sounds like I have some claims, we'll see when they review. Would love to slam at the very least the CA who
a) got a judgement against me w/o notice
b) has the account as an Open one 6 years after it was closed/sold AND 1/2 year after I paid the CA in full
c) has me listed as of 12/07, 4 months after PIF as 90+ Days late on the account.

[Anonymous]

An OC that is reporting is not subject to FDCPA! Until they have verified the debt on you CR and because they verified they ARE subject to FCRA and FACTA -which is why you dispute an OC first - then ask for an INVESTIGATION (per FACTA).

A CA is specificaly covered in FDCPA and so is your right for validation. My OC collecting sent a letter that they are not required to validate (and they aren't) - but I did get them with FACTA and an investigation.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

An OC that is reporting is not subject to FDCPA! Until they have verified the debt on you CR and because they verified they ARE subject to FCRA and FACTA -which is why you dispute an OC first - then ask for an INVESTIGATION (per FACTA).

A CA is specificaly covered in FDCPA and so is your right for validation. My OC collecting sent a letter that they are not required to validate (and they aren't) - but I did get them with FACTA and an investigation.

---

Ah, that is quite interesting. I disputed a Cap1 account from 01. They wrote back that it is a biz account that they did not sell, that is charged off/bad debt, but reporting to my personal because it is 90+ days late and I was the officer listed.

They asked ME to provide documentation of contracts, statements, etc. when in fact OUR dispute was for just that (I don't believe the DOLA for one thing).

On round 2 of disputes TU/Exp simply said they would not reinvestigate.

So are you saying I can now force/request an actual investigation, i.e. not just confirming 'yes you are in our db' but 'here is documentation of the contract, DOLA, etc'?

Would LOVE to get this off as it is a CO (even if 6 1/2 years old) AND is responsible for $1200 out of my $1400 debt.

[Anonymous]

On Cap1 - you can't "force" it off --- you can ask for (read: demand) an investigation because they verified with the CRAs.

If past SOL (and they can't sue to collect) then you are 'gambling' if they want to invest the time and money to investigate the account (especially if close to coming off anyway) - If they don't do the 'investigation'  and continue reporting they are liable under FACTA and FCRA - if not worth it to them they may just remove.  Send the request to the President's office (it will go where needed) not to customer service.  I actually sent my Verizon one to the President's assistant... I got the letter the account was zeroed and the TL would be removed on Christmas Eve.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

On Cap1 - you can't "force" it off --- you can ask for (read: demand) an investigation because they verified with the CRAs.

If past SOL (and they can't sue to collect) then you are 'gambling' if they want to invest the time and money to investigate the account (especially if close to coming off anyway) - If they don't do the 'investigation' and continue reporting they are liable under FACTA and FCRA - if not worth it to them they may just remove. Send the request to the President's office (it will go where needed) not to customer service. I actually sent my Verizon one to the President's assistant... I got the letter the account was zeroed and the TL would be removed on Christmas Eve.

---

It is most definitely past SOL, even if you use their DOLP (11/01) which I dispute, I think it was at LEAST a year earlier if not more. Their DOLA is 11/02 (11 months after DOLA) but that is just when they did CO'd it. In any event, no payments since so it is SOL.

Their own email, after verifying to the CRA was that if *I* believe *they've* supplied incorrect information, I should supply documentation. The only info they 'verified' is that it was charge-off with an R9 rating, not sold to another lender, and the balance (which in fact is higher then the one they are reporting).

Again, none of the agencies would reinvestigate (I think Efx said they verified a second time in fact).

If the Credit Attorney's don't want to take this and the others, I will indeed demand an investigation. I'm hoping because out of SOL and falling off in September, they'll just say screw it.

Do you know of any form letters here for such a request for investigation?

Thanks for assistance!

[Anonymous]

OC LETTER