Someone explain validation and verification letters to me ?? Options

[WhipEffect]

I am getting the two mixed up! Thanks

[Googie]

[meantwell]

Send validation to the collection agency or original creditor, they have to prove that you owe the debt.

Send verification to the credit bureau, they have to check that the info they're reporting is current and correct.

Hope that helped, I know it's super confusing when you first start. I'm still rather new at this and all I can suggest is to re-read the credit repair 101 stuff backwards and forwards until you recite it in your sleep!

[WhipEffect]

Gee thanks, where do I find sample letters?

[meantwell]

um...in the Sample letters forum...check Breeze's collection... :wink:

Take your time, really learn about this stuff...because if you go into this at all unknowlegable the CA's will eat you alive. The sample letters mean nothing if you don't know the laws and case examples behind them! I can't stress that enough!

[WhipEffect]

thanks

[SassyinAz]

Here ya go whip, follow the links at the end too, it's clarify the differences for you.

Meantwell is mostly right, except validation and verification aren't interchangable words where the FCRA and FDCPA are concerned and OC's aren't required to "validate."

They are the same in the end but the path and results aren't the same and I know that makes no sense at the moment but it will.

CRAs and furnishers verify (OC's and CA's or whoever is reporting)

CA's validate.

CA's if reporting fall under both.

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...t=sassy+concise

Sassy

[WhipEffect]

Thanks Sassy, that was very helpful. i just need to study it some more. Thanks again!

[SassyinAz]

Here's this too, explaining what is frequently called the 1-2 Punch, pasted from another thread.

Nodding with meantwell on the letters, out front in the database, in Breeze's briefcase and the mix6 site (mostly the same letters) linked lays them out for CRA's, the validation 101 from Kristy's site lays them out for CA's.

There's another link for OC's

The best validation letter, IMO, says

Dear Schmucks, I dispute this debt in its entirety and request the name and address of the original creditor and validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

Please communicate with me only in writing at the address listed above.

Thanks.

NotaSchmuck

You'll find lots of samples once you start looking.

Sassy

It's a manner and order of disputing and validating, the combination, that forces a 30-day time frame and violation potentials.

VALIDATING first, instead of disputing first is the key to forcing the timeframes.

You should only DISPUTE first if you've a lot of negatives and they are old, and you've not done any work on your reports. That is only to get as many deletions as possible upfront.

The only time, I think, DISPUTING before CA validating or an OC verification, should be done, is initially. You should always force the time constraints, it only helps you.

Seems to me lately, mostly people just dispute, dispute and dispute again, endlessly -- disappointing that is.

While endless disputing may eventually be effective and it certainly is the easiest, disputing alone isn't what this board is about. That is what the CRO's do -- no rocket science there, just dispute every 30 days and save yourself whatever the monthly charges are for those services (Lexington and the like).

1. Send validation letter, when green card is returned, dispute with the CRA's.

Disputing with the CRA's forces a 30-day time frame.

The CA can't verify with the CRA before mailing validation to you without being in violation.

The TL has to be marked as disputed.

2a. If the CA doesn't respond send some version of an estoppel.
2b. If the CRA verifies, send a procedural request.

Depending on what happens next and what your goals are, there are endless options after that.

Mostly there is 3 steps, the 2 above, a followup, and a final letter drawing the boundary line AND then following through.

Your best bet, I say, is pursuing the CRA's if your goal is clean reports and to stay out of court.

But, better too, to hold those fully responsible that are, that's the furnishers of information.

Maybe one day all of the above will be willing to do their jobs -- they don't and that is what works -- MAKE THEM DO WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THEM. No secret there.

The don't like the rules and they won't play by the rules unless you are going to force them -- they are counting on intimidating you and you not having the stamina and endurance to follow-up. Everyone starts out believing you just have to find a contact with a functioning brain cell, that is reasonable and surely will do what is required and what you've requested. NO, there isn't. They LIE first and ALWAYS.

Read the FCRA and FDCPA -- know what the requirements are and settle for nothing less. There's NOTHING shady going on, nor any magic, they refuse to do what is required of them, create a papertrail that shows the same.

Should they ever decide to do what is required of them and their businesses, we'd not be here -- THAT is what it is all about.

Important too, the FCRA and FDCPA does NOT apply to consumers, nor is reporting to anyone mandatory (save Freddie and Fannie to Innovis).

The CRA's are NOT a part of the government and they have no authority -- they'd like for us to believe it is the opposite; that's a farce and just what they would like to happen -- step by step, they try at every turn.

The feds passed the FCRA and FDCPA to address THEIR businesses because they do their chosen jobs badly.

Do what you are supposed to do to address erroneous reporting. Have a SOLID papertrail (that is paper with proof of delivery). Knowing they don't follow the rules, don't allow them to attack your papertrail, it's not worth the chance, unless you want to start over again. The papertrail is what works and following the steps though.

Sassy

[meantwell]

that's what I tried to get at...thanks for making that clearer, Sassy! :oops:

[SassyinAz]

No worries, meantwell, it seems so clear until you start to type it, eh???? Nodding!!!!!!!!

Why do you think I babble endlessly :shock:



Sassy

[JessicaRabbit88]

For me I think of it in these terms:

I want the CAs to prove the debt is mine or validate it belongs to me.

I want the OC/CRA to verifiy what they are reporting is correct.

Hope that helps,
Jessica

[jinxor]

It's a manner and order of disputing and validating, the combination, that forces a 30-day time frame and violation potentials.

VALIDATING first, instead of disputing first is the key to forcing the timeframes.

You should only DISPUTE first if you've a lot of negatives and they are old, and you've not done any work on your reports. That is only to get as many deletions as possible upfront.

The only time, I think, DISPUTING before CA validating or an OC verification, should be done, is initially. You should always force the time constraints, it only helps you.

Sassy

So if I understand correctly:

CRA: DISPUTE/REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION
CA/OC: REQUEST FOR VALIDATION

Right?

[trish6103]

Yup.

[bj]

It's a manner and order of disputing and validating, the combination, that forces a 30-day time frame and violation potentials.

VALIDATING first, instead of disputing first is the key to forcing the timeframes.

You should only DISPUTE first if you've a lot of negatives and they are old, and you've not done any work on your reports. That is only to get as many deletions as possible upfront.

The only time, I think, DISPUTING before CA validating or an OC verification, should be done, is initially. You should always force the time constraints, it only helps you.

Sassy

So if I understand correctly:

CRA: DISPUTE/REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION
CA/OC: REQUEST FOR VALIDATION

Right?

The CA or stop collections.

The OC verifies info to CRA. (You can ask OC for documentation, but they are not required to furnish anything by law.) They are required to report acurate info.

The CRA's with OC that info is correct.

I just wanted to clarify so you do not sent a validation letter to OC. One of the most important things, from what I've read, is that you sound well informed of the laws. In other words, know what you're talking about or they will discount everything you say.

validate with CA
verify with CRA,OC

bj

[danpan68]

um...in the Sample letters forum...check Breeze's collection... :wink:

Take your time, really learn about this stuff...because if you go into this at all unknowlegable the CA's will eat you alive. The sample letters mean nothing if you don't know the laws and case examples behind them! I can't stress that enough!

"Breeze's collection" where can I find this collection, I am so lost nevigating here. thanks.

[dieselfish]

bump

[creditconfused]

UMMMM. I would also like more info on dispute tsking it out of Fico score.

[telex80]

Here's this too, explaining what is frequently called the 1-2 Punch, pasted from another thread.

Nodding with meantwell on the letters, out front in the database, in Breeze's briefcase and the mix6 site (mostly the same letters) linked lays them out for CRA's, the validation 101 from Kristy's site lays them out for CA's.

There's another link for OC's

The best validation letter, IMO, says

Dear Schmucks, I dispute this debt in its entirety and request the name and address of the original creditor and validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

Please communicate with me only in writing at the address listed above.

Thanks.

NotaSchmuck

You'll find lots of samples once you start looking.

Sassy

It's a manner and order of disputing and validating, the combination, that forces a 30-day time frame and violation potentials.

VALIDATING first, instead of disputing first is the key to forcing the timeframes.

You should only DISPUTE first if you've a lot of negatives and they are old, and you've not done any work on your reports. That is only to get as many deletions as possible upfront.

The only time, I think, DISPUTING before CA validating or an OC verification, should be done, is initially. You should always force the time constraints, it only helps you.

Seems to me lately, mostly people just dispute, dispute and dispute again, endlessly -- disappointing that is.

While endless disputing may eventually be effective and it certainly is the easiest, disputing alone isn't what this board is about. That is what the CRO's do -- no rocket science there, just dispute every 30 days and save yourself whatever the monthly charges are for those services (Lexington and the like).

1. Send validation letter, when green card is returned, dispute with the CRA's.

Disputing with the CRA's forces a 30-day time frame.

The CA can't verify with the CRA before mailing validation to you without being in violation.

The TL has to be marked as disputed.

2a. If the CA doesn't respond send some version of an estoppel.
2b. If the CRA verifies, send a procedural request.

Depending on what happens next and what your goals are, there are endless options after that.

Mostly there is 3 steps, the 2 above, a followup, and a final letter drawing the boundary line AND then following through.

Your best bet, I say, is pursuing the CRA's if your goal is clean reports and to stay out of court.

But, better too, to hold those fully responsible that are, that's the furnishers of information.

Maybe one day all of the above will be willing to do their jobs -- they don't and that is what works -- MAKE THEM DO WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THEM. No secret there.

The don't like the rules and they won't play by the rules unless you are going to force them -- they are counting on intimidating you and you not having the stamina and endurance to follow-up. Everyone starts out believing you just have to find a contact with a functioning brain cell, that is reasonable and surely will do what is required and what you've requested. NO, there isn't. They LIE first and ALWAYS.

Read the FCRA and FDCPA -- know what the requirements are and settle for nothing less. There's NOTHING shady going on, nor any magic, they refuse to do what is required of them, create a papertrail that shows the same.

Should they ever decide to do what is required of them and their businesses, we'd not be here -- THAT is what it is all about.

Important too, the FCRA and FDCPA does NOT apply to consumers, nor is reporting to anyone mandatory (save Freddie and Fannie to Innovis).

The CRA's are NOT a part of the government and they have no authority -- they'd like for us to believe it is the opposite; that's a farce and just what they would like to happen -- step by step, they try at every turn.

The feds passed the FCRA and FDCPA to address THEIR businesses because they do their chosen jobs badly.

Do what you are supposed to do to address erroneous reporting. Have a SOLID papertrail (that is paper with proof of delivery). Knowing they don't follow the rules, don't allow them to attack your papertrail, it's not worth the chance, unless you want to start over again. The papertrail is what works and following the steps though.

Sassy

So that is the definitive answer to the 1-2 punch explanation. thanks.

[elevationaudio]

wow, i have read this like 10 times and iam still so confused, i have just joined less than 24 hours ago, and i have read the newbie section (granted i need to read it about 20x more ) but for just starting out, i should dispute everything on my credit report? and i would dispute this with all the companies such as TU, Exp, Equifax? or go and dispute with each company that is reporting? please let me know guys, thanks so much and my email address is JBelmonte@elevationaudio.com please email me with anything as well, thanks again for your hlep

Joe
aka Rookie

[puredoxyk]

Can I use one letter to each of the CRAs requesting verification of all my old, paid-off derogatory line-items? I've never disputed anything, and there are 4 or 5 (depending on the agency) items on my report that are old and long paid off. I'm unsure if I should dispute (verify? same thing?) them each individually, or all at once.

Thanks!
PD

[NAN101]

i should dispute everything on my credit report? and i would dispute this with all the companies such as TU, Exp, Equifax? or go and dispute with each company that is reporting

I wouldn't advise this until you totally understand what you are doing and figure out SOL and such. Then, develop your game plan, keeping in mind, a dispute has the potential of waking "sleeping dogs."

[seattle]

Good stuff here its kind of old are these still valid points?

[romecoo]

Im a Newbie here and have literally been reading for about year now and im finally ready to take action.

I have 2 questions.

NCO FIN/22 is showing on my credit report for $36.00 and I literally have no ideal what this is, they haven't reported on it for over a year and its showing on EQ as derogatory installment account and then showing on Ex as a collection account and is not Showing on TU at all. P.s. Only the CA is showing on my report and as I stated about they havent reported in over a year. OC is not on my report at all.

the OC on EX shows as NCO/ASGNE OF EMBARQ

I think this acct is BS but I just want it off my credit report, should I:

1. Validate with NCO wait for Green Card
2. Then mail in Dispute with CRA's
3. Then Verify with the CSA's

I think this is called a 1-2 Punch!

Please let me know is these are good actions to take, I dont want to mess up.

2nd question.

COLLECTION COMPANY OF AMERICA is showing ONLY on my TU report as a collection acct and they have not reported this acct for over 2 years what is the best way to go about this removal? the same as above?

Last Question and the Last negative thing on my report:

CREDIT BUREAU CENTRAL is the CA showing and currently up to date reporting on all 3 CRA's the OC is showing as Neveda Power and is for a total of 146.00 I have never lived in NV and this isnt mine, what should I do..
P.s. this is do to fall off in a little over a year. I just want it gone, should I do the same as above or just ask for Pay for Delete?
Please help

Anything Any Info will be greatly appreciated

[breeze]

^

[DiggingOut]

Im a Newbie here and have literally been reading for about a year now and I'm finally ready to take action.
I have 2 questions.

NCO FIN/22 is showing on my credit report for $36.00 and I literally have no ideal what this is
CREDIT BUREAU CENTRAL is the CA showing and currently up to date reporting on all 3 CRA's the OC is showing as Neveda Power and is for a total of 146.00

Romecoo, you've added your post to a thread which is more than five years old.

I would strongly suggest re-posting your question by opening a new thread of your own. You will be more likely to get useful answers that way. Pick an informative title, mentioning info from your questions.

Remember that a moderator or admin will need to review your post/thread before it will appear into the forum, so don't get anxious that it doesn't show up right away. The admins/mods try to be fairly prompt to look for posts/threads which need to be reviewed, so yours may appear even as quickly as an hour or two, or perhaps even more quickly.