Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
breeze

PsychDoc's Seminar Transcript # 5

Recommended Posts

LESSON FIVE TRANSCRIPT

CREDIT 105: FCRA Street Fighting, 11/3/2005

PSYCHDOC'S CREDIT REPAIR SCHOOL FOR BEGINNERS

 

TampaDude> Sadly, I will probably never have an Amex again...had one IIB years ago...

 

IDare> hey Doc

 

tal> hi Doc

 

bryan_6i9> actually is was 2000 to 2700 and then to 4000 today... and i only have had the card for 1 month...first statment came out today!

 

TampaDude> Hey PsychDoc!

 

PsychDoc> Hey IDare and tal

 

PsychDoc> Hiya Tampa

 

PsychDoc> hello everybody

 

KickingMyself> Evening Doc

 

zappagal> hi

 

tmimages> Hi Doc!

 

catchnrelease> hi

 

logan44103> hi

 

VirgoJasonM> Hi

 

mrchev> evening

 

PsychDoc> (Now I'm going to leave somebody out, lol...)

 

bryan_6i9> me

 

PsychDoc> never bryan

 

KickingMyself> lol..no worries

 

PsychDoc> Well... let's begin

 

tal> trust me I would love to sit and have cofee with the man

 

tmimages> I'm ready

 

TampaDude> LET'S DO IT!

 

djfan> ready!

 

PsychDoc> LOL!

 

PsychDoc> Hi.

 

tal> lets rock!

 

PsychDoc> For those who are joining us for the first time, I'm Randy Padawer (PsychDoc), and we're more than halfway through the 8 sessions of our beginner's course in credit repair.

 

<TampaDude> sent sound: whistle

 

PsychDoc> This is the fifth of eight seminars, and I think I've been looking forward to this one the entire time...

 

PsychDoc> Tonight we examine what is obviously a very important component of anybody's credit repair campaign -- the credit bureau dispute.

 

tmimages> me 2

 

tal> why can't this one come sooner?

 

PsychDoc> Actually, tal, that's a great question... I didn't want to give the wrong impression that credit repair was mostly about credit bureau disputes...

 

PsychDoc> Lots of people believe that, but I don't.

 

tal> that makes sense :)

 

PsychDoc> I'll mention why in a minute for those who are mystified by that, LOL!

 

PsychDoc> For the first four sessions, I mentioned the Creditboards site owners for all they do to keep this site up and running, but I'm going to do something different for the second four sessions.

 

PsychDoc> Tonight I'm going to thank the owners of other sites for all they do.

 

PsychDoc> ::dead silence::

 

PsychDoc> Just kidding.

 

PsychDoc> :)

 

tmimages> lol

 

tal> because they all end up coming here too?

 

PsychDoc> Actually, for the next four sessions I'd like to recognize those hard-working (and heretofore thankless) Creditboards Forum Leads and Mods...

 

PsychDoc> Can we have a rousing round of applause for (in alphabetical order) cotterpin, CramItCCCAs, fla-tan, HDAlex, MarvBear, rigirl, TeeSharice, and TxQuiltGirl?

 

PsychDoc> ::applause sign::

 

<TampaDude> sent sound: whistle

 

mrchev> Claps

 

djfan> woohoo!1

 

KickingMyself> <clapping>

 

PsychDoc> (Did I leave anybody out??? ...or include somebody who'd rather not be included anymore?... If yes, I'll correct that on the transcript, LOL!)

 

-GB-> YAY!

 

catchnrelease> claps

 

<tal> sent sound: whistle

 

<IDare> sent sound: whistle

 

halexander4> woohooo

 

PsychDoc> :)

 

titanium_tony> yup i found this from TC site.. soo much more here i thank you

 

<tmimages> sent sound: whistle

 

PsychDoc> Before we delve into tonight's material, let's quickly set a frame of reference for the session by reviewing what's come before and what will come afterward.

 

PsychDoc> For those who've not been with us before, here is the structure and process of the course:

 

PsychDoc> There will be 8 sessions every other Thursday evening, including tonight's. Each session will begin at 9 p.m. Eastern Time (or 8 p.m. Central, 7 p.m. Mountain, 6 p.m. Pacific) and will last about an hour. We may finish early, or we may finish late. Some may want to stay longer even after the session's done to chat. We'll have a mix of lecture, group discussion, and Q&A.

 

PsychDoc> The 8 sessions are:

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 101: The Ethics of Credit Repair, 9/8/2005

 

PsychDoc> Sorry, having trouble with the transcript...

 

PsychDoc> I end up cc'ing things for the board transcript...

 

PsychDoc> Give me a half minute to make sure it's working

 

tal> ok

 

PsychDoc> Ok, got it

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 102: A Consumer Law Overview, 9/22/2005

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 103: Credit Reports & Credit Scores, 10/6/2005

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 104: Triaging Your Reports, 10/20, 2005

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 105: FCRA Street Fighting, 11/3/2005 (tonight)

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 106: FCBA Street Fighting, 11/17/2005

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 107: FDCPA Street Fighting, 12/1/2005

 

PsychDoc> and...

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 108: Small Claims Lawsuits, 12/15/2005

 

PsychDoc> Those 8 lessons are divided into two sections...

 

PsychDoc> the first three lessons (where credit repair is framed as an ETHICAL enterprise in opposition to the many UNETHICAL business practices which comprise the consumer credit industry)...

 

PsychDoc> and the last five sessions (where we discuss the nitty-gritty of credit repair -- interventions which leverage your RIGHTS as a citizen). Tonight's session is the second of the second group.

 

PsychDoc> Tonight's syllabus...

 

PsychDoc> -1-- Course overview and format (which we've already done)

 

PsychDoc> -2-- Brief review of the previous sessions

 

PsychDoc> -3-- FCRA overview

 

PsychDoc> -4-- About disputing

 

PsychDoc> -5-- Types of disputes

 

PsychDoc> -6-- About inquiries

 

PsychDoc> -7-- Expectations

 

PsychDoc> Any questions about the course format or the syllabus before we continue?

 

tal> no

 

bizzys34> no

 

djfan> nope

 

PsychDoc> Okiedoke...

 

PsychDoc> Here's a brief review of the previous sessions in just a couple of sentences each...

 

PsychDoc> Session One... Credit repair involves INTERVENTIONS which invoke one of three TRUTHFUL communication tactics: a) polite requests, B) requests for information, and c) legal demands.

 

PsychDoc> Remember this... "polite requests" = goodwill type interventions

 

PsychDoc> "requests for information" = escalated information requests, like CRA verify letters (disputes), Nutcase letters and other OC-directed letters...

 

PsychDoc> and "legal demands" = interventions like debt validation in accordance with the FDCPA

 

PsychDoc> among others in each category

 

PsychDoc> Session Two... The federal laws we leverage most often are: a) the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which regulates the credit bureaus, B) the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), which regulates original creditors, c) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which regulates third-party debt collectors, and sometimes d) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which regulates health professionals

 

PsychDoc> Tip... Read the FCRA, FCBA, and FDCPA... if you can make yourself do it...

 

PsychDoc> Otherwise, search the board and read ABOUT them.

 

PsychDoc> For those who aren't legal wonks, this second option may be best...

 

PsychDoc> Session Three... There are no "official" credit bureaus: Our federal laws serve only to LIMIT how the bureaus behave, but no law mandates that creditors must report anything to any bureau ever. Your patterns of debt borrowing and repayment can vastly impact your credit scores.

 

PsychDoc> Session Four.. "How do I get started?" is a vexing question for most newcomers but needn't be. Simply "triage" your reports, marking each item with qualifying interventions. Then just dive in!

 

PsychDoc> The first four transcripts appear in the Creditboards Credit Forum area.

 

PsychDoc> I hope somebody's found those to be helpful.

 

tal> yes

 

bizzys34> very

 

logan44103> very!

 

Zowie> i have!

 

KickingMyself> definitely

 

Krisk> Absolutely!

 

PsychDoc> Oh very good, ha!

 

halexander4> very much so thank you

 

djfan> I did!

 

TampaDude> Sorry...got disconnected...%%%% Internet...

 

PsychDoc> wow

 

vdubbin> yep

 

PsychDoc> welcome back Tampa

 

TampaDude> what did I miss?

 

PsychDoc> Well, on that note we'll dive into tonight's material.

 

PsychDoc> In the second session we began to describe the various components that comprise the FCRA.

 

TampaDude> oh, good...didn't miss anything...

 

PsychDoc> Now, there are entire multi-day seminars devoted to the topic.

 

PsychDoc> Lawyers pursuing CEUs attend those...

 

PsychDoc> We obviously can only skim the surface...

 

Krisk> What'S CEU?

 

PsychDoc> But what I'd like to do is highlight those things that may be of particular interest (AND HELP) to you.

 

KickingMyself> continuing education unit

 

PsychDoc> CEU = continuing education unit... In most states, lawyers and other professionals

 

PsychDoc> have to engage in a certain number of hours of continuing education in order to retain their licenses to practice

 

PsychDoc> lol

 

PsychDoc> The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1971 ... accorded all of us some basic rights regarding what credit bureaus said about us. Before that time, credit bureaus engaged in some very questionable activities.

 

PsychDoc> For example... The company that became Equifax began life as the "Retail Credit Company" in Atlanta, Georgia. That was the old Atlanta credit bureau. Retail Credit grew and became the primary bureau in the southeast, and they had a snugly relationship with Welcome Wagon. Does anybody remember the Welcome Wagon ladies (and they were almost always women)?

 

tal> yes

 

catchnrelease> yep

 

Zowie> yes

 

KickingMyself> ugh..yes

 

djfan> yes

 

vdubbin> never heard of them

 

kevinn> no

 

tmimages> guess I'm too young.

 

PsychDoc> Well... Some do, some don't... you'd move into a neighborhood and a couple of very friendly women would come to the door with a little basket of goodies... coupons, info, etc. and welcome you to the fair city. They would then make careful notes about the family. Did it seem upstanding?

 

tmimages> oh okay

 

PsychDoc> Did anybody smell of alcohol?

 

PsychDoc> (I know this sounds unbelievable.)

 

tal> no

 

TampaDude> they were spies

 

djfan> yikes

 

PsychDoc> What color was the family?

 

PsychDoc> (I kid you not.)

 

tmimages> omg

 

Zowie> i'd be in trouble

 

TampaDude> he speaks the truth

 

PsychDoc> This kind of data was then transmitted back to headquarters...

 

tal> they were very judgemental

 

PsychDoc> And the good old Retail Credit Company would include stuff like that on your credit report.

 

PsychDoc> Oh... another one...

 

bizzys34> wow

 

PsychDoc> Was there a man in the house?

 

copagirl> How scary!

 

PsychDoc> (Families not headed by a male were considered by some bankers to be less creditworthy and more risky.)

 

-GB-> <family is headed by two of me

 

PsychDoc> Some of the abuses were essentially erased by the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act in particular erased some of that, but some of the abuses continued. By the late 1960s there was an uproar, and Congress finally passed the FCRA in order to help all of us. For the first time, consumers are able to actually take a look at their credit reports!

 

zappagal> cool information

 

PsychDoc> Believe it or not, before that time, ordinary folks couldn't even take a look.

 

IDare> :(

 

PsychDoc> There were no restrictions upon WHO could actually pay the credit bureau to see your information. And so on... In 1971 the FCRA took effect. And the Retail Credit Company changed its name, LOL.

 

TampaDude> to?

 

bizzys34> lol

 

PsychDoc> Equifax.

 

PsychDoc> It was a nice break from the abusive past.

 

TampaDude> Hey Doc, ever heard of CBI?

 

PsychDoc> So...

 

PsychDoc> Is CBI an affiliate?

 

PsychDoc> an affiliate of Equifax?

 

PsychDoc> (the short answer is "no I don't, sorry") lol

 

TampaDude> dunno...they were a credit bureau in VA when I was growing up

 

PsychDoc> aha

 

PsychDoc> ok...

 

PsychDoc> The smaller bureaus like that...

 

TampaDude> I think they became part of EQ

 

PsychDoc> For example, CBK in Knoxville, TN

 

PsychDoc> was bought by Equifax

 

TampaDude> yup

 

PsychDoc> In other parts of the country, other large bureaus consolidated...

 

PsychDoc> The old Chicago bureau... The Credit Bureau of Cook County... became TransUnion and gobbled up every other bureau in sight.

 

TampaDude> CBI = Credit Bureau, Inc. (yeah, real imaginative, eh?)

 

PsychDoc> Similarly two other large regional bureaus combined to create Experian.

 

TampaDude> Experian used to be TRW, right?

 

PsychDoc> Nobody crowned these companies with an official tag. TRW was one of the two companies that became Experian. Ok, enough history...

 

TampaDude> what was the other?

 

PsychDoc> The FCRA...

 

TampaDude> ok

 

PsychDoc> The other one was called "Chilton"...

 

PsychDoc> couldn't resist, sorry, lol

 

PsychDoc> The FCRA...

 

PsychDoc> 1) Ensures access to credit reports.

 

PsychDoc> 2) Regulates who has "permissable purpose" to acquire a consumer's report.

 

PsychDoc> (in other words, gives YOU certain rights about who puts inquiries on your reports)

 

PsychDoc> 3) Limits how long information can be reported.

 

PsychDoc> (generally 7 years for regular tradelines and 10 years for bankruptcy-related ones)

 

PsychDoc> 4) Details how a CRA must handle disputes

 

PsychDoc> (more about that in a second)

 

PsychDoc> And the recent amendment to the FCRA...

 

PsychDoc> FACTA...

 

PsychDoc> even gives us all the right to free reports from each bureau once a year.

 

PsychDoc> Typically... You'll see old-timers give some initial advice to consumers BEFORE they start disputing with credit bureaus.

 

PsychDoc> 1) Opt-out.

 

PsychDoc> (In other words, let the bureaus know you aren't open to promotional advertisements and offers.)

 

PsychDoc> and 2) Dispute multiple names and addresses that may appear on your report.

 

PsychDoc> So you pick one and dispute the others... If your name is Robert Sheldon Poole... you may have R.S. Poole on the reports as well as Bob Poole and a half dozen others. Now... does anybody know what the rationale is for OPTING-OUT (other than offers can be a nuisance)?

 

vdubbin> hard pulls?

 

tal> to prevent skip tracing

 

bizzys34> thats the only reason I know

 

copagirl> So CA's can't find you?

 

TampaDude> CAs and JDBs?

 

Zowie> ca gc can't find you

 

PsychDoc> Well, those may be reasons...

 

IDare> to keep tasty bits of gossip from being sold about you... like "you have a CO...." ooooh

 

Cleanerup> Can't see our credit improvement as easily either

 

tal> true Idare

 

PsychDoc> But some people believe this... Since the bureaus are engaged in the business of buying and selling information about us... those of us whose reports are in OPT-OUT status are less valuable... and therefore what appears on our reports just doesn't matter as much... so... (and I'm not sure I subscribe to this, but I'm not sure I don't either)

 

tmimages> that's why I don't get those deletes

 

PsychDoc> Disputes from those of us who've opted-out may be easier to accept... than from those whose reports are juicier.

 

TampaDude> I opted out about two weeks ago...

 

PsychDoc> Again, I don't know if that's just a bunch of crap or not.

 

PsychDoc> BUT

 

Zowie> i optd out when i first joined cb!

 

PsychDoc> Some folks I respect here believe that mightily and seem to have anecdotal evidence in support of that belief.

 

nutty> seems logical

 

copagirl> VERY interesting!

 

PsychDoc> I know some people here must have wondered, "Why in the hades are they suggesting I opt-out all the time, lol?"

 

PsychDoc> "I like junk mail, after all."

 

PsychDoc> Etc.

 

PsychDoc> LOL!

 

PsychDoc> Well, that's the reason.

 

TampaDude> Opt out...because CB sez so!

 

tmimages> I hate junk mail

 

PsychDoc> LOL, good enough, Tampa.

 

PsychDoc> Now... About the second reason...

 

Zowie> i don't like junk mail

 

PsychDoc> Anybody know the credit repair rationale for disputing multiple names and addresses?

 

tal> to help delete tradelines

 

TampaDude> to make it more difficult for creditors to verify info?

 

tal> and inquiries

 

PsychDoc> Actually yes.

 

mrchev> Makes it harder to track your TL's down?

 

bizzys34> agree with tampa

 

djfan> me 2

 

Zowie> me 2

 

PsychDoc> Again, some folks believe that the automated systems in place verify one data point or another. The fewer bits on the report, PERHAPS the hard to verify.

 

nutty> deleting unaccurate info may become eaiser?

 

PsychDoc> So... Very smart people on both sides of the discussion sometimes debate this. I'm not going to take a side...

 

PsychDoc> (Not because I'm afraid to take sides, LOL!) Rather, I'm just not sure. It seems reasonable. But we don't know for sure.

 

bizzys34> but ,, do tell whats best :-)

 

PsychDoc> Some folks swear by the advice, and frankly, extra names and addresses are probably the easiest thing to remove. If I was pressed, I would say...

 

Zowie> they are!

 

TampaDude> Delete old addresses...because CB sez so! ::biggrin

 

PsychDoc> Go ahead and opt-out and then dispute the extra names and ALL your previous addresses.

 

PsychDoc> Just do it.

 

bizzys34> ::biggrin

 

tal> except on experian of course

 

PsychDoc> Do tell, tal...

 

tal> they suck hubby had 22 bad addresses on his report they only delete 5

 

Zowie> i got all old addy's and names taken off all

 

tal> only 3 were actually accurate

 

PsychDoc> hmmm, tal!

 

PsychDoc> very good, Zowie

 

bizzys34> 14 names, 19 addys, 3 ss#'s on ex

 

IDare> it took me 3 tries to get bad addies off of EX

 

IDare> they're mean, lol

 

tal> it suck nightmare with EXP because of it

 

PsychDoc> Some are rougher than others... sometimes it's just the luck of the draw.

 

PsychDoc> Ok...

 

tal> how did you do it

 

PsychDoc> Now on to

 

TampaDude> gonna do the addresses next...is it best to do it by phone or send a letter?

 

PsychDoc> About addresses, either way. Sometimes the easiest thing to do is just call 'em if it's just the addresses...

 

Zowie> i wrote on a few and them called on a few

 

TampaDude> ok thanks...I

 

bizzys34> did mine on the phone & online

 

nutty> i agree

 

TampaDude> I'll call em first

 

VirgoJasonM> ex says my addy is a public utility not residential and they wont change it

 

tal> I did thats how I got 5 off

 

PsychDoc> Remember that when you're disputing addresses, you're not contesting information about account payment history. They don't see it as critical information that must be retained. Call 'em, write 'em, send a smoke signal.

 

TampaDude> good point

 

nutty> smoke em out

 

PsychDoc> Get an uncooperative phone rep this week? Call 'em again next week.

 

PsychDoc> More about disputing... Before we move onto the types of disputes...

 

TampaDude> instead of wading through all the addresses on the phone, can I just send them a photocopy of my DL and say "this is my address...all others are wrong...delete them"?

 

PsychDoc> Disputing is not the end-all be-all of credit repair. Probably the one thing you'll learn here on Creditboards is that what most credit repair books say about the topic is VERY short-sighted.

 

-GB-> Tampa, then your DL# will show up on your reports.

 

TampaDude> I'd black it out

 

PsychDoc> Credit bureau disputes are simply ONE intervention we use.

 

Clouds> example of others, doc?

 

PsychDoc> Anybody who's new to this series of seminars is referred to the transcript for Session 4.

 

PsychDoc> Other intervetions... Goodwill, FCBA, Nutcase, Validation, etc.

 

PsychDoc> Now...

 

Clouds> oh, I think of most of those as disputes as well... doh

 

PsychDoc> Some ask... should I do the credit bureau disputes first? Or the OC/CA interventions first?

 

PsychDoc> If it was me...

 

Zowie> credit bureau

 

PsychDoc> and I want to emphasize that this is BY NO MEANS the "right" answer... I would begin with the creditors.

 

PsychDoc> When a credit removes an item, it's gone from all three bureaus in one swipe.

 

TampaDude> blanket goodwill?

 

PsychDoc> That's a three-fer!

 

PsychDoc> Tampa, read the previous lecture, LOL.

 

tal> what would you use?

 

TampaDude> sorry...missed it

 

PsychDoc> There are quite a few, and you select them based upon the type of tradeline, account, etc., whether it ever charged off or not, whether it was a minor late pay or a major one, etc.

 

TampaDude> I'll have to read it, lol

 

djfan> read the transcript. It is great!

 

Clouds> second that

 

PsychDoc> Keep in mind...

 

TampaDude> I'm so glad you saved the transcripts!

 

PsychDoc> Once you do a dispute with a bureau and they "verify," the bureau may not entertain another dispute for awhile...

 

djfan> right

 

PsychDoc> They may report back "previously verified." You may have to wait 6-12 months before they give it another go...

 

tal> aren't those violations in themselves?

 

Zowie> yeah

 

PsychDoc> But if you do your work with your creditors / CAs / etc., first, then you may clean stuff up before wrestling with the bureau personnel.

 

PsychDoc> Tal, yes. Keep careful notes in case you ever take 'em to court.

 

tal> why can't we nail the CRA's on that?

 

copagirl> Quick question, Doc?

 

PsychDoc> Tal, you can. More in Lesson 8.

 

tal> ok

 

PsychDoc> Sure, go ahead, Copa!

 

TampaDude> even the CRAs say to contact the creditors first...heh heh

 

PsychDoc> Well, that's one rare area where I can agree with the CRAs, ha.

 

copagirl> I thought in the "Triaging Your Report Lesson", you said to dispute with CRA's first

 

PsychDoc> If I did, I'll go back and correct that.

 

nutty> I wrote mine on yellow legal pad w/a crayon& typed stapled together w/ 15 staples.

 

PsychDoc> I sure hope not.

 

copagirl> I may be confused :(

 

djfan> no it didnt

 

PsychDoc> Heck, I may be confused! But if I am, I need to correct that pronto.

 

bizzys34> lol

 

PsychDoc> :)

 

Clouds> I thought disputing with CRAs first started some clock that doesn't get started if you go straight to OC first

 

tal> what about the "low hanging fruit argument"?

 

djfan> the copy of my CR was covered in red ink!

 

PsychDoc> Ok... let me tackle a few VERY good questions...

 

PsychDoc> 1) There are several different "clocks"... there is the disputing clock that begins when you send one to the bureaus... They are supposed to investigate within what the statute terms a "reasonable period"

 

PsychDoc> held by case law to be 30 days typically

 

PsychDoc> although no judge will toss the book at them for 45 or even 60 days if they end up doing the job

 

PsychDoc> ignoring you is another story... or as tal said previously... refusing to investigate again at all

 

PsychDoc> 2) Another "clock" is the one that has to do with validation...

 

PsychDoc> We'll talk more about that in lesson 7

 

gems> but they request you to respond in 15 days

 

PsychDoc> 3) Another "clock" is that statute of limitations for debts

 

PsychDoc> I would recommend that you search the board regarding "SOL" or "statute of limitations" for that.

 

PsychDoc> so there are several clocks

 

Clouds> no clock per se on validation, but while ongoing they can't report (seen as "attempt to collect")... right?

 

PsychDoc> Sometimes consumers confuse them.

 

PsychDoc> Well, yes, clouds... and there is a clock regarding their response time

 

PsychDoc> more about that in Lesson 7... too much material tonight...

 

TampaDude> My understanding is...current or recently closed account = dispute with creditor first, and old account = dispute with CRA first, because the creditor will probably not bother to verify cuz the account is so old.

 

Clouds> heh, k wil wait

 

TampaDude> go on, doc

 

PsychDoc> Okiedoke... :)

 

PsychDoc> Just getting my bearings...

 

Clouds> "where am I?"

 

PsychDoc> Had recommended that you intervene with the creditors first...

 

PsychDoc> About the comment "low-hanging fruit"... Remember that what's low-hanging with one bureau may be your toughest on another. Just no rhyme or reason sometimes.

 

TampaDude> Side note, doc...just how effective is PFB, anyway?

 

PsychDoc> The best low-hanging fruit is when Sears says, ok, what the heck, we'll send UDF forms to the bureaus and remove your late pays. And that's a WHAM-three-gone.

 

Clouds> all my fruit needs a cherry-picker :-(

 

TampaDude> heh heh

 

Zowie> you shouldn't go to the oc if within sol?

 

PsychDoc> Zowie, that sounds like a question related to debts that are allegedly outstanding. We'll tackle those topics in the FDCPA session... #7

 

Clouds> ahem ahem

 

Clouds> lol

 

PsychDoc> LOL!

 

PsychDoc> Now...

 

tal> what is those debts are paid ?

 

TampaDude> like "don't DV a CA within SOL?" heh heh

 

Zowie> yes but out of sol

 

PsychDoc> About the TYPES of disputes... I casually mentioned one type of dispute in the very first session. Those who have just joined this series are referred to Lecture #1. I mentioned the importance of honesty... and that you could send disputes that essentially said something like this...

 

PsychDoc> (Several NON-LYING credit bureau intervention examples follow, and those appear in red italic type.)

 

PsychDoc> "Please demonstrate that the following tradeline(s) appears correctly on my report. Otherwise, remove, in accordance with my federally protected civil rights." (etc.)

 

PsychDoc> That created quite a stir on the board. I read a few threads where people embraced that quickly. (Which is fine.) But I fear that they may have embraced that single technique to the exclusion of others...

 

gems> new to CB, where do I go for Lectures

 

PsychDoc> And I'll describe some of those others tonight.

 

tal> I received a previously verified using that one

 

TampaDude> Credit Forum

 

Clouds> gems: look in pinned topics in Credit Forum

 

PsychDoc> I noticed that some achieved some good deletions. Others mentioned that it didn't work for them.

 

PsychDoc> Keep in mind this: NO intervention ever works all the time.

 

TampaDude> YMMV, eh, Doc?

 

PsychDoc> YMMV indeed. That's why... we advise a variety of approaches... and REPETITION throughout the year.

 

Clouds> "PsychDoc's letters will work, or your money back!"

 

Clouds> ;-)

 

PsychDoc> In the last session I mentioned that it's hard not to feel a lot of empathy for folks who try something and then it fails and they feel doomed.

 

PsychDoc> clouds, so true, LOL

 

tal> so in other works cycle the variety of your dispute techniques

 

PsychDoc> Keep it up

 

IDare> persistence pays

 

PsychDoc> Indeed.

 

zappagal> here here

 

PsychDoc> Sometimes I've seen folks who do nothing more than CRA disputes finally get something deleted on the fourth or fifth try.

 

djfan> here's hopin' that is true!

 

PsychDoc> Nothing works all the time.

 

TampaDude> "Don't stop fighting 'til the fight is won!"

 

Zowie> i agree!

 

PsychDoc> Now... about some FCRA street fighting...

 

djfan> you have to mix things up

 

nutty> be a pest..a nice hard togo away pest.

 

Clouds> /nick The Sharks

 

PsychDoc> Let me throw out a variety of TRUTHFUL techniques for dealing with the lovely CRAs.

 

PsychDoc> "I don't understand why this appears on my report: xxxxx"

 

PsychDoc> I love that one.

 

PsychDoc> You profess to just not understand.

 

TampaDude> vague is good

 

PsychDoc> "I'm so confused by what appears here. Please investigate this. It makes absolutely no sense to me."

 

TampaDude> Should we call that the WTF letter?

 

PsychDoc> You aren't making any claim of "not mine" or "never late" (which would be lies unless, of course, they really aren't yours or weren't ever late... in which case... ok)

 

Clouds> lol tampa!

 

PsychDoc> I like that Tampa.

 

bizzys34> lol

 

djfan> LOL Tampa

 

TampaDude> ::smile

 

PsychDoc> You can write that in your own words a THOUSAND different ways.

 

Clouds> A Name is Born

 

PsychDoc> It IS the bureau's responsibility to provide you with explanations in plain English.

 

PsychDoc> You don't understand why it's there?

 

PsychDoc> Demand an explanation.

 

PsychDoc> Here's another technique that does NOT require prevarication.

 

PsychDoc> "Items which don't belong on a consumer's report violate federal law. Please investigate this item."

 

PsychDoc> Yes, that skates close to the edge.

 

PsychDoc> But preachy consumers aren't violating law.

 

PsychDoc> Along that line:

 

Clouds> and you may ask yourself / How did this get here?

 

Clouds> this is not my beautiful tradeline

 

djfan> lol

 

-GB-> Type here

 

PsychDoc> "Dear bureau: Have you read the statistics regarding what percentage of reports include errors? This is a huge problem in our society. I don't appreciate it one bit. Please investigate the following items on my report."

 

Clouds> ohhh I like that, psych

 

Clouds> put 'em on the defensive

 

PsychDoc> That's the preachy approach.

 

PsychDoc> Preach and preach.

 

TampaDude> Clouds: Talking Heads, right?

 

Clouds> tampa yup

 

PsychDoc> But don't lie.

 

Gryffindor> But one of the problems I recently had with EQ is they DEMANDED that I be far more specific with my dispute.

 

tal> thats a really good thought

 

PsychDoc> I don't like the "Not mine" dispute for other reasons, and I'll mention those in a minute.

 

PsychDoc> Gryf, I saw your post. Guess what. It didn't work this time.

 

PsychDoc> Keep up the good work. You'll prevail eventually. And with that, Gryf is pounding his screen.

 

PsychDoc> He has a voodoo PsychDoc doll next to his mouse. :)

 

PsychDoc> Credit repair can test your patience, but the eventual rewards are good.

 

PsychDoc> Here's another credit bureau intervention...

 

tmimages> I think of Not Mine disputes more of a technique method rather than a literal way to dispute

 

tal> what about the method of verification request to the CRA's?

 

Clouds> %%%% , dropped

 

PsychDoc> "Are you aware that reporting items late which were never late violates the law? Pursuant to my rights under federal law, I am requesting that you investigate the following account immediately, and if you find that you have included incorrect information, remove such data immediately. Please facilitate this lawful request within 30 days."

 

zappagal> stupid hospital network cut me off

 

tmimages> We all got dropped.

 

PsychDoc> Looks like the chat room just had a few folks pop out and back in.

 

Clouds> not just you, zappa

 

Gryffindor> Psychdoc - Hold up - We all got booted.

 

Krisk> OK

 

PsychDoc> Ok.

 

zappagal> ok

 

PsychDoc> Is everybody ok now?

 

PsychDoc> :)

 

post-seminar note from PsychDoc: What I didn't realize was that everybody wasn't ok, although I realized that something was wrong... I continued merrily typing away... I wondered why nobody else was typing, lol... Then of course I realized that the chat room software had crashed... Unfortunately I didn't get to banter with Gryf regarding my contentions that sometimes credit repair interventions fail, that sometimes something will work for one person and not for another, and that one simply must dust oneself off and try again or try something else. Perhaps another day! smile.gif</p></div></body></html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MY CLIFFNOTES FOR PSYCHDOC'S SEMINAR TRANSCRIPT #5

 

LESSON FIVE TRANSCRIPT

CREDIT 105: FCRA Street Fighting, 11/3/2005

PSYCHDOC'S CREDIT REPAIR SCHOOL FOR BEGINNERS

 

PsychDoc> Tonight we examine what is obviously a very important component of anybody's credit repair campaign -- the credit bureau dispute.

 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1971 ... accorded all of us some basic rights regarding what credit bureaus said about us. Before that time, credit bureaus engaged in some very questionable activities. For example... The company that became Equifax began life as the "Retail Credit Company" in Atlanta, Georgia. That was the old Atlanta credit bureau. Retail Credit grew and became the primary bureau in the southeast, and they had a snugly relationship with Welcome Wagon. Does anybody remember the Welcome Wagon ladies (and they were almost always women)?

 

Well... Some do, some don't... you'd move into a neighborhood and a couple of very friendly women would come to the door with a little basket of goodies... coupons, info, etc. and welcome you to the fair city. They would then make careful notes about the family. Did it seem upstanding? This kind of data was then transmitted back to headquarters... And the good old Retail Credit Company would include stuff like that on your credit report. Was there a man in the house? (Families not headed by a male were considered by some bankers to be less creditworthy and more risky.)

 

Some of the abuses were essentially erased by the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act in particular erased some of that, but some of the abuses continued. By the late 1960s there was an uproar, and Congress finally passed the FCRA in order to help all of us. For the first time, consumers are able to actually take a look at their credit reports! Believe it or not, before that time, ordinary folks couldn't even take a look.

 

There were no restrictions upon WHO could actually pay the credit bureau to see your information. And so on... In 1971 the FCRA took effect. And the Retail Credit Company changed its name, Equifax. For example, CBK in Knoxville & TN was bought up by Equifax.

 

In other parts of the country, other large bureaus consolidated...

The old Chicago bureau... The Credit Bureau of Cook County... became TransUnion and gobbled up every other bureau in sight. Similarly two other large regional bureaus combined to create Experian. Nobody crowned these companies with an official tag. TRW was one of the two companies that became Experian.

 

The FCRA...

1) Ensures access to credit reports.

 

2) Regulates who has "permissable purpose" to acquire a consumer's report (in other words, gives YOU certain rights about who puts inquiries on your reports).

 

3) Limits how long information can be reported (generally 7 years for regular tradelines and 10 years for bankruptcy-related ones)

 

4) Details how a CRA must handle disputes

 

And the recent amendment to the FCRA... FACTA... even gives us all the right to free reports from each bureau once a year.

 

Typically... You'll see old-timers give some initial advice to consumers BEFORE they start disputing with credit bureaus.

 

1) Opt-out. (In other words, let the bureaus know you aren't open to promotional advertisements and offers.)

 

2) Dispute multiple names and addresses that may appear on your report. So you pick one and dispute the others... If your name is Robert Sheldon Poole... you may have R.S. Poole on the reports as well as Bob Poole and a half dozen others.

 

RATIONAL FOR OPTING OUT: Some people believe this... Since the bureaus are engaged in the business of buying and selling information about us... those of us whose reports are in OPT-OUT status are less valuable... and therefore what appears on our reports just doesn't matter as much... so... (and I'm not sure I subscribe to this, but I'm not sure I don't either). Disputes from those of us who've opted-out may be easier to accept... than from those whose reports are juicier. Again, I don't know if that's just a bunch of crap or not. BUT, Some folks I respect here believe that mightily and seem to have anecdotal evidence in support of that belief.

 

CREDIT REPAIR RATIONAL FOR DISPUTING ADDITIONAL NAMES AND ADDRESSES:

 

Again, some folks believe that the automated systems in place verify one data point or another. The fewer bits on the report, PERHAPS the hard to verify. So... Very smart people on both sides of the discussion sometimes debate this. I'm not going to take a side... (Not because I'm afraid to take sides, LOL!) Rather, I'm just not sure. It seems reasonable. But we don't know for sure. Some folks swear by the advice, and frankly, extra names and addresses are probably the easiest thing to remove. If I was pressed, I would say... Go ahead and opt-out and then dispute the extra names and ALL your previous addresses. Just do it.

 

About addresses, either way: Sometimes the easiest thing to do is just call 'em if it's just the addresses...Remember that when you're disputing addresses, you're not contesting information about account payment history. They don't see it as critical information that must be retained. Call 'em, write 'em, send a smoke signal. Get an uncooperative phone rep this week? Call 'em again next week.

 

More about disputing... Before we move onto the types of disputes...

Disputing is not the end-all be-all of credit repair. Probably the one thing you'll learn here on Creditboards is that what most credit repair books say about the topic is VERY short-sighted. Credit bureau disputes are simply ONE intervention we use. Anybody who's new to this series of seminars is referred to the transcript for Session 4. Other intervetions... Goodwill, FCBA, Nutcase, Validation, etc.

 

Some ask... should I do the credit bureau disputes first? Or the OC/CA interventions first? If it was me... and I want to emphasize that this is BY NO MEANS the "right" answer... I would begin with the creditors. When a credit removes an item, it's gone from all three bureaus in one swipe.

 

There are quite a few, and you select them based upon the type of tradeline, account, etc., whether it ever charged off or not, whether it was a minor late pay or a major one, etc.

 

Keep in mind... Once you do a dispute with a bureau and they "verify," the bureau may not entertain another dispute for awhile... They may report back "previously verified." You may have to wait 6-12 months before they give it another go... But if you do your work with your creditors / CAs / etc., first, then you may clean stuff up before wrestling with the bureau personnel. Well, that's one rare area where I can agree with the CRAs, ha.

 

CLOCKS/TIMELINES

1) There are several different "clocks"... there is the disputing clock that begins when you send one to the bureaus... They are supposed to investigate within what the statute terms a "reasonable period" held by case law to be 30 days typically although no judge will toss the book at them for 45 or even 60 days if they end up doing the job. Ignoring you is another story... or as tal said previously... refusing to investigate again at all

 

2) Another "clock" is the one that has to do with validation...

 

3) Another "clock" is that statute of limitations for debts. I would recommend that you search the board regarding "SOL" or "statute of limitations" for that.

 

About the TYPES of disputes... I casually mentioned one type of dispute in the very first session. Those who have just joined this series are referred to Lecture #1. I mentioned the importance of honesty... and that you could send disputes that essentially said something like this... (Several NON-LYING credit bureau intervention examples follow, and those appear in red italic type.)

 

"Please demonstrate that the following tradeline(s) appears correctly on my report. Otherwise, remove, in accordance with my federally protected civil rights." (etc.)

 

That created quite a stir on the board. I read a few threads where people embraced that quickly. (Which is fine.) But I fear that they may have embraced that single technique to the exclusion of others... And I'll describe some of those others tonight. I noticed that some achieved some good deletions. Others mentioned that it didn't work for them. Keep in mind this: NO intervention ever works all the time. YMMV indeed. That's why... we advise a variety of approaches... and REPETITION throughout the year.

 

In the last session I mentioned that it's hard not to feel a lot of empathy for folks who try something and then it fails and they feel doomed.

 

tal> so in other works cycle the variety of your dispute techniques

 

PsychDoc> Keep it up

 

IDare> persistence pays

 

PsychDoc> Indeed.

 

PsychDoc> Sometimes I've seen folks who do nothing more than CRA disputes finally get something deleted on the fourth or fifth try. Nothing works all the time.

 

Now... about some FCRA street fighting... Let me throw out a variety of TRUTHFUL techniques for dealing with the lovely CRAs.

 

"I don't understand why this appears on my report: xxxxx" I love that one. You profess to just not understand.

"I'm so confused by what appears here. Please investigate this. It makes absolutely no sense to me." You aren't making any claim of "not mine" or "never late" (which would be lies unless, of course, they really aren't yours or weren't ever late... in which case... ok). You can write that in your own words a THOUSAND different ways.

 

It IS the bureau's responsibility to provide you with explanations in plain English. You don't understand why it's there? Demand an explanation.

 

Here's another technique that does NOT require prevarication.

"Items which don't belong on a consumer's report violate federal law. Please investigate this item." Yes, that skates close to the edge. But preachy consumers aren't violating law.

 

Along that line:

"Dear bureau: Have you read the statistics regarding what percentage of reports include errors? This is a huge problem in our society. I don't appreciate it one bit. Please investigate the following items on my report." That's the preachy approach. Preach and preach. But don't lie.

 

I don't like the "Not mine" dispute for other reasons, and I'll mention those in a minute.

 

Gryffindor> But one of the problems I recently had with EQ is they DEMANDED that I be far more specific with my dispute.

 

PsychDoc> Gryf, I saw your post. Guess what. It didn't work this time. Keep up the good work. You'll prevail eventually. And with that, Gryf is pounding his screen. He has a voodoo PsychDoc doll next to his mouse. Credit repair can test your patience, but the eventual rewards are good. (Cliffnotes Note: I’m not a HE – lol).

 

Here's another credit bureau intervention...

"Are you aware that reporting items late which were never late violates the law? Pursuant to my rights under federal law, I am requesting that you investigate the following account immediately, and if you find that you have included incorrect information, remove such data immediately. Please facilitate this lawful request within 30 days."

 

PsychDoc> "Demonstrate that this material appears correctly on my reports. Request ample documentation from these ____ (# of creditors) alleged creditors. If these items appear in error, I have a cause for action because my rights may have been abrogated in that case."

 

Now... let me say something about the "not mine" and "never late" disputes. First of all, if I advise you to use those in cases where they don't actually apply (in other words, in cases where you would be lying), then I am violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act. Believe it or not, the CROA states that "any person" (direct quote) who offers information to others, irrespective of whether or not it's for a fee or not, qualifies as a "credit repair organization" Tonight I am a "credit repair organization" for running this seminar. That really sounds like a First Amendment issue, and I hope somebody challenges CROA in court one day, because I just don't think it would hold up (that particular provision, anyway)... But indeed, I will not advise you to lie.

 

Let me say this, however. Do people ever get good results with "not mine" disputes? Yes, they sometimes do. Do I think that particular technique is any more effective than some of the others discussed here tonight which don't require telling tales? No, I do not. And worse... The new FACTA amendments to the FCRA suggest serious legal consequences for those who simply lie to the bureaus.

 

If the bureau believes that you are alleging identity theft, in particular... and that's what a swath of "not mine" disputes would imply... and indeed there was no identity theft problem... then you could be in serious trouble. WhyChat has posted a link to an excellent white paper in the "Disputing Rules Have Changed" thread. It's worth searching out and reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there sample letters for removal of multiple names on report to be deleted?

the only letters you should ever send are letters written in your own words.

Edited by hegemony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there sample letters for removal of multiple names on report to be deleted?

the only letters you should ever send are letters written in your own words.

 

Judging from his post counts, he isn't that experienced yet.

 

I believe it takes a few months of sending pre-written letters and reading before you start to get the idea on how to write your own letters out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even begin to tell you all how much I appreciate what you do here on credit boards. It is so refreshing to see a site that actually helps those of us with absolutely no knowledge of how or what to do. I have tried a couple of your suggestions and they worked very well. I will be doing more as the alloted time for these xxxx to respond to my letters but in the meantime I just wanted to say a huge "THANK YOU".

 

Blessings to you all,

tenacious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today.
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      178,190
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    TikeeP
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines