A new method to disputing

[jack1212]

With all the disputing scams, such as the one in my siggy, i want to try a new concept. We know that the CRA employees are on a time limit per dispute.

 

It seems that every time a consumer says "not mine" or "no records", it gets verified quick due to the address and name match up.

 

So, i decided in my next dispute to stay FAR away from "not mine", or "no records."

 

Something like this........

 

This is Not a Data Factoring account. Please remove this.

 

It is reported as an “Open†account, which is false. Please remove this.

 

It reports a One Month term which is false. Please remove this.

 

The Estimated date of removal for the CA does not match the date that the original creditor, reports. The Original creditor is reporting 9/2010. Please correct or remove this.

 

The Date of First Delinquency with the Original Creditor is not provided Please provide this.

 

The Date of First Major Delinquency with the Original Creditor is not provided Please provide this

 

It has never been 120 days late Please remove this.

 

It is listed as a loan. They have never provided me a loan. Please remove this.

 

No payment was made in 2/2007. Please remove this.

 

It is listed as an installment account, which is false. Please remove this.

 

The Balance is not correct. Please correct or remove this.

 

The end of the seven year reporting period should be listed as 09/2010. Please correct or remove this.

 

 

 

And this is only ONE tradeline.

Im sure i could add more. This is just to get them to do more work, and use up more of there time, WITHOUT being thrown in the not mine category. Nor did i ever say it was mine.

 

If you add even MORE tradelines, even better!

 

Any critique would be great.

 

 

jack1212

[heavyjay]

Good idea. It gives you the opportunity to let them pile up the violations.

[Tate74]

Like the guys on the Guiness commercials......"BRILLIANT!!!"

[SAABN8R]

Theory sounds good Jack. Only one way to find out.

[Credit Please]

I will try it when my light gray font disputes come back.

[Jen23514]

Jack, I would still love to get my hands on the 30-some internal dispute codes.... I think that takes your great idea here to an even simpler level.

[Male Nurse]

Good idea - you handwriting it too? or typing..

[Mike2020]

Great idea Jack. Might get lucky and they just say wow lets just delete this and he will quit sending stuff.

[jack1212]

I suppose typing. The trick is to get them to figure out which dispute code to put it under. My understanding is that they can only use one.

[Jen23514]

I suppose typing. The trick is to get them to figure out which dispute code to put it under. My understanding is that they can only use one.

 

sometimes though (like on my asset factoring account problem).... there are SOOOO many problems with it.

[SJP]

I was looking at similar ideas as no CA shows up on my CRs... all are COs from the OC themselves. SO I figure that coming up with something other than 'not mine' would be more useful for me. I was looking for alternate ideas and found this. Could you please update this thread with the result if you actually try this.

 

By the way, Could jack1212 or anyone look at the only thread that I started for advice regarding my situation and ideas for disputing...( I'm not trying to hijack your thread )

[jack1212]

yea, no problem. I sent the disputes just a few days ago.

 

I'll update.

 

I cant stress enough to stay away from "not mine and no records of" unless it TRULY not yours.

 

Those gets verified in a heartbeat.

[tanner]

How do you avoid the previously verified by EX? They refuse to look at some of my disputes because 3 years ago I disputed.

[jack1212]

How do you avoid the previously verified by EX? They refuse to look at some of my disputes because 3 years ago I disputed.

 

 

me personally, i go back to the data furnishers and hound them to death.

[Blonde Italian Princess]

That was my strategy in dealing with Experian when the refuse to re investigate-- I found out that if you give a different reason, they will do it. If you keep giving the same reason they will say "previously investigated".

[dd50]

I did something like that with EQ with the factoring company. Said it wasn't a factoring company. 1 month term is wrong, never had credit with Asset, don't remember what else because there was three things and the verified. Still think they pick up one thing only.

[jack1212]

Good point. If we can gets enough indivdual items removed, there wont be a tradeline at all. You just have to break down each portion of it.

 

we'll see.

[bulldog]

Jack I would love to see your results because it looks to me as if you are shooting all the bullets in your gun......based on the info in the must read from bennett you may be shooting in the dark! Hope it works because I have a lot of those!

[jack1212]

We'll never know til we try! I be the ginny pig!!

[Jen23514]

We'll never know til we try! I be the ginny pig!!

 

GO for it!

[jack1212]

the disputes have been out for almost 2 weeks. Should know something soon.

[GoArsenal]

Whats great is that if they come back verified, then someone wasn't doing their job, even when you disputed specific items. In other words they didn't take 'reasonable measures' to verify the information.

[dd50]

good luck Jack. I tried it with EQ about 6 months ago and every thing that I disputed was verified. EQ doesn't like me.

[jack1212]

UPDATE:

 

Well folks. I got the results back, EXPERIAN DELTED!!!! It worked!

 

Im in shock!

 

I also managed to get a CO corrected, as it showed a balance before, now it's $0.

 

Havent got any info on the other two yet.

 

I LOVE Jacks new disputing method.

 

Make them have to do some work, LMAO.

 

I cant guarantee it will work for everyone, but i think this approach throws a HUGE curveball into the coding issue.

[goal07]

YAY Jack...I've been waiting for an update! I will remember this thread on my next dispute.