Jump to content

New guerilla tactic for removing "stuck" accounts.

The last post in this topic was posted 2200 days ago. 


We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

I believe it was Butch over at CN who was talking about how when you sue a CA and a CRA over verification after non-validation, you pressure the CA to admit they never recieved the dispute from the CRA or the CRA somehow did not properly conduct the dispute in exchange for releasing the CA from the lawsuit.


Well I decided to try a modified theory out on an OC and it appears it can actually work. The CRA didn't delete, but the OC did and additionaly gave me the evidence in writing I need to file suit against the CRA.


I've typed up a sample letter to give everyone some ideas. Its still in rough form so don't pay any attention to any errors you should find.


The letter should be used on paid OC's where you know the CRA did not contact the furnisher of information yet somehow still verified. Such clues to this are:


1. reinvestigations that are completed in under a week,


2. where you have disputed the information directly with the OC and the account is not marked in dispute by the OC after the CRA verifies,


3. where there is obviously wrong information on the tradeline in question that gets verified.


4. where 2 out of 3 CRA's have already deleted the account, yet one CRA still keeps on verifying


The letter should be sent to the legal dept of the OC. You should be able to find out where to address the letter to after calling the corporate office and asking politly.


Now then, on to the letter...



Re: OC Name Acct. #xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx



Dear (OC Name),



I am contacting you now regarding the inaccurate information contained within my EQ/EX/TU (pick applicable) credit files associated with the above account.


On xx/xx/xxxx I disputed the inaccurate information with EQ/EX/TU and it was subsequently verified on xx/xx/xxxx.


Recently I have learned that EQ/EX/TU sometimes does not contact the furnisher of information when verifying a dispute, but merely verifies the information already placed on their magnetic tapes. Due to the nature and circumstances of my last dispute, I find it hard to believe that (OC name) has been contacted by the credit bureaus in question.


Obviously, these sorts of things can create difficulties for the consumer in trying to correct inaccurate information on their credit reports and also legal problems for the furnisher of information because they never get a chance to conduct their own investigation into the accuracy of the disputed information. In addition, it can it can falsely implicate that a furnisher of information has knowingly or negligently furnished inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency in response to a dispute.


I have already suffered actual damages from the reporting of inaccurate information and am preparing to initiate litigation for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and my states consumer protection laws. However, I wish to make sure I have the responsible party before filing.


If upon receipt of written confirmation that you have no record of EQ EQ/EX/TU contacting (OC name)’s offices regarding the above account during xx/xx/xxxx to xx/xx/xxxx, I will focus my attention upon EQ/EX/TU for failing to properly investigate my dispute saving (OC name) from having to deal with a lawsuit and damages caused by EQ/EX/TU’s negligence in handling the matter. Otherwise, presume that (OC name) provided such inaccurate information to EQ/EX/TU during the reinvestigation process, and will be forced to proceed with the filing of a lawsuit to recover damages.


(Optional paragraph) Please expedite all correspondence concerning this matter, as I am preparing to go mortgage shopping/vehicle shopping in the next few weeks, and any adverse action taken by a lender based on the inaccurate information contained on my credit report(s) will result in damages considerably more than what I have already suffered.


Your cooperation in this matter will insure that EQ/EX/TU fully complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act when conducting reinvestigations of consumers disputes and possibly help reduce the number of lawsuits against your company caused by the credit bureaus disregard for the law.


Alright there you have it, please feel free to pick it apart and rewrite it as neccesary as I know there are more eloquant writers out there than me. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It may still work.

Came full circle today. Apparently she really did get in touch with the BOA credit department AND EX. She informed me that the "CO" box next to January 2015 means that I filed a dispute with the cred

Wonderful tactic...


As I read it, I put myself in OC's shoes...if I was never contacted by CRA's, I would gladly supply the info to cover my butt....info meaning proof the cra's never contacted me. Great letter...this belongs in the database!

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, the OC's may have contracts with the CRA's but unless it goes before the contract compliance person, I doubt the head would know what the tail is doing.


This could also work to our benefit, effectivly putting the OC between a rock and a hard place... thus giving them some incentive to delete.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
I love it, but there's one problem.


Most OC's have contracts with the CRA's that will not allow them to answer stuff like this.


Yup, but I've had CSR's (ones that had access to the dispute info) volunteer to me that "on xx/xx/xxxx, we got a dispute from (CRA)" or "I don't show here that you've ever disputed with (CRA)".


I think getting them to put it in writing would be harder, but it's definitely worth a shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
The letter should be used on paid OC's where you know the CRA did not contact the furnisher of information yet somehow still verified.


Would this "tactic" work on an account listed as "incl in BK" or an account that has passed the SOL? Any opinions? :?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would this "tactic" work on an account listed as "incl in BK" or an account that has passed the SOL?  Any opinions? :?


I think it would be especially effictive on included in BK accounts where the CRA verifies that the TL is NOT include in BK.


Also any unpaid chargeoff's that were sold to a CA and still show a balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'll try this again. :lol:



dixie or any other expert,


Would you wait until the 30 day window of requesting the CRA to reinvestigate is past before sending this letter?


My first thought is, yes.  Just asking to make sure.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
In my one instance of using this tactic I recieved no response at all but within a week the OC had completely deleted.
This is the type of response I would almost expect with this tactic, especially since, as grendel pointed out, that most OC's have contracts with the CRA's that prohibit them from answering stuff like this letter. Much easier and quicker for them to just delete the TL than to deal with the situation the letter discusses.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I once sent a letter to this effect to an OC stating that I had reason to believe that the CRA had never contact them and would they be so kind as to advise me if they had. Then sent another request for investigation to the CRA. OC's response didn't specifically address my question but they sent a letter stating that the loan in question had been paid. I was preparing to send a copy to the CRA but realized that they had deleted the entry. I don't know if the OC sent a UDF or simply didn't respond to the investigation but something worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Tried this with a Stuck Providian and Fingerhut account waiting to see what happens. EQ kept verifying these accounts that are not mine. And I have a long string of the OC's above not responding to requests to verify/validate the debt.


Quick? I know CA's must Validate but do OC's have to Validate as well or is that Verification? I get confused sometimes.


Now I just wish that EX and EQ would realize that I've contacted these people 7 documented times in writing and no response to CMRRR's. But they still refuse to consider my evidence of non-response etc etc. I'm getting pretty frustrated in this now. Especially Providian and Fingerhut is driving me up the wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OCs verify

CAs validate


When they respond to a dispute from the CRAs they verify the information (OCs and CAs). I know it's confusing sometimes.


You could try and send all your documentation, including the "verified"s from the CRAs to the CRAs telling them they have to consider your documentation per the FCRA. Ask how they can be keeping accurate records. Let them know that you are also sending the demand for deletion to the AG of your state and the BBB and do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 2200 days ago. 


We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

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.

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.

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Create New...

Important Information