PsychDoc's Seminar Transcript #6

[breeze]

LESSON SIX TRANSCRIPT

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

PSYCHDOC'S CREDIT REPAIR SCHOOL FOR BEGINNERS

 

logan44103> hi doc

 

PsychDoc> Hello!

 

PsychDoc> ok, We'll begin...

 

PsychDoc> if everybody's ready...

 

Clouds> yes please!

 

cadicae> Oh, yeah!

 

waterfield> I am ready

 

tal> hi everyone

 

Clouds> hi steph

 

goal720> ready

 

caddycts> cant wait

 

lorcan> Ready!

 

netmad80> that's the only one I watch angel

 

PsychDoc> Hi everyone. Well, I'm Randy Padawer (PsychDoc), and this is the sixth of our eight-part Credit Repair for Beginners course.

 

angeleyeskkhr> net I like 'em all..well, not NY as much

 

PsychDoc> Tonight we'll delve into the kinds of hardball tactics you can engage with creditors. Specifically, we're going to restrict ourselves tonight to those tradelines which may show late payments reporting to your credit reports but that never reached R9 or I9 status... i.e., they never, ever, charged-off or were listed as a collections accounts. Once again, I thought it would be useful to recognize the Creditboards Forum Leads and Mods... (in alphabetical order) cotterpin, CramItCCCAs, fla-tan, HDAlex, MarvBear, rigirl, TeeSharice, and TxQuiltGirl ... Once again, I hope I didn't leave somebody out. (LOL!) Anyway... The forum Moderator job requires so much...

 

PsychDoc> 1) Hard work. 2) No pay. 3) Knowledge. 4) Participation. 5) Willingness to play cop when "bad people" (and they know who they are) drift in like a bad log in a tide. If they weren't there, the boards would likely degenerate into a spam-filled morass where Viagra postings would surely outpace anything related to consumer credit by 10 to 1.

 

angeleyeskkhr> don't forget never ending patience when they feel like they're babysitters ::tongue

 

PsychDoc> ain't that the truth! LOL. So... we're all grateful, I think, for what they do here

 

Clouds> 24/7 internet access

 

goal720> Amen

 

cadicae> Absolutely!

 

tagalong> cudos to the mods!! this site ROCKS!

 

Clouds> hip hip hooray

 

nibanike> 6) not enough applause from us for their efforts!!

 

zappagal> ditto

 

PsychDoc> true that Clouds and nibanike

 

Dr-_Andrews> Good Work!

 

netmad80> <claps>

 

kareng> ditto that

 

PsychDoc> Before beginning tonight's topic, I'll once again set the frame of reference by reviewing what's come before and what will come afterward.

 

<tmimages> sent sound: whistle

 

PsychDoc> For those who've not been with us before, here is the structure and process of the course: 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. The 8 sessions are:

 

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

 

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

 

PsychDoc> ... and, again, for those who just entered the chat room... I have finally prepared that last session's transcript and forwarded it to breeze...

 

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

 

cadicae> yay!

 

catchnrelease> yea

 

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

 

Zowie> cool

 

tomurphjr> Smiling

 

breeze> TY!!

 

PsychDoc> and last but not least...

 

tal> yippee:)

 

PsychDoc> CREDIT 108: Bribing Fair Isaac Corporation, 12/15/2005

 

angeleyeskkhr> you're amazing Psych, you definately deserve kudos too for doin this for us

 

PsychDoc> oops

 

catchnrelease> lol

 

Clouds> LOL

 

netmad80> ::ninja

 

tmimages> lol

 

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

 

tagalong> lol

 

angeleyeskkhr> ROFL, bribin' huh?

 

PsychDoc> lol

 

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

 

tomurphjr> LOL

 

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)... 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 third of the second group. Tonight's syllabus...

 

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

 

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

 

PsychDoc> -3-- FCBA brief

 

PsychDoc> -4-- Creditor motivation

 

PsychDoc> -5-- Creditor interventions

 

PsychDoc> -6-- Third-Party interventions

 

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

 

angeleyeskkhr> lol, how come this feels like one of my college courses..are you a professor???

 

Clouds> doc wears many hats

 

accessmycredit> Nope

 

walkingthemaze> no

 

PsychDoc> LOL, taught developmental psych as a grad student back in the day, ha.

 

netmad80> I bet he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

 

PsychDoc> gotta have a syllabus, angeleyes

 

Clouds> no Qs, ready for letcure

 

zappagal> professor of people lol

 

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.

 

tal> syllabuses are cma in college

 

wayhigh> cma.. heh.. so true..

 

PsychDoc> And on that note, we can't underestimate the importance of the TRUTHFUL aspect. I'd encourage anyone who joined us to at least review the first transcript.

 

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> 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> Session Five... There are many different ways to get the bureaus to do what they're supposed to do WITHOUT lying. The FCRA requires the CRAs to investigate items that may be incorrect at your request so long as you are serious about the task (i.e., not "frivolous" to use their insulting term). Sure, people can get results claiming that an account wasn't theirs even when it was, or that an account was never late even if it was, but the new FACT Act imposes serious legal consequences for misrepresentations, so why not engage the bureaus more seriously and in a way that incurs less risk? Several example approaches were described.

 

PsychDoc> The first five transcripts appear in the Creditboards Credit Forum area. Sorry it took so long to get the last one put together!

 

angeleyeskkhr> imposes serious what?

 

PsychDoc> (And if #5 isn't there yet, breeze will post it ever-so-shortly!)

 

Clouds> penalties on liars and bad boys?

 

tmimages> can't wait to read it. ;-)

 

angeleyeskkhr> lol

 

PsychDoc> Angel and Clouds, actually, yes... The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (the "FACT Act")... is an amendment to the FCRA... which took effect this year

 

angeleyeskkhr> thanks for clearin' that up..just wanted to verify since it was cut off

 

PsychDoc> It's the law that gives us all the right to a free credit report each year from each bureau. It also imposes penalties (really for the first time) for those who lie to bureaus. They assume "identity theft" ... and a false report of identity theft incurs a legal consequence now. WhyChat posted a great thread to Creditboards about that titled something like...

 

Clouds> the rules for disputing have changed!!

 

PsychDoc> "The Disputing Rules Have Changed" or the like...

 

PsychDoc> right

 

Clouds> oops, sorry, I didn't meant to send that!

 

Clouds> lol

 

PsychDoc> no, gmta, lol

 

PsychDoc> anyway... she references a White Paper written by a prominent consumer law expert -- Gregg Brelsford. It's worth reading.

 

Clouds> SHE?

 

PsychDoc> Ok... now we delve into the material for tonight specifically... I want to differentiate tonight's credit repair interventions from next week's... Specifically...

 

PsychDoc> Next week we'll tackle collections and charge-offs -- in other wrods, those credit report items which are termed "R9" (for revolving chargeoffs) or "I9" (installment chargeoffs) by Equifax. Those kinds of tradelines fall under the purview of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA)... and the primary credit repair intervention imposed for those types of accounts is termed "validation" which is the word actually used within that federal statute.

 

PsychDoc> TONIGHT however, we'll discuss those pesky accounts which never charged off but report nasty late pays... 30 day lates... 60s... 90s.. 120s... 150s...

 

Clouds> and the dreaded 120+

 

PsychDoc> Anybody ever had any of those?

 

walkingthemaze> unfortunately

 

kareng> yup

 

accessmycredit> Yepper

 

Clouds> had them reported, or actually had them? Yes and No respectively

 

angeleyeskkhr> Yeah ::sad

 

Zowie> ::smile

 

PsychDoc> LOL

 

cadicae> Uh - yeah - once or twice!!

 

Clouds> %%%% Nelnet

 

tmimages> only on a CO acct. tho

 

zappagal> a few

 

tagalong> guilty

 

lorcan> None for me!

 

PsychDoc> Booyah, lorcan!

 

PsychDoc> Well...

 

Uncle_Buck> ::angry ::angry

 

Clouds> Nelnet's forebearance people don't talk to their billing people, it would seem

 

PsychDoc> My entrance into credit repair occurred a half decade ago... (doesn't that make it sound longer than it was, ha)

 

angeleyeskkhr> lol

 

Clouds> it was many years ago today

 

nibanike> The American Bar magazine that highlights Brelsford's thoughts on FACTA: http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine...ay2005/toc.html

 

Clouds> Sgt. PsychDoc taught the band to play

 

PsychDoc> I was finishing up my doctorate, and I had lots of student loans... And I was late on all of them. Really late.

 

angeleyeskkhr> lol

 

PsychDoc> Somehow I never let anything charge off. I knew very little about credit reports.

 

wayhigh> psych: I used to have some but got them corrected..

 

PsychDoc> wtg, wayhigh!

 

PsychDoc> My thinking was faulty... I thought, "What the heck, I'll pay them... so what if I'm late?"

 

catchnrelease> been there

 

Clouds> they know I'm just a poor student? LOL

 

PsychDoc> Then one day I got married, and my new wife and I decided to buy a car. Holy moly. Did I get an education that day? My credit was destroyed.

 

tagalong> guilty of that as well

 

tal> school of hard knocks huh?

 

angeleyeskkhr> that's what I keep trying to tell my older bro, psych.. he just won't listen ::glare

 

PsychDoc> So I started reading a bunch of credit repair books... and unfortunately they ... to borrow the language of people who are two decades younger than me (I'm 44)... those books SUCKED! They all said that if I paid off my debts I had no "leverage." (Which I don't believe, by the way, but I don't want to get ahead of myself.)

 

tagalong> leverage?

 

accessmycredit> 42...they did suck

 

PsychDoc> So I went online and discovered the main credit repair discussion board on the net in 2000... and that was not the one some of you may be thinking of... it was a Yahoo discussion group... and they told me the same thing: "Oh man, you pay your debts... you have no leverage."

 

lorcan> What do they mean by leverage?

 

PsychDoc> Apparently "leverage" was reserved only for those who let things charge off... and then you negotiate the tradeline removal... according to them... and that's a fine technique by the way... we'll discuss that, among other tactics, next week... but that didn't help my situation... I was just a guy with a bunch of late pays... 30 days to 150s

 

angeleyeskkhr> a way to get them to do what you want..they want their money, they do what you say type thing (I'm assuming more complicated then that though)

 

PsychDoc> right

 

tagalong> k, thanks for clarifying that

 

PsychDoc> To make this long story MUCH shorter... (just looked at the clock, LOL!)

 

lorcan> Oh, I get it now!

 

Clouds> PFD = leverage

 

PsychDoc> I did a lot of research and "adopted" some very fine teachers online and off... breeze is included in that category... and so was my brother, who was an attorney...

 

TxQuiltGirl> breeze is amazing

 

PsychDoc> There were others I'm leaving out...

 

breeze>

 

PsychDoc> But the short of it is...

 

PsychDoc> BREEZE IS IN HERE, lol

 

PsychDoc> ha

 

TxQuiltGirl> lol

 

PsychDoc> didn't notice... anyway (now I feel embarassed)... anyway

 

wayhigh> re breeze

 

angeleyeskkhr> lol

 

Clouds> like venus from the waves

 

PsychDoc> a series of credit repair interventions was fashioned which would restore "leverage" to those of us who:

 

PsychDoc> 1) didn't want to lie, and

 

PsychDoc> 2) who paid the bills, and

 

PsychDoc> 3) whose credit was TERRIBLE

 

PsychDoc> These are the interventions we'll discuss tonight. They include: a) The Goodwill Letter (heavily influenced by marci, a Creditboards member); b} The Nutcase Series; c) The Dancerat letters (written by a member of another discussion board... Dancerat); d) The Knockout Letter (written by a very controversial fellow, but I've seen the results it gets). And there are others of course.

 

PsychDoc> There is a common thread to all of these direct-to-creditor interventions, and we'll discuss that shortly.

 

Clouds> wow, I thought I'd read most of this board, but apparently not

 

catchnrelease> don't know if i've seen c

 

PsychDoc> Right, clouds... well, I'll also post links to those letters...

 

Zowie> same here no c & d

 

PsychDoc> c) is cited on Creditboards btw, and perhaps d) too... but I didn't check.

 

PsychDoc> Let me cover the next topic on tonight's syllabus, CREDITOR MOTIVATION, and then we'll delve into the interventions themselves.

 

Clouds> guessing it involves filthy lucre

 

PsychDoc> Here are PsychDoc's Creditor Heuristics

 

PsychDoc>

 

PsychDoc> 1) Creditors are in business to loan money.

 

PsychDoc> 2) They don't want to fool with your credit problems.

 

PsychDoc> 3) They don't respect people with credit problems generally.

 

PsychDoc> 4) They wish you would go away.

 

PsychDoc> 5) They are highly motivated to avoid even the hint of litigation or embarrassment.

 

PsychDoc> Those five heuristics are key, lol.

 

Uncle_Buck> #4 sounds like my horse

 

PsychDoc> The jiu jitsu of dealing with creditors is to use their motivation to benefit YOU.

 

PsychDoc> lol, Uncle Buck

 

Clouds> ahhh grasshopper

 

PsychDoc> So... First, the classic "Goodwill" approach... Essentially, some creditors, if approached on the right day, and if the right representative is engaged, will forgive a negative credit report listing just because. I would like to say... "just because they value your business"... but I think it's simply "just because"...

 

tagalong> working that approach now for a few 30 day lates

 

Uncle_Buck> me too

 

PsychDoc> The approach simply involves this... Saying your sorry.

 

hurricanesfans27> i can vouch for this. ive pulled accounts from ocas just because the people were nice to me

 

PsychDoc> Saying you won't do it again. Saying you had a bad moment. Asking if there is redemption in this lifetime at Sears.

 

PsychDoc> Has anybody had success yet using the Goodwill approach?

 

netmad80> Nope

 

logan44103> I did, first try!

 

tal> I'm still waiting to hear

 

tagalong> just sent out my letter a week or so ago...so not yet

 

UpOnTop> not at all

 

rhl> No.

 

IDare> I did, first try

 

4myfuture> I'm waiting for it in writing.. they promised over the phone..

 

Uncle_Buck> same as tagalong

 

Conan> Cap One......will not budge!!!

 

Zowie> not me:

 

IDare> got Wells Fargo to remove a 30 day late on a LOC

 

nibanike> yes, and one had 2 90 day lates and I've since paid for 5 years on time. they were all changed to 1s

 

PsychDoc> Some yesses and some no's. It's a great way to start.

 

netmad80> I get those "We have an obligation to report accurate information"

 

Clouds> "the worst they can do is say no"

 

Zowie> BOA hasn't budged either

 

PsychDoc> So nibanike... you actually saw success with 2 90 day lates using Goodwill?

 

zappagal> yeah

 

PsychDoc> That's fantastic...

 

wayhigh> psychdoc: nope.. I've even escalated goodwill to the retention department

 

nibanike> yes, and on student loans, nonetheless

 

tagalong> I got a C/O removed from 2 of 3 cra's with a goodwill letter (it was pd. 3 days after c/o)

 

PsychDoc> Very nice, tagalong...

 

Clouds> I disputed (incorrect) SL lates with the CRA with good success

 

wayhigh> I think the goodwill approach only works if you don't show a pattern of lates

 

tagalong> not sure why it's stuck on the 3rd report still..but it is

 

PsychDoc> For those who have not succeeded (yet), be persistent... use a variety of approaches... I think wayhigh is correct... and I also think that -- typically -- the less severe the item, the more likely the success... although as we've seen here tonight... even severe tradelines can give way

 

oopsididitagain> is this approach used for oc's and cra's

 

wayhigh> psych: btw.. I sent out an abrogated letter today.. we'll see how it goes..

 

PsychDoc> There is a "classic" goodwill example that I'm sure is posted to Creditboards. You can and SHOULD change that a bit to fit your situation, your explanation, etc.

 

PsychDoc> The next credit repair intervention for late-pay creditors is... the Nutcase series. I'm intimately familiar with that one, lol...

 

TxQuiltGirl> gee I wonder why ...

 

wayhigh> the litigious nutcase series rocks

 

PsychDoc> Let me say, first, what it ISN'T... A CBer posted this... (and I like this CBer... so don't take this out of context)... "So the nutcase letter is basically an ITS with a foaming-at-the-mouth rabid tone, spouting whatever the CBer can come up with that's close to a legal theory that might fly (in the Bizarro World)."

 

PsychDoc> WRONG. LOL. Maybe somebody's generic nutcase letter is that... and I'll bet that's what he's referencing.

 

Clouds> nooooo

 

PsychDoc> But there is a specific series of letters that we "named"... just so we'd have a convenient moniker.

 

TxQuiltGirl> I like the foaming at the mouth part though

 

PsychDoc> ha

 

angeleyeskkhr> lol

 

PsychDoc> Really, the Nutcase series uses non-angry language. Very matter-of-fact. It asks the creditors to verify this and that. And this and that. And this over here and that over there. And, oh by the way, if you can't comply with these lawful requests, then delete the tradeline.

 

nibanike> it works beautifully with paid collections

 

rhl> Psych, in other words, make the creditor the "nutcase" going nuts?

 

Zowie> what if you don't want the tradeline deleted just the lates taken off?

 

PsychDoc> It looks a lot like "OC validation," i.e., validation letters sent to creditors... but it's not that... because those are usually tried in order to attempt forgiveness of an allegedly outstanding debt.

 

PsychDoc> It happens, Zowie... But sometimes the entire tradeline is removed...

 

tagalong> I would think it would be better to have the tl gone than continuing to show lates?

 

PsychDoc> I have a personal philosophy about that... Some people cry (and they're right in one respect)... "TAKING THE TL AWAY ENTIRELY IS WORSE THAN LEAVING IT BECAUSE OF MY CREDIT SCORE" etc. I think that's a respectable argument, and it's certainly true that an established account with a high line of credit adds points to credit scores. But... If you want a CLEAN slate (because mortgage brokers will give you sheer hell even when they see even a 30 day late or whatever), etc., then I'm all for just starting fresh.

 

tmimages> clean is "good".

 

Clouds> the legendary Christine says "it's not about having the most accurate report, it's about having the best report" (i.e., if it's not hurting you, don't fix it, even if it IS wrong).

 

Zowie> it is my longest tradeline (mortgate with 2 - 30 day lates and paid off now) i don't want deleted

 

PsychDoc> With my personal credit repair I didn't care whether it was removed entirely or if just the negative portion was removed. I wanted a clean slate. Sure, your score may dive at first, but it's like psychotherapy... LOL. Sometimes you get a bit worse before you get better. You build your credit, and your scores rise precipitously.

 

Clouds> goes back to doc's first seminar... know your goals. Is it a thin but clean report, or is it a fat but flawed?

 

PsychDoc> Very true, Clouds... It's all about your goals.

 

zappagal> good point

 

Clouds> ppl wanting a mortgage have to do different things than ppl just wanting a high score

 

lorcan> That's me thin buy clean!

 

PsychDoc> Keep in mind that the nutcase series of letters is aimed at forcing a fully paid creditor to demonstrate that the late-pay notations in your credit file are: a) proveably correct; b} don't violate your civil rights; c) weren't associated with an "encumbered" consumer protection issue, and d) don't reference a transaction that was part of a problematic insurance dispute (with all the laws pertaining to that), among other things. This differs TREMENDOUSLY from a standard validation letter for unpaid [alleged] debts, since that standard validation letter is asking for one thing -- proof that the debt existed. The nutcase series DOESN'T DISPUTE the original debt's validity at all. The nutcase letters dispute the validity of the NEGATIVE TRADELINE REMARKS and do that by hinting at one or more violations of consumer protection laws. It is a perfectly legal letter whose object is not to present as a psychotic (as some people seem to think, lol) but rather to present as a litigious nutcase who is "up to something" and who should be dismissed as cheaply as possible and quickly (by deleting the negative tradeline notations, hopefully, lol). So... There is actually a series of them...

 

PsychDoc> Here is a link...

 

PsychDoc> http://www.psychology.net/credit/nutcase.txt

 

PsychDoc> A few words about when to use Goodwill versus Nutcase... There's no rule of course, but typically:

 

PsychDoc> -- Goodwill letters work best with fully-paid, still-open accounts with isolated and relatively minor late-pay notations. Now, of course, we've seen people have success using this technique with seriously-late and paid/closed accounts as well (hence, the "no rule" caveat, lol). Regardless, if you've had a Sears account for 7 years, and you were late twice three years ago, I certainly wouldn't send the "nutcase" for that because: 1) you currently have a relationship with the creditor, and 2) an isolated example within the context of a valued customer's otherwise excellent account history really beckons for a "courtesy adjustment" rather than the implied threat of a lawsuit.

 

PsychDoc> While...

 

PsychDoc> -- Nutcase letters work best with paid/closed accounts for which there was serious delinquency one or more times. So, for example, with my PHEAA student loans, I was 150 days late several different times over a period of several years. (Basically, I wouldn't pay for 4 or 5 months and then I would make a big lump payment to bring it current. I was destroying my credit and didn't even know enough about CRAs to know it at the time.) In that case, asking for a "courtesy adjustment" seems like a pretty huge stretch even for the most kind-hearted customer service employee. So I went with the Nutcase letter and they folded quickly. If there is a heuristic in here somewhere, maybe it goes like this: There's lots of overlap, and only you can be the judge, but typically a "courtesy adjustment request" (Goodwill letter) stands a better chance if the delinquency occurred within the context of a properly-maintained account -- as wayhigh said before here.

 

PsychDoc> That said... We have seen lots of good responses for Nutcase with charged-off accounts when sent to original creditors.

 

Clouds> <ears perking>

 

PsychDoc> That's not how the intervention was designed... so your mileage may vary. Again... my mantra...

 

PsychDoc> 1) PERSISTENCE... 2) A VARIETY OF APPROACHES... 3) REPETITION... 4) PATIENCE

 

PsychDoc> Next intervention... FCBA... The Fair Credit Billing Act requires creditors to bill correctly and completely. Quoting from the second session of this series...

 

PsychDoc> "The FTC summarizes the statute's prohibitions as follows: "unauthorized charges; charges that list the wrong date or amount; charges for goods and services you didn't accept or weren't delivered as agreed; math errors; failure to post payments and other credits, such as returns; failure to send bills to your current address -- provided the creditor receives your change of address, in writing, at least 20 days before the billing period ends; and charges for which you ask for an explanation or written proof of purchase along with a claimed error or request for clarification."

 

PsychDoc> Some may remember that in an earlier lesson I briefly mentioned one proposed FCBA intervention...

 

PsychDoc> "In accordance with my Federal civil rights as stipulated by the Fair Credit Billing Act, you are obligated to comply with this lawful request for elaborated documentation for billing, including charges and interest, as well as a full accounting of where each bill was mailed, for the life of the account, or rescind these reports from every consumer reporting agency to which you have reported same. Your expeditious handling of this matter is expected."

 

PsychDoc> So, regarding the FCBA, you want to ensure the following before ANYTHING is reported to the bureaus...

 

PsychDoc> 1) The account was created at your request.

 

PsychDoc> 2) Every item billed to an account was billed correctly.

 

PsychDoc> 3) Every statement was created in a timely manner.

 

PsychDoc> 4) Every statement was sent to the correct address.

 

PsychDoc> 5) The creditor never ignored your change of address requests.

 

PsychDoc> 6) The creditor never ignored disputed charges.

 

PsychDoc> 7) Ignored change of address requests, or disputed charges which weren't facilitated correctly and in accordance with your rights as stipulated by the statute, didn't contribute to negative credit bureau reporting.

 

PsychDoc> 8) Interest and late fees were computed in accordance with federal law and with any laws specific to your home state.

 

PsychDoc> 9) The creditor didn't break their contract with their customers in any way.

 

PsychDoc> So... lol... Consider this FCBA based credit repair approach...

 

PsychDoc> "Dear XYZ, The Fair Credit Billing Act requires that you bill correctly, that each statement be sent to the correct address, that you not ignore change of address requests, and that you facilitate disputed charges in a manner prescribed by law. The Act also stipulates that you provide lawfully requested information concerning my account upon request in a timely manner. For that reason, forward a notarized statement on your letterhead which will attest to your compliance to the FCBA generally and to my account specifically throughout the period I have been a customer. Otherwise, delete the negative marks you have reported to the three consumer reporting agencies within the timely manner prescribed by law. Your prompt attention will be appreciated."

 

PsychDoc> Remember my Creditor Heuristics... Anything that smacks of possible litigation makes creditors nervous. They just don't want to fool with you. They'd rather go attend to their business. A polite, calm, lawful request just gives 'em the willies.

 

PsychDoc> Keep in mind that these sample FCBA approaches, like the Nutcase approach (especially Nutcase letter 1)... make no claims. They just look like they're written by somebody who calmly has it together and is about to escalate.

 

4myfuture> do you think this is true for student loan providers too??

 

PsychDoc> Yes, 4myfuture, definitely.

 

tmimages> what about medical bills?

 

Clouds> HIPAA

 

PsychDoc> Yes... but you should also leverage HIPPA there.

 

tagalong> it does? I have a C/O SL but according to the sl people I currently live in California...and I have never been to california

 

tmimages> of course.

 

PsychDoc> gmta clouds, lol

 

tagalong> never got anything regarding the SL

 

PsychDoc> interesting, tagalong, more grist for the fire you'll set...

 

tagalong> I am currently paying to rehab...through a CA....but the original still shows C/O

 

PsychDoc> The NEXT creditor intervention in this vein is the Dancerat approach. Dancerat was a participant on another board. I don't think he or she ever registered on Creditboards, but I could be wrong. But Dancerat used a different tactic.

 

PsychDoc> Unlike the Nutcase series... and unlike the FCBA approaches mentioned here... (and for that matter unlike the FCRA "prove it or lose it" approach I've described in previous sessions for credit bureaus)... Dancerat DOES make a claim. The Dancerat approach actually disputes certain aspects of the underlying debt, so this should be used carefully. Remember my byword: tell the truth.

 

PsychDoc> Unlike the Nutcase series and Bauer's Knockout tactic which do not disclaim the original underlying debt, the DanceRat approach uses a "not mine" claim. Here is a link to the text for that interesting direct-to-creditor approach.

 

PsychDoc> http://www.psychology.net/credit/dancerat.txt

 

tagalong> don't want to do that, I don't think...I do owe the SL and am currently paying a CA

 

PsychDoc> Very good, tag.

 

PsychDoc> Next I want to mention another one that has achieved excellent results for many on the net. Dare I say the name... Bill Bauer?

 

PsychDoc> (OH NO... I'm being chased away.)

 

catchnrelease> lol

 

tagalong> nah...I have no clue who that is...lol

 

accessmycredit> ?

 

PsychDoc> Very good, I'll not review the history, ha.

 

IDare> ::ninja

 

Clouds> eewwww

 

PsychDoc> Bill is a cantankerous old coot. And I say that affectionately.

 

PsychDoc> Some dislike him. Others don't.

 

Clouds> and he's always broke, LOL

 

PsychDoc> But he wrote a VERY good direct-to-creditor intervention, and released it to the internet gratis -- which is unusual for him. He called it the "Knockout Letter". It's something like the Nutcase series in that it DOESN'T make a claim. (So in that regard it's diametrically opposite to the method Dancerat utilized.)

 

PsychDoc> Here's a link to the text for that:

 

PsychDoc> http://www.psychology.net/credit/knockout.txt

 

CheatedbyChex> wow, thanks

 

PsychDoc> The thread that connects all of these is... (and I hope someone here invents the next super intervention... the more, the better for all consumers) that they make a request for ACTION or DELETION

 

PsychDoc> They may mention various laws... or even aspects of various laws... Some make a claim (i.e., "I was NOT LATE"), and some don't (i.e., "prove to me you have complied with the law; otherwise delete").

 

PsychDoc> It really doesn't matter what silly names we've given to these different categories because YOU can write one even better. It pays to know the laws, of course... REVIEW the second lesson of this series... But after you have become familiar with the various consumer protection statutes... you'll be in a terrific position to improve upon these, or even trash them, lol, or come up with your own unique approach.

 

sml1997> This is awesome info!

 

tal> i agree

 

PsychDoc> The division between... a) making a claim... versus b} not making a claim ... will remain of course. You have to decide what you're comfortable with.

 

PsychDoc> Ok... checking my syllabus... lol

 

Zowie> good info!

 

PsychDoc> see it's really for me to keep me on track

 

Clouds> doing great, thanks doc

 

breeze> so he doesn't start telling jokes

 

jper043> Bad CA's Bad....

 

PsychDoc> heh ain't that the truth breeze, I've told a couple here, argh... Well... we've covered the direct-to-creditor interventions... And I've given you a sense of how they divide themselves into the two categories... And some examples you can use...

 

PsychDoc> Now I'd like to move to the last item on tonight's list of topics... which is... Third-Party Interventions. This is where you essentially do what we shrinks always advise people not to do in their families... lol: TRIANGULATE.

 

wayhigh> psych: when the course is done for the night.. I have a couple q's for ya if you have time

 

PsychDoc> Sure, wayhigh...

 

PsychDoc> Typically, creditors don't want to be embarrassed... They HATE it when consumers complain to... 1) the Federal Trade Commission... 2) The Better Business Bureau... and ... 3) Consumer web sites like PlanetFeedback.com (which I understand is back after a brief hiatus).

 

Clouds> yes its back

 

zappagal> nice

 

PsychDoc> Has anybody ever seen good results (or bad) from using third-party interventions?

 

zappagal> yes

 

PsychDoc> aha!

 

PsychDoc> do tell, zappagal

 

Clouds> planning to invoke the TX Atty General, I hear he's got a big hat AND lots of cattle

 

tal> what about the AG?

 

tmimages> in progress...hopefully.

 

wayhigh> psych: isn't the knockout letter very risky because you end via a threat?

 

PsychDoc> (VERY GOOD... that's right... perhaps the best third-party intervention would be a letter to your state Attorney General!)

 

tagalong> let you know in a couple of weeks...I have filed complaints with TX AG, SC AG, FTC, ACA, BBB...but that was for a CA...not an OC

 

zappagal> it ended up bad, but PFB was very helpful

 

PsychDoc> wayhigh: I'm not recommending or not recommending any of these... and yes, you should assess your risk... The Knockout Letter is typically "Bill"... i.e., contentious. That's why I prefer the Nutcase series (and you knew I'd say that). I prefer polite, but the Knockout Letter has netted great results as well. It's one more arrow in the sling. So, again, a VARIETY of approaches may be what it takes over the course of a year.

 

wayhigh> I've never had a need to complain to any 3<=letter agencies but I'm getting close

 

PsychDoc> Very good, zappagal.

 

Zowie> so next week we are gonna deal with charge off's and original creditors?

 

zappagal> ty

 

PsychDoc> Ok, let me just end by encouraging everyone to search Creditboards for references to these interventions... both the direct-to-creditor ones and the third-party ones. With respect to the third-party interventions, sometimes it's best to learn about those just by reading the anecdotes posted to the board.

 

PsychDoc> Let me also encourage everyone to post about their successes and otherwise, so that others will be able to benefit from your experience.

 

PsychDoc> In two weeks... We will dip into VALIDATION, chargeoffs, collections, and some of the peculiarities of the FDCPA.

 

Zowie> ty doc::wacko

 

tagalong> or lack thereof?

 

tagalong> lol

 

breeze> can't wait!

 

sambliz> When will this be posted breeze?

 

accessmycredit> Give the teacher an apple ::smile

 

zappagal> cool ::up

 

PsychDoc> lack thereof, tagalong... VERY GOOD!

 

wayhigh> good job psych

 

4myfuture> Thank you much... ::smile

 

walkingthemaze> Thanks so much for the course Doc. I know that it is alot more work than probably all of us realize. It is very generous of you!

 

PsychDoc> lol

 

breeze> probably tomorrow morning

 

Conan> DOC....THANK YOU!!! and CB'ers YOU TOO!!!

 

zappagal> ty xoxo

 

netmad80> Thanks Doc

 

Clouds> three cheers for doc

 

PsychDoc> Well, thank you... this has been very fun.

 

tal> thank you

 

Uncle_Buck> Thank you Doc!

 

PsychDoc> I'll prepare this session's transcript and get it to breeze QUICKLY.

 

goal720> Thank you

 

tagalong> thank you!

 

PsychDoc> Just like the first four... I promise.

 

dallasboy> thanks

 

youdidit> Thanks for everything Doc....

 

sml1997> Doc is "D" Man, Great Info. Thanks

 

walkingthemaze> Have a great holiday!

 

PsychDoc> ha

 

cadicae> Thanks Doc!

 

sambliz> thanks for blessing us with your presence psych!!!

 

Zowie> ty!

 

lorcan> Thanks so much for another great session!

 

tal> have a safe holiday everyone

 

PsychDoc> You're right... next week is Thanksgiving...

 

angeleyeskkhr> Psych, thanks a bunch, I came in at the very tail in again, but I'll be sure to ask for the transcript when I get a chance and breeze gets i

 

breeze> Thanks Doc!!

 

PsychDoc> I think we can all be grateful for this wonderful community.

 

wayhigh> psych: is sending mail CMRRR so important? Because, you can always save $ by sending CM and then only requesting the signature if/when you need it

 

tagalong> absolutely!

 

PsychDoc> wayhigh... lots of debate about that... For Nutcase, I love CMRRR, and I love NOTARIZED signatures because they spook creditors, LOL. It looks like a polite document that your lawyer prepared...

 

sambliz> breeze, how long are you going to be in this room?

 

wayhigh> yeah for nutcase that'd be great

 

PsychDoc> ...but nothing's "required." Try it one way, then try it another. You'll see the gurus taking positions on all of that -- whether it should be CMRRR... or whether it should it be typed... or whether it should be hand-written... or sent with purple ink... etc. Lots of very smart people have opinions about all of that, and I'm not taking anything away from them by the way... Some make great points. I've just seen positive and negative results from just about every combination, so I'm not one who offers that kind of advice.

 

jper043> Doc -- Do you know how long paying as agreed on 5-7 accounts will take to help a score if some (5) of the baddies stay on???

 

netmad80> Ok, call me ignorant, but exactly how can you get your document notarized? at the bank?

 

wayhigh> I've thought about getting a corporate seal made as I'm certain a lot of places wouldn't read the seal.. they'd just be like "oh ohhh.. there's a seal"

 

tagalong> question about SLs....is it possible to have one that C/O'd removed if they sold it to someone else...and that someone else is who I am paying now?

 

wayhigh> tagalong: not for me..

 

tagalong> since the OC of the SL decided I lived in California and never sent ANYTHING to me about the debt?

 

4myfuture> you think the notarized letter might scare the infamous Sallie Mae?

 

wayhigh> tagalong: you have to dispute the first one the usual way

 

walkingthemaze> the only 'right' way is the way that works at the time.

 

PsychDoc> tagalong... student loan guarantors are like most other creditors...

 

Uncle_Buck> Doc, is it best to seek out a name to send these interventions to (and how best to do that), or just send them to the general inquiry address?

 

PsychDoc> What works for one sometimes doesn't work for another, so just delve in. I wish there was a "right" answer.

 

tagalong> lol..Sallie Mae is my OC that showing C/O on the account

 

catchnrelease> if you have a "great contact", but they are in a branch not corporate, should you ask the contact about deleting old lates on an acct that is still open,,or do you think only corporate can delete lates

 

PsychDoc> walkingthemaze put it just right

 

tagalong> k, thanks! I thought I was pretty much stuck with it since it was a federally funded loan

 

PsychDoc> Buck, I've seen success both ways. Definitely work the contacts if you have them.

 

sambliz> please, anyone quick steps into disputing paid and unpaid medical bills? Please!

 

catchnrelease> great , thanks

 

Uncle_Buck> OK, thanks

 

PsychDoc> The legal counsel at Citibank once removed a bad student loan tl for me when the customer service reps said "no way"

 

wayhigh> psychdoc: is the 1-2 punch the validate & followup with CRA dispute to entice the CA into a violation?

 

Clouds> whychat.5u.com for medical bills

 

4myfuture> heehe.. owth?? Anybody have contacts at Sallie Mae?? lol

 

PsychDoc> "1-2 Punch" next session -- it's a variant on validation.

 

jper043> sam -- Whychat's HIPAA stuff is great for that....

 

Clouds> for SLs try CRA dispute first

 

breeze> Thanks doc!

 

Clouds> can't wait for doc's discussion of 1-2 punch

 

tmimages> yes, thanks Doc!!!

 

tomsrepair> Thank you for the great insights!!! You Rock.

 

Clouds> sure to be a classic -- Ebert & whosit

 

PsychDoc> ha, thank you, well I'm gonna run

 

wayhigh> psychdoc: I ask because I read a lot about doing that via creditnet.com but then I've also seen a lot of negative unethical comments there

 

jper043> Does anyone know how long paying as agreed takes to help????

 

PsychDoc> nite all!

 

TxQuiltGirl> thanks doc

 

Clouds> thanks 10zillion doc

 

tagalong> many thanks again psych

 

accessmycredit> Good night all::cool

 

catchnrelease> thanks doc

 

TxQuiltGirl> have a good holiday!

 

kareng> thank you!!!

 

breeze> nite say hi to the family!

 

PsychDoc> see you in two weeks

 

tmimages> g night

 

MarvBear> nite doc!

 

wayhigh> ttyl psychdoc

 

PsychDoc> you'll see the transcript SHORTLY!!!!!

 

PsychDoc> lol

 

Clouds> bravo!!

 

breeze> hahaha

 

PsychDoc> Will do, breeze! say hi to Mom!!! Nite!

 

tmimages> cool

 

Uncle_Buck> Happy Thanksgiving all

 

TWO WEEKS FROM NOW @ 9 PM EASTERN TIME:

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

[Opus]

Oh-no!!!

 

2 PSYCHDOC TRANSCRIPT's in less than 12 hours....

[tal]

thank you for posting this as always

[PsychDoc]

I thought I would clarify something regarding this seminar. Perhaps it's misnamed... "FCBA Street Fighting" implies that everything discussed would be related to the Fair Credit Billing Act. Actually, this particular lesson should have probably been titled "Creditor Street Fighting" -- because this installment centered upon several ways consumers can engage original creditors in order to improve their credit reports. The interventions discussed included... 1) Goodwill adjustments, 2) the Nutcase series, 3) Dancerat letters, 4) the Knockout letter, and 5) the FCBA Info Request.

 

Please note that I did not discuss the standard FCBA Billing Dispute, a consumer right invoked within 60 days where a particular charge is disputed. Rather, the FCBA Info Request I mentioned in the transcript carries no clock -- you can think of it as something like a "pre-dispute" or as "FCBA Nutcase," i.e., an intervention where account history is requested in order to persuade the creditor that a CRA deletion would be less troublesome than research. Does the FCBA Info Request hold weight in court? Almost certainly not, but neither does it risk a loss of rights either, and in any case the intervention has resulted in some very nice (dare I say "tasty"?) credit report deletions.

 

One might mind-map creditor interventions this way...

 

 

Note that basically there are three ways to proceed: 1) a creditor dispute (i.e., "not mine," "never late," or an FCBA Billing Dispute); 2) an info demand (i.e., "do a bunch of history for me while I stew on this, or delete"); or 3) a mea culpa (i.e., goodwill request). Note also that this is not an attempt to be inclusive -- the HIPPA intervention (which can either make a claim as in "You have violated my rights because..." or not as with "Provide a notarized statement attesting that you have not violated my rights under HIPPA..."), for example, was not elaborated during this beginner's overview.

 

I hope this clarifies. I wish I had made my intentions clearer regarding my referencing the FCBA.

 

Thanks, and I look forward to the next session.

 

Doc

Edited November 22, 2005 by PsychDoc

[tal]

Thank you for this Doc.

[breeze]

Ooooooooh pretty flowchart!

[Gryffindor]

MY CLIFFNOTES FOR SEMINAR TRANSCRIPT #6

 

LESSON SIX TRANSCRIPT

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

PSYCHDOC'S CREDIT REPAIR SCHOOL FOR BEGINNERS

 

TRADELINES WHICH SHOW LATES BUT NOT CO OR COLLECTION:

PsychDoc> Tonight we'll delve into the kinds of hardball tactics you can engage with creditors. Specifically, we're going to restrict ourselves tonight to those tradelines which may show late payments reporting to your credit reports but that never reached R9 or I9 status... i.e., they never, ever, charged-off or were listed as a collections accounts.

 

TONIGHT however, we'll discuss those pesky accounts which never charged off but report nasty late pays... 30 day lates... 60s... 90s.. 120s... 150s...

 

A series of credit repair interventions was fashioned which would restore "leverage" to those of us who:

 

1) didn't want to lie, and

2) who paid the bills, and

3) whose credit was TERRIBLE

 

These are the interventions we'll discuss tonight. They include:

a) The Goodwill Letter (heavily influenced by marci, a Creditboards member);

The Nutcase Series;

c) The Dancerat letters (written by a member of another discussion board... Dancerat);

d) The Knockout Letter (written by a very controversial fellow, but I've seen the results it gets). And there are others of course.

 

Let me cover the next topic on tonight's syllabus, CREDITOR MOTIVATION, and then we'll delve into the interventions themselves.

 

Here are PsychDoc's Creditor Heuristics:

 

1) Creditors are in business to loan money.

2) They don't want to fool with your credit problems.

3) They don't respect people with credit problems generally.

4) They wish you would go away.

5) They are highly motivated to avoid even the hint of litigation or embarrassment.

 

The jiu jitsu of dealing with creditors is to use their motivation to benefit YOU.

 

GOODWILL LETTERS:

So... First, the classic "Goodwill" approach... Essentially, some creditors, if approached on the right day, and if the right representative is engaged, will forgive a negative credit report listing just because. I would like to say... "just because they value your business"... but I think it's simply "just because"... The approach simply involves this... Saying your sorry. Saying you won't do it again. Saying you had a bad moment. Asking if there is redemption in this lifetime at Sears.

 

For those who have not succeeded (yet), be persistent... use a variety of approaches... I think wayhigh is correct... and I also think that -- typically -- the less severe the item, the more likely the success... although as we've seen here tonight... even severe tradelines can give way.

 

There is a "classic" goodwill example that I'm sure is posted to Creditboards. You can and SHOULD change that a bit to fit your situation, your explanation, etc.

 

NUTCASE SERIES:

The next credit repair intervention for late-pay creditors is... the Nutcase series. Let me say, first, what it ISN'T... A CBer posted this... (and I like this CBer... so don't take this out of context)... "So the nutcase letter is basically an ITS with a foaming-at-the-mouth rabid tone, spouting whatever the CBer can come up with that's close to a legal theory that might fly (in the Bizarro World)." WRONG. LOL. Maybe somebody's generic nutcase letter is that... and I'll bet that's what he's referencing. But there is a specific series of letters that we "named"... just so we'd have a convenient moniker. Really, the Nutcase series uses non-angry language. Very matter-of-fact. It asks the creditors to verify this and that. And this and that. And this over here and that over there. And, oh by the way, if you can't comply with these lawful requests, then delete the tradeline.

 

It looks a lot like "OC validation," i.e., validation letters sent to creditors... but it's not that... because those are usually tried in order to attempt forgiveness of an allegedly outstanding debt.

 

tagalong> I would think it would be better to have the tl gone than continuing to show lates?

 

PsychDoc> I have a personal philosophy about that... Some people cry (and they're right in one respect)... "TAKING THE TL AWAY ENTIRELY IS WORSE THAN LEAVING IT BECAUSE OF MY CREDIT SCORE" etc. I think that's a respectable argument, and it's certainly true that an established account with a high line of credit adds points to credit scores. But... If you want a CLEAN slate (because mortgage brokers will give you sheer hell even when they see even a 30 day late or whatever), etc., then I'm all for just starting fresh.

 

With my personal credit repair I didn't care whether it was removed entirely or if just the negative portion was removed. I wanted a clean slate. Sure, your score may dive at first, but it's like psychotherapy... LOL. Sometimes you get a bit worse before you get better. You build your credit, and your scores rise precipitously.

 

Keep in mind that the nutcase series of letters is aimed at forcing a fully paid creditor to demonstrate that the late-pay notations in your credit file are:

a) proveably correct;

don't violate your civil rights;

c) weren't associated with an "encumbered" consumer protection issue,

d) don't reference a transaction that was part of a problematic insurance dispute (with all the laws pertaining to that), among other things.

 

This differs TREMENDOUSLY from a standard validation letter for unpaid [alleged] debts, since that standard validation letter is asking for one thing -- proof that the debt existed. The nutcase series DOESN'T DISPUTE the original debt's validity at all. The nutcase letters dispute the validity of the NEGATIVE TRADELINE REMARKS and do that by hinting at one or more violations of consumer protection laws. It is a perfectly legal letter whose object is not to present as a psychotic (as some people seem to think, lol) but rather to present as a litigious nutcase who is "up to something" and who should be dismissed as cheaply as possible and quickly (by deleting the negative tradeline notations, hopefully, lol). So... There is actually a series of them...

 

Here’s a link: http://www.psychology.net/credit/nutcase.txt

 

A few words about when to use Goodwill versus Nutcase... There's no rule of course, but typically:

 

Goodwill letters work best with fully-paid, still-open accounts with isolated and relatively minor late-pay notations. Now, of course, we've seen people have success using this technique with seriously-late and paid/closed accounts as well (hence, the "no rule" caveat, lol). Regardless, if you've had a Sears account for 7 years, and you were late twice three years ago, I certainly wouldn't send the "nutcase" for that because: 1) you currently have a relationship with the creditor, and 2) an isolated example within the context of a valued customer's otherwise excellent account history really beckons for a "courtesy adjustment" rather than the implied threat of a lawsuit.

 

Nutcase letters work best with paid/closed accounts for which there was serious delinquency one or more times. So, for example, with my PHEAA student loans, I was 150 days late several different times over a period of several years. (Basically, I wouldn't pay for 4 or 5 months and then I would make a big lump payment to bring it current. I was destroying my credit and didn't even know enough about CRAs to know it at the time.) In that case, asking for a "courtesy adjustment" seems like a pretty huge stretch even for the most kind-hearted customer service employee. So I went with the Nutcase letter and they folded quickly. If there is a heuristic in here somewhere, maybe it goes like this: There's lots of overlap, and only you can be the judge, but typically a "courtesy adjustment request" (Goodwill letter) stands a better chance if the delinquency occurred within the context of a properly-maintained account -- as wayhigh said before here.

 

PSYCHDOC’S MANTRA:

 

1) PERSISTENCE...

2) A VARIETY OF APPROACHES...

3) REPETITION...

4) PATIENCE

 

Next intervention... FCBA... The Fair Credit Billing Act requires creditors to bill correctly and completely. Quoting from the second session of this series...

 

"The FTC summarizes the statute's prohibitions as follows: "unauthorized charges; charges that list the wrong date or amount; charges for goods and services you didn't accept or weren't delivered as agreed; math errors; failure to post payments and other credits, such as returns; failure to send bills to your current address -- provided the creditor receives your change of address, in writing, at least 20 days before the billing period ends; and charges for which you ask for an explanation or written proof of purchase along with a claimed error or request for clarification."

 

Some may remember that in an earlier lesson I briefly mentioned one proposed FCBA intervention...

 

"In accordance with my Federal civil rights as stipulated by the Fair Credit Billing Act, you are obligated to comply with this lawful request for elaborated documentation for billing, including charges and interest, as well as a full accounting of where each bill was mailed, for the life of the account, or rescind these reports from every consumer reporting agency to which you have reported same. Your expeditious handling of this matter is expected."

 

So, regarding the FCBA, you want to ensure the following before ANYTHING is reported to the bureaus...

 

1) The account was created at your request.

 

2) Every item billed to an account was billed correctly.

 

3) Every statement was created in a timely manner.

 

4) Every statement was sent to the correct address.

 

5) The creditor never ignored your change of address requests.

 

6) The creditor never ignored disputed charges.

 

7) Ignored change of address requests, or disputed charges which weren't facilitated correctly and in accordance with your rights as stipulated by the statute, didn't contribute to negative credit bureau reporting.

 

8) Interest and late fees were computed in accordance with federal law and with any laws specific to your home state.

 

9) The creditor didn't break their contract with their customers in any way.

 

Consider this FCBA based credit repair approach...

 

"Dear XYZ, The Fair Credit Billing Act requires that you bill correctly, that each statement be sent to the correct address, that you not ignore change of address requests, and that you facilitate disputed charges in a manner prescribed by law. The Act also stipulates that you provide lawfully requested information concerning my account upon request in a timely manner. For that reason, forward a notarized statement on your letterhead which will attest to your compliance to the FCBA generally and to my account specifically throughout the period I have been a customer. Otherwise, delete the negative marks you have reported to the three consumer reporting agencies within the timely manner prescribed by law. Your prompt attention will be appreciated."

 

Remember my Creditor Heuristics... Anything that smacks of possible litigation makes creditors nervous. They just don't want to fool with you. They'd rather go attend to their business. A polite, calm, lawful request just gives 'em the willies.

 

Keep in mind that these sample FCBA approaches, like the Nutcase approach (especially Nutcase letter 1)... make no claims. They just look like they're written by somebody who calmly has it together and is about to escalate.

 

4myfuture> do you think this is true for student loan providers too??

 

PsychDoc> Yes, 4myfuture, definitely.

 

tmimages> what about medical bills?

 

PsychDoc> Yes... but you should also leverage HIPPA there.

 

DANCERAT APPROACH:

The NEXT creditor intervention in this vein is the Dancerat approach. Dancerat was a participant on another board. I don't think he or she ever registered on Creditboards, but I could be wrong. But Dancerat used a different tactic.

 

Unlike the Nutcase series... and unlike the FCBA approaches mentioned here... (and for that matter unlike the FCRA "prove it or lose it" approach I've described in previous sessions for credit bureaus)... Dancerat DOES make a claim. The Dancerat approach actually disputes certain aspects of the underlying debt, so this should be used carefully. Remember my byword: tell the truth.

 

Unlike the Nutcase series and Bauer's Knockout tactic which do not disclaim the original underlying debt, the DanceRat approach uses a "not mine" claim. Here is a link to the text for that interesting direct-to-creditor approach:

http://www.psychology.net/credit/dancerat.txt

 

BILL BAUER:

Next I want to mention another one that has achieved excellent results for many on the net. Dare I say the name... Bill Bauer? Bill is a cantankerous old coot. And I say that affectionately. But he wrote a VERY good direct-to-creditor intervention, and released it to the internet gratis -- which is unusual for him. He called it the "Knockout Letter". It's something like the Nutcase series in that it DOESN'T make a claim. (So in that regard it's diametrically opposite to the method Dancerat utilized.) Here's a link to the text for that:

http://www.psychology.net/credit/knockout.txt

 

The thread that connects all of these is... (and I hope someone here invents the next super intervention... the more, the better for all consumers) that they make a request for ACTION or DELETION

 

They may mention various laws... or even aspects of various laws... Some make a claim (i.e., "I was NOT LATE"), and some don't (i.e., "prove to me you have complied with the law; otherwise delete").

 

It really doesn't matter what silly names we've given to these different categories because YOU can write one even better. It pays to know the laws, of course... REVIEW the second lesson of this series... But after you have become familiar with the various consumer protection statutes... you'll be in a terrific position to improve upon these, or even trash them, lol, or come up with your own unique approach.

 

The division between... a) making a claim... versus b} not making a claim ... will remain of course. You have to decide what you're comfortable with.

 

THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTIONS:

Third-Party Interventions. This is where you essentially do what we shrinks always advise people not to do in their families TRIANGULATE.

 

Typically, creditors don't want to be embarrassed... They HATE it when consumers complain to...

1) the Federal Trade Commission...

2) The Better Business Bureau... and ...

3) Consumer web sites like PlanetFeedback.com (which I understand is back after a brief hiatus).

 

wayhigh> psych: is sending mail CMRRR so important? Because, you can always save $ by sending CM and then only requesting the signature if/when you need it

 

PsychDoc> wayhigh... lots of debate about that... For Nutcase, I love CMRRR, and I love NOTARIZED signatures because they spook creditors, LOL. It looks like a polite document that your lawyer prepared... but nothing's "required." Try it one way, then try it another. You'll see the gurus taking positions on all of that -- whether it should be CMRRR... or whether it should it be typed... or whether it should be hand-written... or sent with purple ink... etc. Lots of very smart people have opinions about all of that, and I'm not taking anything away from them by the way... Some make great points. I've just seen positive and negative results from just about every combination, so I'm not one who offers that kind of advice.

 

Thought I would clarify something regarding this seminar. Perhaps it's misnamed... "FCBA Street Fighting" implies that everything discussed would be related to the Fair Credit Billing Act. Actually, this particular lesson should have probably been titled "Creditor Street Fighting" -- because this installment centered upon several ways consumers can engage original creditors in order to improve their credit reports. The interventions discussed included... 1) Goodwill adjustments, 2) the Nutcase series, 3) Dancerat letters, 4) the Knockout letter, and 5) the FCBA Info Request.

 

Please note that I did not discuss the standard FCBA Billing Dispute, a consumer right invoked within 60 days where a particular charge is disputed. Rather, the FCBA Info Request I mentioned in the transcript carries no clock -- you can think of it as something like a "pre-dispute" or as "FCBA Nutcase," i.e., an intervention where account history is requested in order to persuade the creditor that a CRA deletion would be less troublesome than research. Does the FCBA Info Request hold weight in court? Almost certainly not, but neither does it risk a loss of rights either, and in any case the intervention has resulted in some very nice (dare I say "tasty"?) credit report deletions.

 

One might mind-map creditor interventions this way...

 

Note that basically there are three ways to proceed:

1) a creditor dispute (i.e., "not mine," "never late," or an FCBA Billing Dispute);

2) an info demand (i.e., "do a bunch of history for me while I stew on this, or delete"); or

3) a mea culpa (i.e., goodwill request). Note also that this is not an attempt to be inclusive -- the HIPPA intervention (which can either make a claim as in "You have violated my rights because..." or not as with "Provide a notarized statement attesting that you have not violated my rights under HIPPA..."), for example, was not elaborated during this beginner's overview.

 

I hope this clarifies. I wish I had made my intentions clearer regarding my referencing the FCBA.

[DirtyHowi]

i still say they should be called "gryf's notes" not cliff notes (i only print out these when gryf does em, after i read it all of course)

[snarf]

BUMP

 

any of these ...ehem... guidlines changed since 2005?

 

please and thankyou.

[goodwillguy]

The text files for the example letters are no longer working links. Are these stored somewhere else now?

[bigmami]

Hello, new and ignorant here--really don't know how to use foru...trying to see the letters Sir Pyschodoc said were posted. Can anyone help me?

[( o Y o )]

If you go to the main forums page and scroll down to the bottom, you'll see a link to the sample letters. Here's the link:

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showforum=18

[mi233623]

If you go to the main forums page and scroll down to the bottom, you'll see a link to the sample letters. Here's the link:

 

http://creditboards....hp?showforum=18

 

Thanks a lot! that link is like a database for "credit indemnification" (a term I coined lol sounds MUCH better than credit repair) letters.