[suijuris]

Originally Posted by ThinkingWolf

SuiJuris:


"If the other Credit Reporting Agencies can not verify these records, then neither can you."


I am a complete novice here but I don't believe that you can say this as fact - as it seems you are. Symantics, logic... is it not possible that the particular agency you are addressing has just a slightly different verification process, or perhaps an "improved" process. How can you know exactly, right now, what their process does or does not do?


Very minor, but it seems that all this correspondence should be as precise as practical, no?


ThinkingWolf

Verification. Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party. Blacks 6th Ed.

The point is this: Based on the definition of verification, we know that none exists. Do you really believe that the credit card company or debt collector sent an affidavit with their signature, verifying the debt? NO!

The idea is to let the know that WE KNOW no verification exists, that the other CRAs know this and have corrected their records, and that the recipient of this letter is the last man standing, so to speak. Do they really want to assume liability for information none of the other CRAs will report?

Maybe it would be better to change that sentence to:

"It is beyond me why you would risk suit by reporting inaccurate and/or unverified information - information that other Credit Reporting Agencies have determined to be inaccurate."

It is important that you guys remember that this is just an experiment. I am not recommending that anyone send this letter or anything like it. But I will be sending it and try to keep everyone abreast of any developments.

Regards,
Sui Juris