[seeker]

I think that you have the right to know what process they use for "verification". The one think I learned from reading that Johnson v MBNA case was the shoddy way verification is handled via the CC -- they check the CIS and if your name, address and phone number are correct, they type in the amount that they say you owe them (from the last statement, I assume, and send it off the the CRA as "verified". Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is NOT verified! I could go to a phone book and do that kind of "verification" all day long!

When I received info back from one of th eCRAs, they included the name of the COMPANY, the address of the COMPANY and the Phone number, again of the COMPANY, to enable ME to verify the debt. Now first, it ain't my job to verify the info THEY are reporting as true and correct. Seccond, this is not what I requested from them. I requested the name of the living soul who verified the information -- who looked at the contract and my signature and then requested that soul's contact info -- name, reachable at what address and what direct phone number. I also requested knowledge of the PROCESS used to obtain the verification. The law states the certified verification is required or the entry is to be deleted. Check Black's for verification --



Verified Copy: means- “Copy of document which is shown by independent evidence to be true. A copy, if successive witness trace the original into the hands of a witness who made or compared the copy. See: Nu Car Carriers v. Treynor, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 125 F.2d 47, 48.”



Verification; means- “Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party. See Sheeley v. City of Santa Clara, 215 Cal.App.2d 83, 30 Cal.Rptr. 121,123. Sworn or equivalent confirmation of truth…In accounting, the process of substantiating entries in books of account.”



Hold their feet to the fire. I had very favorable response from TU, but the other two just sent a copy of the report -- one did a short investigation on items I specifically highlighted as questionable entries -- but I did NOT state that I disputed them. Only said these entries were questionable and should be verifed or removed. If they were verified, I should be provided with the verification in order to take the next necessary step in case fraud was found to exist.

Now I have Fraud alerts on all accounts and they have supposedly sent dispute letters to all listed on their reports. At no time did I say I wished to dispute any of the entires, only that I wanted them (CRA) to verify the entries that they were reporting as true and correct.

What do you suppose the ramifications are for the CRA generated Dispute letters? I suddenly have two CC calling me with "important matter to discuss. call back immediately." Yeah, I'm all over that!



Just my wooden nickel's worth of input!



Seeker