DISPUTING VS VERIFYING THE DEBT - CLARIFICATION

Well, I know many of you strongly discourage *disputing* the debt when drafting VOD letters but, in my opinion, I really think this is a nonissue.



Generally, when you place an account in dispute, you are questioning the completeness or accuracy of the account's information as stated on your credit report. Three common disputes include Validation Disputes (i.e. VODs), disputes as to amount of the debt, and disputes relating to the account's payment history.



Therefore, it is very important to specify the nature of your dispute when disputing an account and when communicating with CRAs and Debt Collectors. It should be noted that someone cannot concede that an account is valid merely by placing an account under *dispute*. See 15 USC 1692(g)(c), Admission of Liability, which states * The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.* In other words, even if you dispute the amount owed on a particular account, you can always dispute the validity of the debt at a later time.



Therefore, when drafting your VODs, always indiate that you are disputing the VALIDITY of the debt!!! This starts the CRAs' 30 day reinvestigation process. Otherwise, the CRAs may reject your VOD as being frivilous or bogus. See 15 USC 1681(i) (3)(A), Determination that dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, which states * Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a consumer reporting agency may terminate a reinvestigation of information disputed by a consumer under that paragraph if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.*



I've attached other provisions of 15 USC 1681(i) relating to the reinvestigation process. Read it several times and become one with this!!





15 USC 1681(i) (a)(3)(A) a) Reinvestigations of disputed information

(1) Reinvestigation required

(A) In general

If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.



(5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information

(A) In general

If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any

information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the

reinvestigation.

( B ) Requirements relating to reinsertion of previously deleted material

(i) Certification of accuracy of information

If any information is deleted from a consumer's file

pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may not be

reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency

unless the person who furnishes the information certifies

that the information is complete and accurate.



(ii) Notice to consumer

If any information that has been deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A) is reinserted in the file, the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized by the consumer for

that purpose, by any other means available to the agency.



(d) Notification of deletion of disputed information

Following any deletion of information which is found to be

inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified or any notation as to disputed information, the consumer reporting agency shall, at the request of the consumer, furnish notification that the item has been deleted or the statement, codification or summary pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section to any person specifically designated by the consumer who has within two years prior thereto received a consumer report for employment purposes, or within six months prior thereto received a consumer report for any other purpose, which contained the deleted or disputed information.

[Jerseee]

Cute chick,



How can you dispute anything that you are not sure of?



How can you dispute an alleged debt?



You see, the act of disputing implies validity. Now if you just tell the CRAs to investigate the validity of the alleged debt so you can properly satisfy the alleged claim or address the fraud--then they have to do their investigation process.



Try not ot buy too much what they are selling. They always push the term "dispute" everywhere in their docs and on their website. But they never push the avergae JOE in forcing them to do an investigations before disputing an alleged debt.



Make them do their job first......INVESTIGATION. Then proceed from there.

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b] This bank/credit thing is definitely NOT an arena I''ve stepped into due to my current IRS issue, but I will say the Verification plus the PN upon proof SEEMS like it is[*]more in line w/conditional acceptance[*]Not arguing[*]Not reliant on the statutory sandbox and is more open to common law remedy

[charlesa6]

Given the collector 21 days to respond for verification of alleged debt. Upon receiving your green card the days stated ticking including sathurday and sunday or not. How the days count before you file default for not responding to your request.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Cute chick,



How can you dispute anything that you are not sure of?



How can you dispute an alleged debt?



You see, the act of disputing implies validity. Now if you just tell the CRAs to investigate the validity of the alleged debt so you can properly satisfy the alleged claim or address the fraud--then they have to do their investigation process.



Try not ot buy too much what they are selling. They always push the term "dispute" everywhere in their docs and on their website. But they never push the avergae JOE in forcing them to do an investigations before disputing an alleged debt.



Make them do their job first......INVESTIGATION. Then proceed from there.

Jerseee I respectfully disagree. It appears that many of you are hung up on the word *Dispute* rather than the word or words that follows dispute. All that I am saying here is that some disputes *i.e. Validation disputes* trigger the reinvestigation process and forces the CRAs to get off their duffs and do their jobs with respect to determining whether the debt actually exists. Others disputes just verify the amount of the alleged debt or the payment history on the alleged account.



In any event, even if one makes a mistake and disputes the amount or payment history of an alleged account, this is NOT a fatal error because, 15 USC 1692(g)(c), clearly states * The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.* In other words, even if you dispute the amount owed on a particular account, you can always dispute the validity of the debt at a later time. So no Jerseee, the mere act of disputing does not imply validity because, 15 USC 1692(g)(c) prevents such implication.



I've provided the statutory citations as proof to what I am saying.

Originally Posted by cute_chick

Jerseee I respectfully disagree. It appears that many of you are hung up on the word *Dispute* rather than the word or words that follows dispute. All that I am saying here is that some disputes *i.e. Validation disputes* trigger the reinvestigation process and forces the CRAs to get off their duffs and do their jobs with respect to determining whether the debt actually exists. Others disputes just verify the amount of the alleged debt or the payment history on the alleged account.



In any event, even if one makes a mistake and disputes the amount or payment history of an alleged account, this is NOT a fatal error because, 15 USC 1692(g)(c), clearly states * The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.* In other words, even if you dispute the amount owed on a particular account, you can always dispute the validity of the debt at a later time. So no Jerseee, the mere act of disputing does not imply validity because, 15 USC 1692(g)(c) prevents such implication.



I've provided the statutory citations as proof to what I am saying.

INTERESTING POINT OF VIEW. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS THAT IF YOU DISPUTE YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING. WHY ARGUE ABOUT SOME ALLEGED ACCOUNT THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE VALID.



THE CRA'S HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED ACCOUNT IS VALID THEN YOU CAN DISPUTE THE AMOUNT, PAY HISTORY, ETC.

[Jerseee]

Cute chick,



I have seen your posts and seen your research--excellent job! However, think of this....why dispute anything?



Why not investigate first--before disputing anything, in any form or fashion of the term "dispute"?



I know what you are saying and I know of your research. I've been down that road before and I am speaking from experience--not just code.



I admire and applaud your research--but I have successes and others have successes using my method. I was only offering what worked for me and others. I know there are many ways to exact the code--I was just sharing my success as I have with others.



Just giving you options, that's all.

Jersee and PJ:



Guys I'm not saying that your views are wrong (actually I agree with both of you) and I think that, at the end of the day, we will all reach the same place - that is discharging our debts through the court system. However, because we are using the court system to discharge our debts, we must correctly apply the rules of law provided to us to our benefit.



In any event, all that I am saying is that the word *dispute* alone does not necessarily mean *validation* or automatic acceptance of a bogus debt, according to the rules of law (FDCPA) and it's OK to tell the CRAs that you are *Disputing the VALIDITY of an Alleged Debt* to trigger the reinvestigation process. And although the word dispute means to challenge or argue, we ARE arguing whether you like it or not! Yes there are ways to assert your rights without sounding aggressive or argumentative but, nevertheless, you are still presenting a legal argument to assert your legal rights (i.e. to discharge a bogus debt).



Anytime you assert your rights in this court system (be it in court or through settlement negotiations) you are arguing for some cause (i.e. to discharge a bogus debt in our cases). Otherwise, the judge will probably dismiss your claim for lack of a live controversy. The courts, especially Federal Courts, only have jurisdiction over a matter if there is FIRST a live controversy (i.e. an argument or a dispute) between the parties. A Federal Court may not Constitutionally issue an academic advisory opinion to parties who are not adversely connected in some way . . . . .



This is just my take on this.

[Jerseee]

cute chick,



its good we agree on the outcome but, let me tell you from experience---dispute means what it means. look it up. Now investigate does not mean dispute--it is part of the verification process. You cannot verify something you are disputing. By the very means of your dispute means that there is some validity to it since you never demanded verification--you went straight into a dispute.



There is no possible way to validate a dispute--you can only settle a matter with a dispute (unless there is a discovery phase), but even with that--one wastes time going through that BS.



Do an investigation first then discuss the results. The word "re-investigate" should tip one off that they didn't do something right the first time.



So can you dispute something that may or may not be valid?

Originally Posted by Jerseee

cute chick,



its good we agree on the outcome but, let me tell you from experience---dispute means what it means. look it up. Now investigate does not mean dispute--it is part of the verification process. You cannot verify something you are disputing. By the very means of your dispute means that there is some validity to it since you never demanded verification--you went straight into a dispute.



There is no possible way to validate a dispute--you can only settle a matter with a dispute (unless there is a discovery phase), but even with that--one wastes time going through that BS.



Do an investigation first then discuss the results. The word "re-investigate" should tip one off that they didn't do something right the first time.



So can you dispute something that may or may not be valid?

Well OK Jerseee obviously we disagree over the word *dispute* so let's just agree to disagree on this one.



In any event, I wrote my first VOD to the CRAs and I used your VOD as a guide Jerseee. I didn't use the word *dispute* and I hope I still got my point across about wanting Certified Verification. Please critique my letter.