Response from Trans Union

[seeker]

Received a response from TransUnion yesterday regarding my request for validation/verification -- they indicated they would investigate my "dispute" -- I never mentioned any thing about a dispute!& Just asked that they verify the information contained in the report as well as the two "new" accounts that have been "opened" since Jan 1 -- neither of which I had authorized nor had knowledge of!& Seems to old creditors, one the bank who formerly held our mortgage, and one a credit card who had written off our account r/t verify to me -- have created "new" accounts.& I am not quite sure how to deal with these two things or with whom.& They are quite perplexing and have just been listed on our report in the last 30-45 days.& Maybe they needed more operating money and ran our notes through again hoping not to be noticed?& hmmm.


Anyway, how do I handle Transunion's declaration that they are"investigating my dispute", when I did not issue such a challenge?


&


Thanks.


&


Seeker

if you want to respond to trans union, don't argue whether you are disputing, simply say something like&"thanks for working to aquire the necessary verification..."


can't really answer for the others, but maybe an inquiry to the organisations would be in order...


that's what i'd do...


jon

Jon's right. Don't get caught up in the semantics-thing. They're using "dispute," you're saying "verify." From their point of view, of course, simply by asking for "verification" you are, in the strictest sense, "disputing" the information they have.


Think of "verify" as one-step beyond "dispute."


And remember:


IF they say it's "verified," demand to see their "evidence." Also, they WILL add your comments to each account. So "comment" away. (E.G.: Consumer has no verification of this alleged debt. Etc.)


If they can't verify it, contact the original alleged debtor and start demanding verification from them and use the "evidence" from the CRA to support your position.


Stuff like that.....


Randy

[Jerseee]

Seeker,


You have just witnessed the beauty of redemption and the execution of one's freedom.& Jon and Randy go about this situation in a different way but want the same results.& This is what it is all about--standing on your own square and ascerting your position--not defending it.


My position is this...I would want my position clear and unambigious. I did not "dispute anything", I want verification.& There is a very BIG difference between disputing an alleged debt and proving an alleged debt.


When you are disputing--you are disagreeing with the terms of the contract or agreement.


When you want verification, you want unmitigated proof that the agreement even exists.& You are not denying or confirming the alleged debt--you want to make sure the agreement is valid so that you may satisfy the alleged debt.


This is the difference&between 'dispute' and 'verification'.& This is why I always preach 'never argue' because when you argue you are now 'disputing' the terms of the contract/agreement and not focusing on the validity of the agreement.& Therefore, you have accepted the burden of proof of an alleged claim.


This is my position.

IF they say it's "verified," demand to see their "evidence."


That's what I'm waiting for: the evidence.& If they don't get a person's&name then, to me, &it's not evidence.&


Also, they WILL add your comments to each account. So "comment" away. (E.G.: Consumer has no verification of this alleged debt. Etc.)


In my opinion, comments are worthless. I had comments on my credit report for years and it made no difference in my credit score,& the&offers I&got, or the annual&percentage rate I was offered. None whatsoever.


Having no verification of an alleged debt doesn't mean the debt doesn't exist.& It just means that you were unable to get verification.If the debt really isnt' yours,& you would fight until it was taken off.


&


&


&

I received a response from TransUnion today regarding the business names and address of how they verified the liens.& They said they verified them with the Alameda County Recorder's office.&


They said:


TransUnion's procedure for investigating disputed information is to contact, by mail or telephone the course of teh information.& Each source is advised of your dispute and is requested to verify the accuracy and/or completness of the information reported.


Once the the verification responses are received, the disputed inforamtion is updated accordingly.& Changes are reflected on the updated credit report that is sent to you a the conclusion of our investigation. If you have any questions regarding the results of the investiation please contact the creditors directly.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


My credit report also says Franchise Tax Board&made an inquiry into my credit&report on&3/4/04. &Can they do that???They really want to know where I am working alright.& How intrusive CAN YOU GET?


&I don't know what I am going to do about TransUnion.& I didn't know they didn't have to go to the source to verify tax liens.


&

The credit report actually&says that the inquiry (FTB made)&isn't displayed to anyone but me and will not affect any creditor's decision or any score (except insurance companies may have access to other insruance company inquiries)


I am still PISSED!&They are so damn nosey.& WHY DON'T THEY GO AFTER&SOMEBODY WITH MONEY.& I HAVE NONE!


&

[RICKY]

[quote= Tora]


<FONT size=1>WHY DON'T THEY GO AFTER&SOMEBODY WITH MONEY.& I HAVE NONE!</FONT>


maybe because it's easier to get a little bit of money from the millions of "debtors"&out there who don't have enough money to fight the system with lawyers, or the knowledge to do it themselves, than to go after the real money people?


i think i understand the shear billions of $$ they are dealing with in the small amounts each of us has.& <FONT size=6>VOLUME....</FONT>


WHAT DO YOU THINK?


RICKY

[rushpat]

I wonder if there is a method in the FDRA or similar wherein we can direct the CRAs not to release our credit reports to specific entities?

That could be a way to frustrate collection activities by the tax thieves.


Maybe the answer could be found in the FCRA:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm

I'm too tired to look right now. More tomorrow.

maybe because it's easier to get a little bit of money from the millions of "debtors"&out there who don't have enough money to fight the system with lawyers, or the knowledge to do it themselves, than to go after the real money people?


Well, they are going&after the WRONG person, because I have the KNOWLEDGE&to do it myself.& Maybe&because&I have so much KNOWLEDGE&they think I have MONEY.


i think i understand the shear billions of $$ they are dealing with in the small amounts each of us has.&


<FONT size=6>VOLUME....</FONT>



WHAT DO YOU THINK?


I think& you are&right,&but I still don't&know why think they can get any money from me.& I haven't paid them a&dime for&6 years.& I&protest every single&year and I am getting better and better at it each and every year!&