CRA's have lost it!

I have sent certified mail to all three CRA's requiring VOD's almost to the letter following Jersee's example&quoting USC, the whole nine. Trans Union sends me a response today saying we have received a letter concerning your report that looks to be from a third party , therefore we cannot respond to it without a signed power of attorney from you. Nonetheless, it appears to be frivolous and irrelevant and& we will not take action against the dispute( but I never said I was disputing anything).&And &that at any rate if I feel any item on my report is inaccurate, I must DISPUTE IT and tell us why you feel the item is inaccurate. What gives? What can I do next?

[rushpat]

I sense a defense forming.

You probably should have varied it quite a bit from Jersee's format, as someone there might have recognized it and think it is a boiler plate form letter.

[wirlwind]

I'm having problems with the CRA's too.& They are saying that they have verified things, which I know they haven't.& The next letter that I'm going to snd them I am going to include Black's Law Dictionary- 6th edition definitionwhich says that verification must be an affidavit, sworn oath or deposition to be considered "verification" and request that they send me a copy of the signed affidavit/ sworn oath that they received from the CC company "verifying " that the debt was mine, and I will only given them 30 days- since I'm sure that they already have that on file.& do not let them goad you into agreeing to a dispute form.&Then you have entered into a contract that you don't want. &Keep requesting verification, and at some point&if they keep stalling then I will send them some sort of an affidavit that they will have to sign swearing that the info on my CRA is true and correct, and if they aren't willing to do that, then they will have to remove the questioned items.&


It seems like that everybody is getting different responses.& I've not heard one like yours before.


Remember- hold them to the law.& You are not disputing- you are requesting verification because you haven't been able to get that verification from the CC companies, and they are reporting unverified information on you.& And remember your definition of verification.& Copies of old CC transactions are not "verification". As Jersey would say- Don't argue- but keep hammering.& Don't give in.


Donna

[Jerseee]

Boxter,

Your situation is the exact reason why I am very reluctant to posting my documents.

It is not because I do not want to share what is and has worked for me but, the reason is that the system and people who run it--recognize things like this. boilerplate documents where a person just fills in their info on a template.

You may or may not get the reponse you desire. There is no easy way to do certain things. The best part of my method is that it challenges the individual to take control of a situation through their study. It is vital that you create a papertrail. It is more important that you do not get discouraged or flustered by their responses.

Our society has turned away from patience and acceptance; and turned to quick and/or instant gratification. Primarily because of the internet and other technology. So I can understand people when they get frustrated when the CRAs start playing games. This system is run and responded by humans afraid to sign their names to documents. This is why you keep a papertrail.

Now to get the results and responses desired, I challenge you to write a piece of correspondence that is:

1. precise
2. concise
3. direct
4. brief
5. cites the code(s)
6. non-argumentative

These are the keys that I use. Using this method exposes their intentions. As you can see they want you to do a dispute when you clearly did not dispute anything. This is the first step in their dishonor. If you stay on this course of honor and righteousness, the next level they will go to is willful non-compliance by asking you for information that they already have (delay tactic).

The bottom line to all of this is....all they have to do is verify the debt. If it is valid you accept it--if it is not they need to remove it. Keep your letters consistent with my method and you could have a claim against the CRAs if you wish to sue for willful non-compliance. As you have exhausted your means of remedy already through the use of the codes.

Good luck and take my challenge--it will only help you grow.

Do we need to challenge anything on our person's CR that is potentially good?

I had this question in another post, but it got deleted somehow?

[Jerseee]

HB,

It is up to you. If you desire the record reflect such things--then leave it alone. If not, then challenge it.

[suijuris]

Like Jerseee says, the most important thing is that you WRITE YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS. Stop and think about it - when the CRA's recieve documents that they do not understand, I can almost guarantee you that they are forwarded to the same employee or small group of employees whose sole job is to handle such documents.

So if you use boilerplate forms and letters, they will presume that you do not know what you are doing, and move on.

Regards
Sui Juris

Wait a minute.

Key Words: Third Party, Power of Attorney.

I can see where they may realize that you actually wrote the letter, not the STRAWMAN whose name the account is in, and thus they state that a third party wrote it, and ask for your power of attorney to respond. Hmmm

They may actually realize that WE have a pattern forming and that their time to scam is shorter by the day?

Don't know. Think about it.

[Jerseee]

HB,

To stay on track--have them prove their claim of a third party. In the meantime, you want certified verification not a philosophical debate on legal issues with someone who is afraid to sign their name to a piece of correspondence to you.

Stay on track! Certified Verification--nothing else. this is not a dispute--it is a demand or request (whichever you prefer) for certified verification!

If we are not talking about verification then there is no need of discussing anything else. take this stand and do not leave it. Or you will end up in a dispute and won't even know how you got there.

Roger that Jerseee. I was just speculating on why they may have said that. I understand I have to keep my eye on the ball and not the chick in the halter in the first row of right field.