Does anybody have a something to go off of for a 623 letter. I know it's suppose to be short & sweet and in my own words, but I have no idea where to start. Help!! Thanks.
Creditor or the collection agency is the information furnisher. They retain a particular information for 12-18 months. After that if you ask for that particular information, they may not be able to provide you with it. If they are not able to provide you with it, they are bound to remove those listings from your report. You can dispute the listings with them. This is known as the 623 dispute.
Generally, the 623 dispute is done with the original creditor. However, in this forum, there is no sample 623 dispute letter. You can check out for a 623 dispute sample letter from other websites. For more details regarding 623 dispute, you can refer to http://www.creditmagic.org/repair/about9714.html .
Have you tried to google the letter, you may get some good results that way. hope you can find what you need.
Also, is there a dispute form on the credit report pages, I thought you could dispute a debt directly there and then the credit reporting agency would follow through with the complaint?
I am anti form letter. I think someone said form letters get form responses.
what I suggest is that you look at this section of law so you can quote it and then ask the creditor to provide records that document the negatives you want to remove. If you have some evidence that disputes their reporting, provided it.
If you find one though you can use it as an example and then personalize it right?
sometimes, I just have no clue where to begin on these letters so I will google it just to get an idea on what it's content should be and use it as guidance.
I never even heard of this type of letter before. I think looking at an example would provide a good starting point. It does not have to go word for word but it would give a person an idea of where to start. A lot of us are not really knowledgable in this department. We know the rules but when it comes to letters or other things most of us depend on advice from the more knowledgable sources.
Hi, I agree that a form letter is not a great idea because it generally shows itself as such when sent given that lack of personalization which is a significant temptation when it comes to using one.
However, I do think it would be beneficial to have a list of the content of such a letter since it seems there should be certain elements to it. So maybe a quote of the 623 section of the FCRA, how it applies to the creditor in general (e.g. as a creditor) and what specifically you want them to furnish when they investigate.
That is actually one area I am unclear on. If you want them to investigate and furnish something, which they have to do as I understand it based on §623, you should be relatively specific about what you want investigated.
That said, you don't want to be too specific if the purpose of doing a 623 dispute is to remove negative marks from creditors based on your belief that the creditor with whom you are disputing does not have the records to back things up. This is the loophole that makes a 623 dispute work, as I understand it.
Creditors often list the point at which your payments became overdue and list a balance history up until that point. If this time period is relatively recent, I would imagine the creditor still has decent records.
So it would seem to me that there needs to be certain things they should have in their records to back up the very basic reporting they do (e.g. 90 days past due for $333 or something to that effect) that you can ask for that they probably won't have.
The catch, though, there, would seem to be that it has to be something related to backing up the very basic information they list. So I guess you could ask for something like a copy of each bill statement from the time the account went past due showing the interest incurred because you do not believe the account was past due at whatever point it went past due and therefore the interest incurred from that point on would be off in number.
I don't know for sure, though. Does this sound about right? Any thoughts on what types of things to request investigation and production of back-up/proof records on?
I should add to this (paragraph four) that the reason one would not want to be too specific is that this removes the burden to produce massive amounts of records and thereby lessens the chance the creditor cannot produce these in 30 days (the latter which leads to your negative mark getting removed). The only time it would make sense to dispute something very specific would be if you have incontrovertible proof it is reported in error and that due to this you know the creditor cannot possible produce a record that substantiates it.
I should add to this (paragraph four) that the reason one would not want to be too specific is that this removes the burden to produce massive amounts of records and thereby lessens the chance the creditor cannot produce these in 30 days (the latter which leads to your negative mark getting removed). The only time it would make sense to dispute something very specific would be if you have incontrovertible proof it is reported in error and that due to this you know the creditor cannot possible produce a record that substantiates it.
Cinnamngrl, I've been meaning to let you know that the debt validation method you lay out is fantastic. I sent a letter requesting debt validation to five collection agencies and not a single one could produce the records to validate the debt. I asked for a substantial amount of proof, and made sure to list that not providing this within 30 days violated the law in x, y, z ways, but it turns out that whether than even try to validate using info they have they just removed the negative marks I cited as illegal. Moreover, they have not contacted me, even after the 30 day period, so I assume that (as you note) they are trying to pass the debt on to another collection agency, with whom (as you note) I can just repeat the process with. No need for pay-for-delete yet, and next creditor I can probably just negotiate a settlement payment with, with either a pay-for-delete clause or an agreement not to report the debt so long as I abide by the terms of payment I set up with them, or something like that. If they give it back to the original creditor, I'll do the pay-for-delete with them, and can forget the 623. So it all works out, and your advice is just great.
There seems to be one issue with a 623 dispute. I've read the law under this section and it appears that the original creditor only has a duty to report the results of an investigation requested pursuant to 623 to the CRA, and not the consumer. Is this correct?
If there is no duty to report the results of the 623 investigation to the consumer then I do not see how a 623 investigation would actually work.
I've already disputed online with CRA, and I understand this must occur first for a 623 directly with the OC or tradeline furnisher, but where under § 623 does it state the OC must provide results of the dispute to the consumer?
Or is the tactic to go to the OC and request investigation and then, when they do not produce records that back up what they have told the CRA, send a letter to the CRA stating the OC did not have records to backup what the CRA lists and therefore you are wondering how the CRA can list it when the furnisher can't back it up?....
(Which would by why they advice on another website to dispute through the CRA first -- so you can go to the OC and come back to the CRA when the OC cannot back it up and say to the CRA that they erroneously told you it was backed up because the OC couldn't produce the records substantiating what's reported by the CRA)?
(1) Dispute through a CRA (Experian is easy to do this through).
(2) Once the CRA verifies their reporting is correct and cites the FCRA, go to the OC and, in bringing the 623 dispute/requesting investigation, cite something you know the OC can't back up.
(3) If the OC cannot or does not produce records backing up what you request they do so regarding, go back to the CRA and report that OC cannot substantiate what they report so it wondering how CRA validated tradeline and so negative mark with info not substantiated pursuant to your request to OC must be removed.
Please join credit magic. That way when I respond you get notice. Also, you will get magic points for all this typing. So there is no 30 day time limit for the CA to respond to your DV. You had a 30 day time limit to send the DV letter from the time you received their dunning letter. Of course many people never receive this letter.
Ok, I have received the electronic signature notifications from all of my DV letters I have sent. In the DV letters I also included cease & desist paragraphs. I have still been getting phone calls from one of them (been about 3 days since receipt). Is there a rule that states how long they can keep calling me after receipt of the cease & desist w/ DV. I thought they had to stop all collection activity until they validate..
OK. what kind of C&D paragraphs? telling them to cease and desist means don't talk to me anymore except to sue. Do you want them to sue? if you want them to stop calling you need to inform them that they calls are inconvenient and they are invading their privacy.
They have to stop calling you upon receipt. These calls are violations.
Calling you is a collection activity. you need to use call trace with the phone company.
I wrote exact words: "You must be aware that until you validate this debt, you can neither continue collection activities (including phone calls) nor report this information on my credit report".
Re debt validation letters, I think I understand what you're saying:
So there is the 30-day window from the time you are notified of the debt that you must abide by in sending the letter but there is not a 30- day window in which the CA must respond to debt validation.
The debt validation letters I sent did not state a time period for response required, however did state that until the debt was validated according to the various forms of validation requested, a listing of the CA on my credit report constituted fraud in violation of federal and state law as well as the following: Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Defamation of Character.
All 5 negative marks from the CA's were removed within a few weeks. I have yet to hear from either another CA or the OC. It's been about 6 weeks since the letters were sent.
With respect to not receiving a letter notifying re the debt, if a consumer claims never to have received one I doubt the CA is going to take time to dispute that and risk violating the law by listing the debt as a negative when debt validation has been requested.
Hi, I still have several questions re the 623 investigation procedure.
(1) I've read over the FCRA, §623, and do not see mention of the right to directly request this of the OC's.
The CRA can investigate on a consumer's behalf once a dispute is submitted to the CRA through online or written dispute, however nowhere in the act do I see that the consumer can write to do this directly with the OC.
Where is the law that supports this latter right?
(2) I understand the technique is to go back to the CRA and, assuming one does not receive documentation pursuant to a 623 investigation request of the OC (assuming this can even happen), ask the CRA how they verified it if the OC cannot properly do so.
But how can this work if the OC is under no legal obligation to investigate per the consumer's request?
If no legal obligation to produce or provide proof exists, the consumer could ask for a blank piece of paper from the OC, not get it, and not be entitled to any remedy because there was no legal obligation on the part of the OC to produce anything pursuant to a 623 request from the consumer in the first place.
(3) If (1) is in fact possible, what things might a consumer request the OC investigate and provide proof of?
I really think if these three questions cannot be answered, 623 is not being interpreted correctly in the advice-giving.
I wrote exact words: "You must be aware that until you validate this debt, you can neither continue collection activities (including phone calls) nor report this information on my credit report".
Then I quoted FTC.
To DIEM, well thank goodness this is not from a c&d but a DV letter and it is very clear that they are knowingly violating.
The FACT Act (HR 2622) was signed into law by President Bush in December 2003. Officially titled the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, the FACT Act incorporates and extends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which had preemption provisions due to expire in December 2003. The new Act also aims to:
* Prevent identity theft,
* Improve the resolution of consumer disputes,
* Improve the accuracy of consumer records, and
* Make improvements in the use of, and consumer access to, credit information.
§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies
[15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]
(a) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information
(8) Ability of Consumer to Dispute Information Directly with Furnisher
(A) In general. The Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration,
and the Commission shall jointly prescribe regulations that
shall identify the circumstances under which a furnisher shall be required to
reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of information contained in
a consumer report on the consumer, based on a direct request of a consumer.
Hi, I still have several questions re the 623 investigation procedure.
(1) I've read over the FCRA, §623, and do not see mention of the right to directly request this of the OC's.
The CRA can investigate on a consumer's behalf once a dispute is submitted to the CRA through online or written dispute, however nowhere in the act do I see that the consumer can write to do this directly with the OC.
Where is the law that supports this latter right?
(2) I understand the technique is to go back to the CRA and, assuming one does not receive documentation pursuant to a 623 investigation request of the OC (assuming this can even happen), ask the CRA how they verified it if the OC cannot properly do so.
But how can this work if the OC is under no legal obligation to investigate per the consumer's request?
If no legal obligation to produce or provide proof exists, the consumer could ask for a blank piece of paper from the OC, not get it, and not be entitled to any remedy because there was no legal obligation on the part of the OC to produce anything pursuant to a 623 request from the consumer in the first place.
(3) If (1) is in fact possible, what things might a consumer request the OC investigate and provide proof of?
I really think if these three questions cannot be answered, 623 is not being interpreted correctly in the advice-givingHi, I still have several questions re the 623 investigation procedure.
(1) I've read over the FCRA, §623, and do not see mention of the right to directly request this of the OC's.
The CRA can investigate on a consumer's behalf once a dispute is submitted to the CRA through online or written dispute, however nowhere in the act do I see that the consumer can write to do this directly with the OC.
Where is the law that supports this latter right?
(2) I understand the technique is to go back to the CRA and, assuming one does not receive documentation pursuant to a 623 investigation request of the OC (assuming this can even happen), ask the CRA how they verified it if the OC cannot properly do so.
But how can this work if the OC is under no legal obligation to investigate per the consumer's request?
If no legal obligation to produce or provide proof exists, the consumer could ask for a blank piece of paper from the OC, not get it, and not be entitled to any remedy because there was no legal obligation on the part of the OC to produce anything pursuant to a 623 request from the consumer in the first place.
(3) If (1) is in fact possible, what things might a consumer request the OC investigate and provide proof of?
I really think if these three questions cannot be answered, 623 is not being interpreted correctly in the advice-giving
So it is 623 (a) 8 (B) that says you can dispute directly with the furnisher. for some reason they copy a cool smiley.
here are the circumstance that define a properdispute
(B) Considerations. In prescribing regulations under subparagraph (A), the
agencies shall weigh--
(i) the benefits to consumers with the costs on furnishers and the credit
reporting system;
(ii) the impact on the overall accuracy and integrity of consumer reports of
any such requirements;
(iii) whether direct contact by the consumer with the furnisher would likely
result in the most expeditious resolution of any such dispute; and
(iv) the potential impact on the credit reporting process if credit repair
organizations, as defined in section 403(3) [15 U.S.C. §1679a(3)],
including entities that would be a credit repair organization, but for
section 403(3)(B)(i), are able to circumvent the prohibition in
subparagraph (G).
(C) Applicability. Subparagraphs (D) through (G) shall apply in any circumstance
identified under the regulations promulgated under subparagraph
(A).
(D) Submitting a notice of dispute- A consumer who seeks to dispute the
accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such
person at the address specified by the person for such notices that--
(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;
(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and
(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to
substantiate the basis of the dispute.
(E) Duty of person after receiving notice of dispute. After receiving a notice of
dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that
provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall--
(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;
July 30, 2004 73
(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the
results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the
period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting
agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had
elected to dispute the information under that section; and
(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate,
promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person
furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide
to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to
make the information provided by the person accurate.
What you are refer.. to is a Validation Letter that the Orginal Creditor or an account letter that you are able to see with any credit line of you payment activity....It shows your payment history and the balance due............gee...I guess I need to need not ask a question since no one seems to know....when this Validation of dept is sent to the c/c and the orginal credit include a cc copy to the attorney general certified and let them get it on with the c/c
Just some advise you might do. One sent them a certified letter to one the C/A the orginal creditor, and the Attorney General in our state for Comsumer Complaint.
Sent the a validation letter to vertify the debt., to cease and decease collection activity, to remove the debt from your negative report. , call them and make arrangement to pay to delete. Sent them a letter certified if you wan to go that route., C/C Attorney General for Consumer complaints., you will see some action. Also sent c/c to Credit Breau............you wlll see some action frm all of them. They don't like dealing with attorney general........its like the people who owe child support, alimony etc.
internet dating relieson quick decisions: Singles swipe right or left, good or bad, within seconds of seeing a profile. Andonce you complement someone, weren't dating apps, the clock is ticking.
Hingeis the particular app to add time limits; Aftera rival, Users have 24 hours to start a contact or the match disappears. if so start chatting, Youonly have 14 days before your discussion vanishes. Bumble also puts a 24 hour refrain from on that initial hello; JSwipe matches subside after 18 days if no one says hello; And Tinder meets or exceeds never expire.
latest research by, I speech with Karen Fein, Hinge's vice chairman of marketing, About the business's decision to add time limits. Fein said the change wasabout instilling some "Urgency straight from the gate, But it's also about giving a resort if you missed your opportunity the first time, If you do match and don't start a verbal exchanges, game will go back into your pool, furnishing you with another chance to match again, Later down the line.
Will time limits give users that extra momentum to completely meet up in person? Eli Finkel, A social psycho therapist at Northwestern University, senses so.
"These time limits are an excellent idea, Finkel wrote in an e mail. "like in other domains, Making something scarce tends to add to its value. That's why entrepreneurs pitch products with a 'limited time offer.' The fact that that match will become unavailable soon will tend to make him or her more appealing to you. Just as notable, It will increase the likelihood that you initiate contact,
After Hingeinstituted thetime decreases this month, you're able to send data scientist noticed behavior on the app had changed: with the first week, There was a 70 percent trend of chats started, And a50 increase in how often matches exchanged mobile.
regardless of if they russian sexy girls match on an app with time limits, Online daters prefer to meet upright. in order to a recent survey of 1,500 users on Happn, A location based dating app that does not puttime limits on its matches, 88 percent of women waited up to a week before going on a date, While 63 percent of men wanted to meet in person within a day or two or less. other than that,63 percent of men get intoa romantic within a month of dating, While 55 percent of women waitup to twomonths prior to things official.
sample 623 letter
Hi Diem,
Creditor or the collection agency is the information furnisher. They retain a particular information for 12-18 months. After that if you ask for that particular information, they may not be able to provide you with it. If they are not able to provide you with it, they are bound to remove those listings from your report. You can dispute the listings with them. This is known as the 623 dispute.
Generally, the 623 dispute is done with the original creditor. However, in this forum, there is no sample 623 dispute letter. You can check out for a 623 dispute sample letter from other websites. For more details regarding 623 dispute, you can refer to http://www.creditmagic.org/repair/about9714.html .
Have you tried to google the letter, you may get some good results that way. hope you can find what you need.
Also, is there a dispute form on the credit report pages, I thought you could dispute a debt directly there and then the credit reporting agency would follow through with the complaint?
I am anti form letter. I think someone said form letters get form responses.
what I suggest is that you look at this section of law so you can quote it and then ask the creditor to provide records that document the negatives you want to remove. If you have some evidence that disputes their reporting, provided it.
If you find one though you can use it as an example and then personalize it right?
sometimes, I just have no clue where to begin on these letters so I will google it just to get an idea on what it's content should be and use it as guidance.
read the law and write your own. I wrote on this for ehow
I never even heard of this type of letter before. I think looking at an example would provide a good starting point. It does not have to go word for word but it would give a person an idea of where to start. A lot of us are not really knowledgable in this department. We know the rules but when it comes to letters or other things most of us depend on advice from the more knowledgable sources.
my how to link has some referrals
623 Dispute Letter
Hi, I agree that a form letter is not a great idea because it generally shows itself as such when sent given that lack of personalization which is a significant temptation when it comes to using one.
However, I do think it would be beneficial to have a list of the content of such a letter since it seems there should be certain elements to it. So maybe a quote of the 623 section of the FCRA, how it applies to the creditor in general (e.g. as a creditor) and what specifically you want them to furnish when they investigate.
That is actually one area I am unclear on. If you want them to investigate and furnish something, which they have to do as I understand it based on §623, you should be relatively specific about what you want investigated.
That said, you don't want to be too specific if the purpose of doing a 623 dispute is to remove negative marks from creditors based on your belief that the creditor with whom you are disputing does not have the records to back things up. This is the loophole that makes a 623 dispute work, as I understand it.
Creditors often list the point at which your payments became overdue and list a balance history up until that point. If this time period is relatively recent, I would imagine the creditor still has decent records.
So it would seem to me that there needs to be certain things they should have in their records to back up the very basic reporting they do (e.g. 90 days past due for $333 or something to that effect) that you can ask for that they probably won't have.
The catch, though, there, would seem to be that it has to be something related to backing up the very basic information they list. So I guess you could ask for something like a copy of each bill statement from the time the account went past due showing the interest incurred because you do not believe the account was past due at whatever point it went past due and therefore the interest incurred from that point on would be off in number.
I don't know for sure, though. Does this sound about right? Any thoughts on what types of things to request investigation and production of back-up/proof records on?
623 Dispute Letter
I should add to this (paragraph four) that the reason one would not want to be too specific is that this removes the burden to produce massive amounts of records and thereby lessens the chance the creditor cannot produce these in 30 days (the latter which leads to your negative mark getting removed). The only time it would make sense to dispute something very specific would be if you have incontrovertible proof it is reported in error and that due to this you know the creditor cannot possible produce a record that substantiates it.
623 Dispute Letter
I should add to this (paragraph four) that the reason one would not want to be too specific is that this removes the burden to produce massive amounts of records and thereby lessens the chance the creditor cannot produce these in 30 days (the latter which leads to your negative mark getting removed). The only time it would make sense to dispute something very specific would be if you have incontrovertible proof it is reported in error and that due to this you know the creditor cannot possible produce a record that substantiates it.
By the way
Cinnamngrl, I've been meaning to let you know that the debt validation method you lay out is fantastic. I sent a letter requesting debt validation to five collection agencies and not a single one could produce the records to validate the debt. I asked for a substantial amount of proof, and made sure to list that not providing this within 30 days violated the law in x, y, z ways, but it turns out that whether than even try to validate using info they have they just removed the negative marks I cited as illegal. Moreover, they have not contacted me, even after the 30 day period, so I assume that (as you note) they are trying to pass the debt on to another collection agency, with whom (as you note) I can just repeat the process with. No need for pay-for-delete yet, and next creditor I can probably just negotiate a settlement payment with, with either a pay-for-delete clause or an agreement not to report the debt so long as I abide by the terms of payment I set up with them, or something like that. If they give it back to the original creditor, I'll do the pay-for-delete with them, and can forget the 623. So it all works out, and your advice is just great.
One issue with a 623 Dispute
There seems to be one issue with a 623 dispute. I've read the law under this section and it appears that the original creditor only has a duty to report the results of an investigation requested pursuant to 623 to the CRA, and not the consumer. Is this correct?
If there is no duty to report the results of the 623 investigation to the consumer then I do not see how a 623 investigation would actually work.
I've already disputed online with CRA, and I understand this must occur first for a 623 directly with the OC or tradeline furnisher, but where under § 623 does it state the OC must provide results of the dispute to the consumer?
Or is the tactic to go to the OC and request investigation and then, when they do not produce records that back up what they have told the CRA, send a letter to the CRA stating the OC did not have records to backup what the CRA lists and therefore you are wondering how the CRA can list it when the furnisher can't back it up?....
(Which would by why they advice on another website to dispute through the CRA first -- so you can go to the OC and come back to the CRA when the OC cannot back it up and say to the CRA that they erroneously told you it was backed up because the OC couldn't produce the records substantiating what's reported by the CRA)?
So the 623 tactic would be?
(1) Dispute through a CRA (Experian is easy to do this through).
(2) Once the CRA verifies their reporting is correct and cites the FCRA, go to the OC and, in bringing the 623 dispute/requesting investigation, cite something you know the OC can't back up.
(3) If the OC cannot or does not produce records backing up what you request they do so regarding, go back to the CRA and report that OC cannot substantiate what they report so it wondering how CRA validated tradeline and so negative mark with info not substantiated pursuant to your request to OC must be removed.
Megan Guest
Please join credit magic. That way when I respond you get notice. Also, you will get magic points for all this typing. So there is no 30 day time limit for the CA to respond to your DV. You had a 30 day time limit to send the DV letter from the time you received their dunning letter. Of course many people never receive this letter.
collections have received DV letters
Ok, I have received the electronic signature notifications from all of my DV letters I have sent. In the DV letters I also included cease & desist paragraphs. I have still been getting phone calls from one of them (been about 3 days since receipt). Is there a rule that states how long they can keep calling me after receipt of the cease & desist w/ DV. I thought they had to stop all collection activity until they validate..
OK. what kind of C&D paragraphs? telling them to cease and desist means don't talk to me anymore except to sue. Do you want them to sue? if you want them to stop calling you need to inform them that they calls are inconvenient and they are invading their privacy.
They have to stop calling you upon receipt. These calls are violations.
Calling you is a collection activity. you need to use call trace with the phone company.
DV & C&D letter
I wrote exact words: "You must be aware that until you validate this debt, you can neither continue collection activities (including phone calls) nor report this information on my credit report".
Then I quoted FTC.
Joined!
Hi, I've finally joined credit magic.
Re debt validation letters
This is in response to cinnamngrl.
Re debt validation letters, I think I understand what you're saying:
So there is the 30-day window from the time you are notified of the debt that you must abide by in sending the letter but there is not a 30- day window in which the CA must respond to debt validation.
The debt validation letters I sent did not state a time period for response required, however did state that until the debt was validated according to the various forms of validation requested, a listing of the CA on my credit report constituted fraud in violation of federal and state law as well as the following: Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Defamation of Character.
All 5 negative marks from the CA's were removed within a few weeks. I have yet to hear from either another CA or the OC. It's been about 6 weeks since the letters were sent.
With respect to not receiving a letter notifying re the debt, if a consumer claims never to have received one I doubt the CA is going to take time to dispute that and risk violating the law by listing the debt as a negative when debt validation has been requested.
Questions re 623 dispute
Hi, I still have several questions re the 623 investigation procedure.
(1) I've read over the FCRA, §623, and do not see mention of the right to directly request this of the OC's.
The CRA can investigate on a consumer's behalf once a dispute is submitted to the CRA through online or written dispute, however nowhere in the act do I see that the consumer can write to do this directly with the OC.
Where is the law that supports this latter right?
(2) I understand the technique is to go back to the CRA and, assuming one does not receive documentation pursuant to a 623 investigation request of the OC (assuming this can even happen), ask the CRA how they verified it if the OC cannot properly do so.
But how can this work if the OC is under no legal obligation to investigate per the consumer's request?
If no legal obligation to produce or provide proof exists, the consumer could ask for a blank piece of paper from the OC, not get it, and not be entitled to any remedy because there was no legal obligation on the part of the OC to produce anything pursuant to a 623 request from the consumer in the first place.
(3) If (1) is in fact possible, what things might a consumer request the OC investigate and provide proof of?
I really think if these three questions cannot be answered, 623 is not being interpreted correctly in the advice-giving.
I wrote exact words: "You must be aware that until you validate this debt, you can neither continue collection activities (including phone calls) nor report this information on my credit report".
Then I quoted FTC.
To DIEM, well thank goodness this is not from a c&d but a DV letter and it is very clear that they are knowingly violating.
to MEGAN
FACT Act
An Overview of Changes to the FCRA
The FACT Act (HR 2622) was signed into law by President Bush in December 2003. Officially titled the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, the FACT Act incorporates and extends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which had preemption provisions due to expire in December 2003. The new Act also aims to:
* Prevent identity theft,
* Improve the resolution of consumer disputes,
* Improve the accuracy of consumer records, and
* Make improvements in the use of, and consumer access to, credit information.
the part of 623
§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies
[15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]
(a) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information
(8) Ability of Consumer to Dispute Information Directly with Furnisher
(A) In general. The Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration,
and the Commission shall jointly prescribe regulations that
shall identify the circumstances under which a furnisher shall be required to
reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of information contained in
a consumer report on the consumer, based on a direct request of a consumer.
Hi, I still have several questions re the 623 investigation procedure.
(1) I've read over the FCRA, §623, and do not see mention of the right to directly request this of the OC's.
The CRA can investigate on a consumer's behalf once a dispute is submitted to the CRA through online or written dispute, however nowhere in the act do I see that the consumer can write to do this directly with the OC.
Where is the law that supports this latter right?
(2) I understand the technique is to go back to the CRA and, assuming one does not receive documentation pursuant to a 623 investigation request of the OC (assuming this can even happen), ask the CRA how they verified it if the OC cannot properly do so.
But how can this work if the OC is under no legal obligation to investigate per the consumer's request?
If no legal obligation to produce or provide proof exists, the consumer could ask for a blank piece of paper from the OC, not get it, and not be entitled to any remedy because there was no legal obligation on the part of the OC to produce anything pursuant to a 623 request from the consumer in the first place.
(3) If (1) is in fact possible, what things might a consumer request the OC investigate and provide proof of?
I really think if these three questions cannot be answered, 623 is not being interpreted correctly in the advice-givingHi, I still have several questions re the 623 investigation procedure.
(1) I've read over the FCRA, §623, and do not see mention of the right to directly request this of the OC's.
The CRA can investigate on a consumer's behalf once a dispute is submitted to the CRA through online or written dispute, however nowhere in the act do I see that the consumer can write to do this directly with the OC.
Where is the law that supports this latter right?
(2) I understand the technique is to go back to the CRA and, assuming one does not receive documentation pursuant to a 623 investigation request of the OC (assuming this can even happen), ask the CRA how they verified it if the OC cannot properly do so.
But how can this work if the OC is under no legal obligation to investigate per the consumer's request?
If no legal obligation to produce or provide proof exists, the consumer could ask for a blank piece of paper from the OC, not get it, and not be entitled to any remedy because there was no legal obligation on the part of the OC to produce anything pursuant to a 623 request from the consumer in the first place.
(3) If (1) is in fact possible, what things might a consumer request the OC investigate and provide proof of?
I really think if these three questions cannot be answered, 623 is not being interpreted correctly in the advice-giving
So it is 623 (a) 8 (B) that says you can dispute directly with the furnisher. for some reason they copy a cool smiley.
here are the circumstance that define a properdispute
(B) Considerations. In prescribing regulations under subparagraph (A), the
agencies shall weigh--
(i) the benefits to consumers with the costs on furnishers and the credit
reporting system;
(ii) the impact on the overall accuracy and integrity of consumer reports of
any such requirements;
(iii) whether direct contact by the consumer with the furnisher would likely
result in the most expeditious resolution of any such dispute; and
(iv) the potential impact on the credit reporting process if credit repair
organizations, as defined in section 403(3) [15 U.S.C. §1679a(3)],
including entities that would be a credit repair organization, but for
section 403(3)(B)(i), are able to circumvent the prohibition in
subparagraph (G).
(C) Applicability. Subparagraphs (D) through (G) shall apply in any circumstance
identified under the regulations promulgated under subparagraph
(A).
(D) Submitting a notice of dispute- A consumer who seeks to dispute the
accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such
person at the address specified by the person for such notices that--
(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;
(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and
(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to
substantiate the basis of the dispute.
(E) Duty of person after receiving notice of dispute. After receiving a notice of
dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that
provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall--
(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;
July 30, 2004 73
(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the
results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the
period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting
agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had
elected to dispute the information under that section; and
(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate,
promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person
furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide
to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to
make the information provided by the person accurate.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf
this is the FCRA in a pdf that you can download.
623 letter...........
What you are refer.. to is a Validation Letter that the Orginal Creditor or an account letter that you are able to see with any credit line of you payment activity....It shows your payment history and the balance due............gee...I guess I need to need not ask a question since no one seems to know....when this Validation of dept is sent to the c/c and the orginal credit include a cc copy to the attorney general certified and let them get it on with the c/c
Just some advise you might do. One sent them a certified letter to one the C/A the orginal creditor, and the Attorney General in our state for Comsumer Complaint.
Sent the a validation letter to vertify the debt., to cease and decease collection activity, to remove the debt from your negative report. , call them and make arrangement to pay to delete. Sent them a letter certified if you wan to go that route., C/C Attorney General for Consumer complaints., you will see some action. Also sent c/c to Credit Breau............you wlll see some action frm all of them. They don't like dealing with attorney general........its like the people who owe child support, alimony etc.
So grodrugu, this thread turned into a mashup of 623, DV and C&D.
FPAXHkmNPH
6gt2lh I really liked your article.Really thank you! Awesome.
Скачать tutuApp на Ðндроид и Ðйфон
Ð¡ÐµÐ¹Ñ‡Ð°Ñ Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÐµÑ„Ð¾Ð½ еÑÑ‚ÑŒ у каждого! Рвы знаете, что возможно Ñкачать приложение TutuApp, в котором еÑÑ‚ÑŒ Ñ‚Ñ‹ÑÑчи беÑплатных приложений и игр Ð´Ð»Ñ Ðйфона и Ðндроида? Игры вроде покемон Го, Clash Royale и множеÑтво других доÑтупны беÑплатно! Больше информации на Ñайте tutuap.ru. Скачивайте ТутуÐпп и наÑлаждайтеÑÑŒ Ñвободой!
slavic ladies
matches up don't last forever
internet dating relieson quick decisions: Singles swipe right or left, good or bad, within seconds of seeing a profile. Andonce you complement someone, weren't dating apps, the clock is ticking.
Hingeis the particular app to add time limits; Aftera rival, Users have 24 hours to start a contact or the match disappears. if so start chatting, Youonly have 14 days before your discussion vanishes. Bumble also puts a 24 hour refrain from on that initial hello; JSwipe matches subside after 18 days if no one says hello; And Tinder meets or exceeds never expire.
latest research by, I speech with Karen Fein, Hinge's vice chairman of marketing, About the business's decision to add time limits. Fein said the change wasabout instilling some "Urgency straight from the gate, But it's also about giving a resort if you missed your opportunity the first time, If you do match and don't start a verbal exchanges, game will go back into your pool, furnishing you with another chance to match again, Later down the line.
Will time limits give users that extra momentum to completely meet up in person? Eli Finkel, A social psycho therapist at Northwestern University, senses so.
"These time limits are an excellent idea, Finkel wrote in an e mail. "like in other domains, Making something scarce tends to add to its value. That's why entrepreneurs pitch products with a 'limited time offer.' The fact that that match will become unavailable soon will tend to make him or her more appealing to you. Just as notable, It will increase the likelihood that you initiate contact,
After Hingeinstituted thetime decreases this month, you're able to send data scientist noticed behavior on the app had changed: with the first week, There was a 70 percent trend of chats started, And a50 increase in how often matches exchanged mobile.
regardless of if they russian sexy girls match on an app with time limits, Online daters prefer to meet upright. in order to a recent survey of 1,500 users on Happn, A location based dating app that does not puttime limits on its matches, 88 percent of women waited up to a week before going on a date, While 63 percent of men wanted to meet in person within a day or two or less. other than that,63 percent of men get intoa romantic within a month of dating, While 55 percent of women waitup to twomonths prior to things official.