|
Quick question: Whats the difference between a Discover Card and a visa card? Many thanks for any comment. Another question I got... I am new here but I have been reading thread after thread and one thing I keep seeing is that people do a proper DV letter to a CA saying "prove this is a debt I owe you and that it is accurate". |
|
|
|
Hmm... I need to find out myself. I don't know what is the answer to that question. I'll do some Googling and get back to you if I bump into an anything. You should email the people at Discover Card as they probably could give you an answer..
|
|
What Jtoast said..
Before you could prove thet the CA continued collection activity, you would have to prove that their validation was improper.. I wish every CA sent me improper validation. That would swing things in my favor and, also let me know that they dont have the goods to prove this debt in court. IMO, improper VOD from the get-go is a sign the CA does not have what it takes to win the end game. As if their threats could not become more hollow.. ETA: Why are you sending out nutcase/DV hybrid letters? You may want to re-think the NC part of the letter.. This post has been edited by. Bobbydebt. : 06 January 2010 - 04:33 PM.. |
|
It's a bit complicated. In my first thread, I laid out how I failed a pre-employment BG check based on my credit..
Essentially I had too many items in unpaid collections and they score you based on bad/unpaid to good items.. Well, I paid off 4 items, but I need them updated asap do I can rescore and hopefully pass and get hired.. The DV/Nutcase is to a CA that has a TL on my credit from 2007 saying I owe just under $100 to a utility I used 3.5 years ago.. I remain a customer of that utility and was unaware of the outstanding balance - it was rolled onto my bill and I paid it in November, but the utility never told the CA to remove it.. My letter invokes TFC protections (Texas is neat) and lets them know that the TL on my CR is inaccurate (maybe it was accurate in 2007, but it is inaccurate right now. I am using nutcase tone to show that I am serious about demanding an investigation and I state that if it is not corrected, I will be injured, etc. Ideally they will realize that there is nothing to gain (OC is paid) and a lot to lose and just delete the TL... |
|
Thank you and forgive my noobish manner, but isn't the technique of the 1-2 punch to first send a DV/dispute to a CA, then, once they have received it, you dispute with the CRA and at that point, if the CA confirms the disputed debt, they have engaged in collection activity - which is prohibited because the TL is in dispute?.
Maybe I am a little confused but I don't think so... |
|
It is, but a key component of the 1-2 punch is the DV being timely. If it's not timely, the 1-2 punch loses the punch part..
This post has been edited by. Jtoast. : 06 January 2010 - 06:01 PM.. |
|
I believe if the DV is not timely the method is then refered to as the 1-2 "pinch."..
|
|
Since you are in Texas and using the TFC, you really don't have to do all that. In my own experience (yours may vary), a properly worded and executed TFC letter invoking the tie-in to the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act will get you the results you want. The TDTPA has real teeth and allows damages for Mental Anguish that can be trebbled. Also, you can send this at anytime regardless of being timely. They have 30 days to respond or be in violation of the TFC and subsequently the TDTPA..
To make the TL go away, pick very specific items that you dispute (ie DOFD, Amount, etc). Tell them that you dispute the accuracy of each item and demand that they provide proof that they are accurate. Since "validation" is a nebulous term, try to avoid asking for "validation" of the account. Make them prove each specific item you list is accurate. Tell 'em it's wrong and you demand that it be removed.. Anyway, this worked for me. YMMV. Good luck!.. |
|
Thank you, I really appreciate your advice. I almost sent the letter today, but I thought it needed one more revision and I think you are right about validation not being specific enough..
In the previous evolution, I went through and removed most of the lawspeak ("pursuant"). I am actually a huge fan of language, especially legal language, but not being a lawyer, I feel that a normal person runs the risk of sounding too much like a poser. At the end of the day, the laws were written for the protection of normal people and I am convinced that you should be able to communicate effectively in plain language and still leverage the laws for your protection. I think I still have "injurious" - what a cool word that is! I will probably take it out though.. What I dont want to do is give the impression that I am trying to sound like I am a lawyer or I have a lawyer be "that guy" that when they read it, they think "this idiot thinks his poorly wielded fancy talk is going to scare us! [LOL]! I think it might be more intimidating to write normally.. Not that I am a fan of normal... |
