What is this form letter garbage? Why are consumers using these to harass banks? What type of shady operation is selling these services to consumers? Are they promising to “clean up” their credit, or help them with bankruptcy or something?

With this communication, I request that you formally substantiate all consumer data [BANK NAME] sent to the three credit reporting agencies for my name, [CONSUMER NAME], with regard to the so-called account number [ACCOUNT NUMBER]. Given the probability that errors may be contained within in those files, I must request that you document and send this validated information within thirty days. In addition, substantiate that collection behavior has been facilitated in accordance with applicable federal and state consumer protections. This is not a request for a summary without in-depth consideration. Rather I have demanded a formal substantiation. Should you not be able to provide such lawful documentation during the time delineated here, any detail dispatched on behalf of [BANK NAME] to the major credit reporting agencies should not be considered appropriate and may suggest a disregard for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or other applicable statues. Given that occasion, you should rescind such historical material now.
Thank you for [BANK NAME] investigating this matter.
"within in" is present in the original.

I'll save you some time...

http://www.bankersonline.com/regs/12-1022/12-1022-043.html


(f) Frivolous or irrelevant disputes. (1) A furnisher is not required to investigate a direct dispute if the furnisher has reasonably determined that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. A dispute qualifies as frivolous or irrelevant if:

(i) The consumer did not provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information as required by paragraph (d) of this section;

(ii) The direct dispute is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by or on behalf of the consumer, either directly to the furnisher or through a consumer reporting agency, with respect to which the furnisher has already satisfied the applicable requirements of the Act or this section; provided, however, that a direct dispute is not substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted if the dispute includes information listed in paragraph (d) of this section that had not previously been provided to the furnisher; or

(iii) The furnisher is not required to investigate the direct dispute because one or more of the exceptions listed in paragraph (b) of this section applies.

OP: AWESOME. Writing up my own form letter now! Thanks, Paperman!

This is gaining attention, saw this from the FTC yesterday, was glad to see some action in this area!

RMCN Credit Services Fined

Shhhhhh.... you didn't hear this from me ..... but on occasion I have been known to send a response to the letter writer concerning frivolous "can" claims showing a CC to the CFPB and FTC. I usually never hear from them again.

Dan, don't give away all of your secrets.

This is a great one though. Putting that in my back pocket for future use.

OP here: Ok, so far so good. Used the form letter already. But what about disputes where the customer has disputed it with one or more of the major credit reporting agencies, and our dispute arrives electronically from the agency, rather than from the customer? I'm being told that if we don't investigate and respond timely to e-Oscar, then e-Oscar will assume we agree wit the customer's allegations, and our reported data (late, unpaid, charge-off, whatever) will be removed from the credit reports. Is it possible to do the same form letter response to e-Oscar? I'm thinking the reg allows it, just not sure if the 3 major bureaus, or the e-Oscar system, allows it.

For e-Oscar disputes, you have to respond every time or they will remove the info from the credit report. I don't know of any way to send them a notification of frivolous dispute. You just have to work it every time. The easiest thing to do on those is to pull the documentation from the last time you responded in e-Oscar and report the same on the new response.

OP here - adding an insert to my template form letter for responses to disputes where they dispute all info ever reported, without asserting a valid basis for a dispute. I'm a little unclear on my motivations for including this, but here is the text:

How can I recognize a credit repair scam?

If you see ads or receive offers to repair your credit, look for these warning signs:
•The company wants you to pay before it provides any services. Under the Credit Repair Organizations Act, credit repair companies cannot require you to pay until they have completed the services they have promised.
•The company doesn’t tell you your rights and what you can do for yourself for free.
•The company recommends that you do not contact any of the nationwide credit reporting companies directly.
•The company tells you it can get rid of most or all the negative credit information in your credit report, even if that information is accurate and current. No one can do this.
•The company suggests that you try to invent a “new” credit identity – and then, a new credit report – by applying for an Employer Identification Number to use instead of your Social Security number. It is a federal crime to misrepresent your Social Security number or to obtain an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service under false pretenses.
•The company advises you to dispute all the information in your credit report, regardless of its accuracy or timeliness.

If you have just signed up for these services, you have the right to cancel your contract with any credit repair organization for any reason within three business days.

Credit repair companies must abide by the Credit Repair Organizations Act, a federal law enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This law prohibits deceptive practices by credit repair organizations. You have a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the Credit Repair Organization Act.

If you have concerns about a credit repair scam, contact the FTC at 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC can provide you free information about how to rebuild your credit.

Op here: And wouldn’t you know, I already got a new variant today! I just want to share it in the hopes of helping other bankers identify these letters on sight, and deal with them accordingly. (I refer to mailed disputes from the customer directly to you, not e-disputes or e-Oscar). This mailed dispute is from someone who has been late 10 times and who has a credit score near the bottom of the basket. Once again, I got a good laugh when I saw that they dated the top of their letter but waited three weeks to get it postmarked, in an attempt to make us panic about their demand to respond within 30 days. Once again, the legalistic sounding language is so bad that it makes me think that the Nigerian scammers are using some of their top performers to write letters for these credit repair organizations. And my favorite twist - a demand for the impossible - use the info you reported about me to determine whether I ever used my loan proceeds to purchase any product that is the subject of a consumer product recall!

Dear Customer Service:
I am asking that [BANK NAME] validate consumer data you conveyed to any credit bureaus for me, [CUSTOMER NAME], with regard to account number [ACCOUNT NUMBER]. Since deleterious errors may be contained within those materials, I am asking that your company confirm this documentation quickly. In addition indicate that this account was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned or recalled consumer products during the period it may have been payable. This is not a request for an historical review. Rather, I have called for a detailed validation.
If you cannot meet these reasonable requests by the end of the established 30 day period, data forwarded from you to the major consumer reporting agencies must not be deemed truthful and may bespeak a statutory violation. Given that outcome, remove such credit bureau data quickly.

I'll give them credit for this much...I had to look 'deleterious' up in the dictionary. At first glance I thought it was a made up combined word of "delete" and "hilarious"...kinda like "Spanglish"

I am so glad they are going after these "credit repair" scams. It is such a waste of resources responding to these fishing expedition letters each month in addition to being a waste of money most of these borrowers probably really need. Although I must admit it is amusing to see the interesting combination of words each author pulls from the dictionary with absolutely no clue about the actual definition or appropriate use of said words. My favorite phrase in one received today states:

"Instead please provide competent evidence regarding the constitution of this contractual obligation, including the factualness of the legality of the debt incurred as well as subsequent tax or insurance related abridgements, which incurred the original claims giving rise to the credit reporting notations." DO WHAT??? It also demands a notarized acknowledgement from us that, among many other things, the debt "...was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned, faulty or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction at any point and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity."

The letters are always dated weeks before they are post marked. The "signatures" are also always various free script fonts and never match the customer's actual signatures from the loan documents. I've got a form letter I use to respond that requests the writer verify their identity because the signatures don't match and we take their financial privacy seriously. I also include a copy of the letter we received so they can see the hot mess being sent out in their name. My letter also lists each letter received to date, with the dates of the letters, post mark dates, dates we received the letters, our response dates, etc. so there is no question in an examiner's mind that we responded in a timely manner. If I receive a 4th substantially similar form letter and the customer hasn't provided any of the information requested in the previous 3 responses I include the language from § 1022.43(f) regarding frivolous and irrelevant disputes. To date no borrower has ever responded acknowledging the original letter is from them or providing any of the requested information.

would a copy of the contract signed by the borrower stipulate the legality? Waste of time...

OP here: Wow I got the same one today! Written 32 days ago, postmarked yesterday:

I am requesting that you formally substantiate data reported to credit bureaus for me, [NAME], regarding account [SOME LONG THING THAT ISN’T AN ACCOUNT NUMBER]. Since problems may be extant within my account files, I must request that [BANK NAME] send the formal validation within thirty days. Additionally confirm that this debt was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have been payable. This request is for more than just an account statement. In lieu of that I must ask for a full documentary review. If this documentation cannot be provided within one month, notes uploaded from you to the three consumer reporting agencies should be deemed specious and may suggest your desire to abridge my federal rights. Given that case, kindly retract that bureau material upon your next CRA transmittal.
Thank you for your assisting with this circumstance.
[CHARGE-OFF CONSUMER NAME]
[DOB: YYYY/MM/DD]

I’m tellin’ ya, whoever wrote that letter has written AT LEAST one inheritance or foreign lottery scam letter before!

That's what you get when your credit repair agency's employees sit and watch bad court shows all day between Springer episode reruns to try to identify new legal sounding words to string together. I'm expecting to see some reference to Gynocomastia claims or Pelvic Mesh slings show up in one of these soon.

Sounds like a "Nigerian Scam Letter"!

In what country do you display your DOB with the year first?!? Not here.

Agree

OP: Hmm, another one today, what gives? This one, I'm still trying to determine if it was prepared by a credit repair agency like all the others I've been seeing lately. Clues to consider:

1. Typewritten envelope
2. BUT, it was mailed from her ZIP code (unusual).
3. Letter & envelope font is more casual than the others.
4. July is abbreviated "Jul" which I find weird.
5. 24 days passed between the date on the letter and the date of postmarking.
6. Letter content avoids much of the legalese I've seen on other letters. Sounds almost like it was written by someone who speaks English as their first language. Almost.
7. No documentation (such as a copy of credit report) is provided.
8. All he says is that he will be applying for a loan soon and although his loan with us was paid "satisfactorily," he "managed to acquire scattered late pays reported to the big three credit reporting agencies." He asks that we "revisit this history." So....he's not directly saying there is an error. He's even acknolwedging he was late, maybe, by saying he acquired late pays.
9. Signature looks machine-generated.
9.

ba-da-bump

bump

Bump? Bump what? You didn't even ask a question. Unless you consider "what gives" a question?

OP: Ah. My question, then: Is this a frivolous dispute?

Clues to consider:

1. Typewritten envelope
2. BUT, it was mailed from her ZIP code (unusual).
3. Letter & envelope font is more casual than the others.
4. July is abbreviated "Jul" which I find weird.
5. 24 days passed between the date on the letter and the date of postmarking.
6. Letter content avoids much of the legalese I've seen on other letters. Sounds almost like it was written by someone who speaks English as their first language. Almost.
7. No documentation (such as a copy of credit report) is provided.
8. All he says is that he will be applying for a loan soon and although his loan with us was paid "satisfactorily," he "managed to acquire scattered late pays reported to the big three credit reporting agencies." He asks that we "revisit this history." So....he's not directly saying there is an error. He's even acknolwedging he was late, maybe, by saying he acquired late pays.
9. Signature looks machine-generated.

IMHO - is it not a frivolous dispute
1 no
2 NO - definitely not
3 no
4 no - I'm a lousy speller
5 yes - maybe could not find an envelope, or left it on the table for a few weeks
6 no
7 no
8 agree - probably asking/hoping not disputing
9 no - a credit repair place would have them sign original

Seems like he is asking if some of the negatives can be removed.

This looks like the half dozen letters I get monthly. File 13.

I glanced through this thread, and had to chuckle at the "typewritten envelope". We have 2 typewriters here at our Admin headquarters, none of which worked, we found out recently. I brought in one from home that was "repaired" 12 years ago, but sat unused all that time. Plugged it in, and it didn't work either. Took 2 of us to figure out (re-learn) how it was supposed to work, and the fact it also doesn't work! There was an article in the local paper this week on the last typewriter repairman in the area and the fact he is 92 years old! What's a banker to do, and how does a person create a "typewritten envelope" anymore!!?