Many people who are in the beginning stages of starting a credit repair business are daunted by ominously worded stall tactics from credit bureaus. The bureaus have been sending these letters in an attempt to intimidate credit repair companies or individuals into dropping their dispute requests. It is crucial as the owner of a credit repair company to stand up for the rights of your clients and overcome the hurdles.
Stall tactics can typically be divided into five groups:
- Suspicious Request: This stall tactic is often used when a credit bureau deems that the dispute letter sent was a templated letter or sent by a credit repair organization. They stall by rejecting the dispute based on the notion that the request was not sent by the consumer. Language is typically similar to the following: “We have received a suspicious request in the mail regarding your personal credit report and determined that it was not sent by you Suspicious requests are reviewed by security personnel who work regularly with law enforcement officials and regulatory agencies to identify fraudulent and deceptive correspondence purporting to originate from consumers. In an effort to safeguard your personal information from fraud, we will not be initiating any disputes based on the suspicious correspondence.”
*This letter is most often sent if you failed to include the client’s photo ID and proof of address with the Round 1 letter.
- Frivolous Request: These stall tactics are based on section 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) which usually states that “A consumer reporting agency may terminate a reinvestigation of information disputed by a customer if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the customer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.”
*You’ll see this letter if you’ve disputed too many items at one time. Never dispute more than 5 items per month. The most successful credit repair companies only dispute 2-3 items per month.
- Insufficient ID: When you request an investigation, the credit bureau requires you to verify both your identity and your address. There is a long list of options and as long as you include one item from each category with your first set of disputes, you should be good to go. Unfortunately, even when you send the required documents, the credit bureaus often claim that either they did not receive them, or they are insufficient. They typically say “The identity and address verification documents you submitted are not acceptable, please choose from the options below and include one identity verification document and one address verification document” This is one of the most common stall tactics used to attempt to discourage you and slow you down.
- Previously Verified: If you have previously disputed an item and the bureau verified it, they essentially consider the matter closed. They will send a canned response that is similar to this “The information you are disputing has previously been verified. If you have additional relevant information you would like to add, please send it; otherwise we are unable to investigate further”.
- Ignored Requests: Last on this list, but also very common: You mail in your dispute letter and never receive a response. You can chalk it up to lost mail, but it is no secret that the credit bureaus have a habit of ignoring investigation demands. When you mail out a set dispute letters to all three agencies, it is almost expected that one of the three never respond.
It is important that you not let these types of intimidation techniques bait you into violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) by prohibiting your client from contacting the bureau. Just as your client has every right to dispute items on their credit report, they also have every right to contact the bureaus on their own behalf. You can, however; lessen the chance that your client will do something that will undercut their rights by educating them at the beginning of your engagement that these stall tactics may arise and what your response to them will be. Preempt a potential issue by implementing the steps below into your communications pipeline:
- Educate your clients on what a typical stall response looks like, that they are predictable and you will follow up with each and every frivolous response.
- Explain to your clients that it’s not only possible, it’s expected that some of your letters may be ignored, but you have a plan of action if they are.
- Have your stall response strategy in place and educate consumers about it so there are no surprises.
- Include samples of stall responses in your informational emails and on the Resources page of your website.
Remember that federal laws exist to protect your clients from being taken advantage of. You are the expert; the more you know about the laws, the more confident and prepared you will be to represent your clients. Your client has rights. By denying your client of these rights, the credit bureau can put itself in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Maintain a consistent approach by responding to the stall tactics with the following facts:
- If you receive a “suspicious request” response, try using the “Suspicious Dispute Request” letter which can be found in Credit Repair Cloud library. Reiterate the reasons for the dispute and explain that they were clear, conspicuous and obvious in the original request. Reaffirm the rights of your client.
- If you receive a “frivolous” response, follow up with the Frivolous Dispute Response letter.
- If a bureau attempts to stall your progress by claiming the identification was not enough, try using this “Insufficient ID Response letter” and reassert that all customer ID documents were in place in the original dispute request. Although it’s not required, it doesn’t hurt to include the address and identity verification documents with every letter you send.
- If you dispute an item you know to be factually incorrect and the bureau states the account was previously verified, you have the right to know what method they used to verify the item and you may request it using a “Method of Verification” letter. In some cases this tactic may help you get a deletion simply because they don't have a record of it or fail to respond within 30 days as required under the FCRA.
- Notify the bureau that any additional stall tactics will be considered a violation of FCRA.
- If the bureau continues to ignore you, or continues with stall tactics – consider following up with the “Bureau Warning letter”.
- If the response is not sufficient, consider filing formal complaints with the CFPB, FTC, the State Attorney General to garner attention.
It is important to remember that you are your client’s trusted advisor and, in most cases, their only line of defense from being taken advantage of by credit bureaus. Whatever you do, never take “no” for an answer. Be persistent and continually apply more and more pressure. Stand your ground and educate yourself and your clients so that you are prepared to respond to these stall tactics for the most successful outcome possible.
