This Part 2 Letter is a follow-up enforcement tool that challenges the unlawful reporting of late payments by any creditor that appears on your credit report—in direct violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(2
This high-impact rebuttal letter is tailored for consumers or private trust agents who received a “Verified” or “Accurate” response from Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion after disputing a late payment—but know that no lawful verification process took place.
Citing federal billing law and verification case law, this document destroys the illusion of compliance by pointing out:
15 U.S.C. § 1666b – Prohibits late payment reporting unless creditor proves billing was mailed 21 days prior to the due date
15 U.S.C. § 1637(b) – Requires periodic statement disclosures for a charge to be considered valid
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) – CRA must follow “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy”
15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5) – Mandates deletion of any item that cannot be verified
Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 827 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) – Case law confirming that insufficient evidence means deletion—not continued reporting
Also includes a direct definition from Black’s Law Dictionary on “verify,” proving that no real investigation occurred if the furnisher could not meet evidentiary standards.
This letter includes:
Formal demand for reinvestigation outcome per § 1681i(6)(B)(iii)
Request for CRA to provide names, addresses, and phone numbers of any furnisher involved
Statutory enforcement language citing civil liability under § 1681n and § 1681o
Section to list all affected accounts and insert personal identifying information
Final clause reserving rights under UCC 1-308
Use this letter to rebut bogus “verified” outcomes and force deletion of unverifiable, unlawful late payments.
This is not a dispute. This is statutory enforcement.
This high-impact rebuttal letter is tailored for consumers or private trust agents who received a “Verified” or “Accurate” response from Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion after disputing a late payment—but know that no lawful verification process took place.
Citing federal billing law and verification case law, this document destroys the illusion of compliance by pointing out:
15 U.S.C. § 1666b – Prohibits late payment reporting unless creditor proves billing was mailed 21 days prior to the due date
15 U.S.C. § 1637(b) – Requires periodic statement disclosures for a charge to be considered valid
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) – CRA must follow “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy”
15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5) – Mandates deletion of any item that cannot be verified
Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 827 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) – Case law confirming that insufficient evidence means deletion—not continued reporting
Also includes a direct definition from Black’s Law Dictionary on “verify,” proving that no real investigation occurred if the furnisher could not meet evidentiary standards.
This letter includes:
Formal demand for reinvestigation outcome per § 1681i(6)(B)(iii)
Request for CRA to provide names, addresses, and phone numbers of any furnisher involved
Statutory enforcement language citing civil liability under § 1681n and § 1681o
Section to list all affected accounts and insert personal identifying information
Final clause reserving rights under UCC 1-308
Use this letter to rebut bogus “verified” outcomes and force deletion of unverifiable, unlawful late payments.
This is not a dispute. This is statutory enforcement.
This high-impact rebuttal letter is tailored for consumers or private trust agents who received a “Verified” or “Accurate” response from Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion after disputing a late payment—but know that no lawful verification process took place.
Citing federal billing law and verification case law, this document destroys the illusion of compliance by pointing out:
15 U.S.C. § 1666b – Prohibits late payment reporting unless creditor proves billing was mailed 21 days prior to the due date
15 U.S.C. § 1637(b) – Requires periodic statement disclosures for a charge to be considered valid
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) – CRA must follow “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy”
15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5) – Mandates deletion of any item that cannot be verified
Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 827 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) – Case law confirming that insufficient evidence means deletion—not continued reporting
Also includes a direct definition from Black’s Law Dictionary on “verify,” proving that no real investigation occurred if the furnisher could not meet evidentiary standards.
This letter includes:
Formal demand for reinvestigation outcome per § 1681i(6)(B)(iii)
Request for CRA to provide names, addresses, and phone numbers of any furnisher involved
Statutory enforcement language citing civil liability under § 1681n and § 1681o
Section to list all affected accounts and insert personal identifying information
Final clause reserving rights under UCC 1-308
Use this letter to rebut bogus “verified” outcomes and force deletion of unverifiable, unlawful late payments.
This is not a dispute. This is statutory enforcement.