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

$10.00

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.