Too fitting to be true tactic for fixing credit? I have be told by one of the so-called wealthy select, that

I have be told by one of the so-called wealthy select, that it is possible to have refusal credit score remarks removed if you dispute a remark after have paid the report off. Apparently, the credit reporting agencies will dispatch correspondance to the originator of the negative remark, and require proof of the authority for the remark. This process takes a few months, and not adjectives creditors or collectors can keep up beside these requests.

It seems the logic contained by this holds because; after filtering through the valid requests (to avoid letting the debtors return with out of repaying the legitimate debts), why would a business staff plenty people to respond to the credit reporting agencies' inquiries when the said business is not making a dime? If anything, the business should unashamedly ignore adjectives these requests (AS LONG AS THE ACCOUNT IS INDEED PAID OFF), because the individual in press is going to take his troubles to one of your competitors & burn them, too?

Answers: Well, that kinda is how it works, although we use the "1-2 punch" of credit bureau disputes and emergency to validate parcels. You can even use this with nouns on unpaid debts.

I do not agree it is unethical. Collection agencies are some of the sleaziest businesses around, and it's a approach to hold them to the letter of the canon. My personal feeling is that if they do not own the documents needed to validate a debt, afterwards you should not pay them even if you know it is lawful.

This link below explains it a bit further.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/...
More question :