Complaint Review: DSI Debt Elimination - Holywood California

Tracy, I appreciate your comment, I did make the comment without supporting evidence, and since you have challenged me, I will provide some information that will help you and anyone else who reads this report. First, I should say I have experienced this as a client and that DSI puts the entire balance of an account into dispute, based on the violation of a lending law that states a lender cannot lend credit, only their own money. When the credit card company gets the dispute, by law they are not allowed collection activity on the balance in dispute (which they violate every single time), then they also have 90 days to resolve the dispute with sufficient supporting documentation. They usually just send a letter saying that they dispute the dispute, and that the file is closed. Under USC Title 15 Ch. 41 Sub Ch. I Part D Sec. 1666(a)(1)(B)(ii), which deals with handling credit card disputes, it states that the credit card companies must, "send a written explanation or clarification to the obligor, after having conducted an investigation, setting forth to the extent applicable the reasons why the creditor believes the account of the obligor was correctly shown in the statement and, upon request of the obligor, provide copies of documentary evidence of the obligor's indebtedness. In the case of a billing error where the obligor alleges that the creditor's billing statement reflects goods not delivered to the obligor or his designee in accordance with the agreement made at the time of the transaction, a creditor may not construe such amount to be correctly shown unless he determines that such goods were actually delivered, mailed, or otherwise sent to the obligor and provides the obligor with a statement of such determination." When the credit card company cannot do that, they just don't respond. And they can't because of the nature of the dispute, alleging violation of a lending law on lending credit instead of money. That is because they do lend credit, instead of their own money. In 90 days, the credit card company is in default. Our dispute is now settled in our favor, and the account is legally invalid as the dispute states. Since the account is invalid and never legally existed, the credit bureaus must remove the information from the consumer's credit report. The credit bureaus don't like to do this because they don't understand the legal argument, but when challenged, along with a complaint to the FTC, they will remove the information. That doesn't mean that the credit card company won't report it again and the consumer finds it on their report again, but a reminder of the law will get it removed again, and again, and again, if need be. One of the founders of our country said "know the law, and be well disposed to use it." If you keep yourself well informed, you won't have to pay an attorney to enforce your rights. That is why DSI's program is more about education, the legal support is just to get the client started in the learning process. I hope this helps you, and the original rip off complainer.

Sorry David, but you really are on a strike out saying that Capital One could possibly be removed from this person's report. Only inaccurate, erroneous, unverfiable or Identity fraud information can be removed from a consumer credit report. Altho, I have known accurate accounts to be deleted because companies such as this cause misleading or misinterrepted information to be given to consumers, which can be expunged from a credit report in some cases. How do I know this? Because I do credit disputing for a living, so that my clients can qualify for the homes and home loans they are applying for. Day in and day out I have lost count on how many people I have seen with total and complete errors appearing on their credit reports. There needs to be a "Boston Tea Party" where there are more stringent guidlines that the creditors and collection agencies have to abide by before the reporting agencies can include entries such as these on a consumers credit reports. People go for months on end believing that their credit is fine, but because of employees in companies such as yours and others don't take a moment to proofread their data entry, people have to suffer because of clerical errors and the time it takes to correct these situations. Try again, but do some more research, before stating what you obviously haven't experienced first hand.

I understand where you are coming from, but I must comment. A friend of mine has gone through this program with no problems. After speaking with him, I found that about 1% to 2% of accounts that DSI handles are given a summons. They have litigation support for their clients, who must participate in their defense. The client does not have a representative of DSI represent them in court, if it makes it there. If you hire an attorney at the point that you get a summons, that attorney's advice may conflict with DSI's advice (not that either one has a bad strategy) and in that case would be inconsistent with the strategy you have been taking up to that point. If you switch horses mid-stream, you will get into trouble, and you will have wasted money on the attorney and on DSI. DSI didn't "rune" your credit report. You did, by not making your payments. DSI doesn't require you to stop making payments, it is your choice. It is the credit card companies that have committed the fraud, and they won't go to court unless they think they can win. They can win against someone who appears to not understand what they are doing. That is why DSI does require participation by the client in defending themselves. If you had followed DSI's advice, it probably would have never gone to court, and you would have been able to remove the Citibank account from your credit reports. The real culprit for getting sued by Citibank is the attorney you hired, who didn't understand what DSI was doing.

I understand where you are coming from, but I must comment. A friend of mine has gone through this program with no problems. After speaking with him, I found that about 1% to 2% of accounts that DSI handles are given a summons. They have litigation support for their clients, who must participate in their defense. The client does not have a representative of DSI represent them in court, if it makes it there. If you hire an attorney at the point that you get a summons, that attorney's advice may conflict with DSI's advice (not that either one has a bad strategy) and in that case would be inconsistent with the strategy you have been taking up to that point. If you switch horses mid-stream, you will get into trouble, and you will have wasted money on the attorney and on DSI. DSI didn't "rune" your credit report. You did, by not making your payments. DSI doesn't require you to stop making payments, it is your choice. It is the credit card companies that have committed the fraud, and they won't go to court unless they think they can win. They can win against someone who appears to not understand what they are doing. That is why DSI does require participation by the client in defending themselves. If you had followed DSI's advice, it probably would have never gone to court, and you would have been able to remove the Citibank account from your credit reports. The real culprit for getting sued by Citibank is the attorney you hired, who didn't understand what DSI was doing.

I understand where you are coming from, but I must comment. A friend of mine has gone through this program with no problems. After speaking with him, I found that about 1% to 2% of accounts that DSI handles are given a summons. They have litigation support for their clients, who must participate in their defense. The client does not have a representative of DSI represent them in court, if it makes it there. If you hire an attorney at the point that you get a summons, that attorney's advice may conflict with DSI's advice (not that either one has a bad strategy) and in that case would be inconsistent with the strategy you have been taking up to that point. If you switch horses mid-stream, you will get into trouble, and you will have wasted money on the attorney and on DSI. DSI didn't "rune" your credit report. You did, by not making your payments. DSI doesn't require you to stop making payments, it is your choice. It is the credit card companies that have committed the fraud, and they won't go to court unless they think they can win. They can win against someone who appears to not understand what they are doing. That is why DSI does require participation by the client in defending themselves. If you had followed DSI's advice, it probably would have never gone to court, and you would have been able to remove the Citibank account from your credit reports. The real culprit for getting sued by Citibank is the attorney you hired, who didn't understand what DSI was doing.

I understand where you are coming from, but I must comment. A friend of mine has gone through this program with no problems. After speaking with him, I found that about 1% to 2% of accounts that DSI handles are given a summons. They have litigation support for their clients, who must participate in their defense. The client does not have a representative of DSI represent them in court, if it makes it there. If you hire an attorney at the point that you get a summons, that attorney's advice may conflict with DSI's advice (not that either one has a bad strategy) and in that case would be inconsistent with the strategy you have been taking up to that point. If you switch horses mid-stream, you will get into trouble, and you will have wasted money on the attorney and on DSI. DSI didn't "rune" your credit report. You did, by not making your payments. DSI doesn't require you to stop making payments, it is your choice. It is the credit card companies that have committed the fraud, and they won't go to court unless they think they can win. They can win against someone who appears to not understand what they are doing. That is why DSI does require participation by the client in defending themselves. If you had followed DSI's advice, it probably would have never gone to court, and you would have been able to remove the Citibank account from your credit reports. The real culprit for getting sued by Citibank is the attorney you hired, who didn't understand what DSI was doing.