Who reviews this content

There is no named reviewer here, and that is a decision

Most sites in this category print a headshot, a first name and a bar number. We do not, and the reason is not modesty. It is that we have not retained a lawyer or a reviewer whose credentials we can point a regulator, a journalist or a sceptical reader at and say “check it yourself”. We considered using a consultant’s name anyway. On a page whose entire argument is that you should verify claims against primary sources, printing an unverifiable credential would have been the single most damaging thing we could do.

If a reviewer is ever named, this page will carry: their full name; a registration or bar number that can be looked up in the relevant public register, with a link to that register; the jurisdictions they are admitted in; the date of their last review of this site; and the specific pages they reviewed. Any of those items that cannot be produced will not be printed.

What the review checks, in practice

Five checks, applied to every page before it goes live and again whenever a source moves.

1. Does the quoted text match the section we cite? Every statute is read in a primary source and quoted by section — for example, 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a), which is what requires a debt collector to send the validation notice within five days. The section number is printed so you can open the text and disagree with us.
2. Does the address match the organisation’s own published page? Bureau dispute addresses are taken from Equifax’s, Experian’s and TransUnion’s own dispute pages. Where a live page cannot be reached by an automated check, we use an archived capture, date-stamp it, and say so on the page in words a reader can see. The TransUnion page is the worked example: it prints a visible “last verified, from archived captures rather than a live page” line and tells you to re-check before mailing.
3. Does a company’s reporting claim match that company’s own statement? Buy-now-pay-later policies change quietly, so each of those pages is a brand × product × bureau × date table with its own “last checked” date. Where the company does not actually say, the cell reads not verified rather than being filled in from a blog.
4. Does every claim carry the date it was checked? Each page prints a “sources checked” line naming what was opened. Nothing on this site is published from a search-result snippet.
5. Does the page promise an outcome anywhere? If it does, it does not ship. Every page carries the same disclaimer, and it says plainly that nobody can promise you what a bureau, a furnisher or a court will decide.

The last point is not a formality. Under 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1)(A) a dispute is free and the bureau has 30 days to investigate; under 15 U.S.C. §1692g(c) disputing a debt is not an admission that you owe it. Those rights are real and they are yours. What nobody can give you is a prediction of how they end, so nobody here will try.

What is deliberately absent

• No photograph of a person. There is no headshot on this page and there will not be a stock image of a person standing in for a reviewer. A fabricated face behind a statutory claim is a deception, and it is the kind that costs a reader their rights rather than their money.
• No invented qualification. No “experienced consumer lawyer”, no “years in credit law”, no credential we cannot produce.
• No personality cult around a founder. The byline names the organisation because the organisation is what did the work.

What the byline covers, and what it does not

The byline covers the pages: the reference guides, the letter templates and their instructions. It is a statement that the material was researched from primary sources and checked against the statutory text. It is not a statement that a lawyer has reviewed your specific situation, because nobody here has read your specific situation and cannot.

The letter composer and the deadline tracker are software, not advice: they format text and count days. The letters themselves reference the bureaus’ own free dispute forms and the CFPB’s free templates, so you can always use those instead of ours. If you need advice about whether to sue, settle or respond to a filing, that is a lawyer’s call and this site will not pretend otherwise.

See the standard applied

It is easier to judge a standard than to read one, so here is where it is visible in practice:

• Credit dispute letter templates — addresses printed beside the letter they belong to, statutes cited by section, and an item deliberately left out because it could not be verified.
• The TransUnion dispute address — the one address we could not reach live, with the archived-capture method stated on the page.
• How charge-offs work — the seven-year rule under 15 U.S.C. §1681c(a)(4), plus the “four years” claim taken apart because it is repeated everywhere and is not in any law.
• Medical debt on a credit report — a rule that was vacated before it took effect, described accurately rather than described as “overturned”.

Questions about the byline

Next: what DisputeDesk is and who pays us · or back to the guides.