Asset Acceptance called about an account that isn't mine

[Mizsass]

This morning there was a message left on the answering machine from Asset Acceptance in regards to a debt. I could not for the life of me figure out what this could be in regards to. I have done a LOT of cleanup on my credit over the past year and a half and I know everything that is sitting on my report and everything that has been for the past 10 years. I keep a credit watch service active and monitor if anything new appears. There is not, nor has there ever been anything from Asset Acceptance.

I called them, and the rep I spoke to was actually very polite, contrary to everything I had read so far about this company. However, the debt referenced is for a Capital One card opened in June of 97 and paid current until payments ceased in January of 1998. I have never had a Capital One credit card, and I had absolutely no credit cards in June of 1997.

I told the rep I had never had a credit card and he told me he'd send me a packet of information in the mail because I would have to obtain a police report regarding identity theft. I printed up a debt validation letter and sent it to them certified and return receipt requesting several pieces of information.

I also asked a cease and desist on phone contact. Do these agencies use reverse directory lookup? I am not sure how they got the phone number they called. Its in my boyfriends name. The only thing I can think of is if they do soft pulls on credit reports to get recent address information and did a reverse lookup. Is that a possibility?

Message Edited by Mizsass on 10-27-2007 01:10 PM

[Anonymous]

These twits often use a variety of means, methods and databases that are sometimes questionable, at best.

"Smith, Schmidt. Portland, Oregon. Portland, Maine. Close enough. Give 'em a call Bert."

My advice is to DV, and keep it simple. See the DV link in my sig.

I also almost NEVER recommend doing a C&D. If it ain't yours, and you know it, and they are telling you it's a debt from 1972, I would still DV rather than C&D. It gives me more legal leverage to use if they turn out to be in the wrong. However, if it turns out I'm wrong and it's mine, and it's from 2004, not 1972, then a C&D might well invite a lawsuit over something you could resolve with a PFD settlement.

Message Edited by Noah_Bodie on 11-08-2007 02:54 PM