Alternative collection strategy leads to 35 point bump

[Anonymous]

Recently sent a DV to Enhanced Recovery for an old (2012) collection from Sprint for $370 stating I've never received any communication from them. As expected, they completely ignored it. Instead of sending a second letter or dealing with it through the courts, I filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (http://www.consumerfinance.gov), includingthe original letter and CRRR documentation. It took a week, but here's the meat of the response:

If you haven't 

"In an effort to resolve Mr. *****s concerns, our agency has submitted a manual deletion with all credit reporting agencies associated with the account and our office. The confirmation number for this request is ********. Please allow up to 30 days for the credit reporting agencies to process our request.

Well, here we are 3 days later and I just recieved an alert from MyFico that my EQ score jumped 35 points! 

If you haven't tried it before, I highly suggest taking this route if you've had trouble removing old collections. It's a much easier path to resolution if you're dealing with an old CA that's less than receptive.

[Rebuilding69]

I may have to try this route if the CRA's dont fix my paid judgement info. The filing dates are off by almost 8 months.

[RobertEG]

What was the basis for your CFPB complaint?

Lack of response to a DV request is not a violation of the FDCPA.

Was your complaint over their lack of dunning notice?

[Focker69]

Any updates on this? What was the basis of his complaint?

[Anonymous]

First thing's first: My sincere apologies for not checking in on this thread sooner. 

In a nutshell, the basis for my complaint was that the CA didn't follow the FCRA. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they sent notices to an old address (maybe, maybe not...who knows?), but the bottom line is that I never received an initial communication stating I had 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt, and they have no proof that they ever sent it.. So I sent the DV letter CRRR, and...as expected with a two year old debt...they ignored it. So instead of jumping through the hoops the CRA's like to throw out there, I decided to resolve it through a more consumer-friendly government agency that has a few teeth.

[RobertEG]

AS for this being a "strategy" to be pursued by others, it is unlikely to be as successful as was the case for the poster.

A debt collector can report a collection without ever having sent dunning notice.

There is no violation of any provision of the FCRA involved in their reporting of the collection.

There is no requiremnt for a debt collector to reply to a DV.  Thus, they did not violaate the FCRA or the FDCPA by "ignoring" your DV.

If your DV was timely, meaning it was sent either without having received dunning notice or within 39 days of receipt of dunning notice, it imposes a cease collection bar on teh debt collector, which remains in effect until such time as they choose to provide the requested validation.  There is no requirment to or period for any response.

They, as stated in teir letter, deleted not because theywere wrong, but because they chose to do so.

I would not expect that to be a routine outcome of a complaint to the CFPB, and it was not a requirment imposed by the CFPB as an outcome of the complaint.

I thus would not recommend the strategy as a way to deal with a reported collection.

[Anonymous]

whats the worse that can happen given the OP's strategy? Almost all creditors/collection agencies respond within 15 days to CFPB complaint.

They can always says bogus argument or not in violatioin at all and will continue collection activities as set forth in FCRA. then you would know what to do next. 

Not pursuing it would never ever result in anything. You would never find out. Also, gaining FICO points definitely helps if removed.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure some will try and it will work. Nothing wrong with trying

[gdale6]

On My Fico it would be a violation of the TOS to advocate the filing of CFPB complaints using laws as a basis that you know are not correct to your situation.