@macklr21 wrote:Hi,
I've been a member for a while and have gotten a lot of great information from everyone. Here is my situation, I was in the middle of getting pre-approved for a mortgage loan, when all of a sudden asset acceptance appeared on my credit report. I had a debt with them, they purchased one of my charge-off accounts and I paid it off because they filed court documents and I didn't want that. Well they were only being reported in my TU and EX report and not Equifax. Now after 4 years of being only on those two credit agencies and paying off almost $3K they decide to throw it on my Equifax credit. Out of the blue, now it dropped my score by almost 100 points and I can no longer qualify for a mortgage as my median score just fell below required minimum. I went back and forth with them and they refuse to do anything, they updated account to show a 0 balance with equifax, but TU and EX both show a $47 balance. What are your opinions on what I should do. I did report to BBB today, but will have to wait and see what comes out of that.
Any and all suggestions appreciated.
Thanks
Unfortunately, your collection score went up and when you applied for mortgage preapproval, they came out as they knew you needed them gone in order to get mortgage. Most UW will require it paid before they will move forward with your mortgage approval. This is more common than you would think.
However, there is hope. You should do a 1-2 punch (DV Asset Acceptance & Dispute w/CRA(s)) in writing and send CMRRR to have documentation of delivery/proof of dispute. Use the FDCPA to your benefit towards Asset Acceptance and the FCRA towards the CRAs. The BBB will not be as helpful as you think and I could be wrong about that though.
If your 1-2 punch is unsuccessful, then escalate to the CFPB to resolve issue. These steps may delay you getting your new home depending on how far you have to take it.
If you prefer something quicker, a PFD in writing COULD work as well.
@LearningMoreAboutCredit wrote:
@macklr21 wrote:Hi,
I've been a member for a while and have gotten a lot of great information from everyone. Here is my situation, I was in the middle of getting pre-approved for a mortgage loan, when all of a sudden asset acceptance appeared on my credit report. I had a debt with them, they purchased one of my charge-off accounts and I paid it off because they filed court documents and I didn't want that. Well they were only being reported in my TU and EX report and not Equifax. Now after 4 years of being only on those two credit agencies and paying off almost $3K they decide to throw it on my Equifax credit. Out of the blue, now it dropped my score by almost 100 points and I can no longer qualify for a mortgage as my median score just fell below required minimum. I went back and forth with them and they refuse to do anything, they updated account to show a 0 balance with equifax, but TU and EX both show a $47 balance. What are your opinions on what I should do. I did report to BBB today, but will have to wait and see what comes out of that.
Any and all suggestions appreciated.
Thanks
Unfortunately, your collection score went up and when you applied for mortgage preapproval, they came out as they knew you needed them gone in order to get mortgage. Most UW will require it paid before they will move forward with your mortgage approval. This is more common than you would think.
However, there is hope. You should do a 1-2 punch (DV Asset Acceptance & Dispute w/CRA(s)) in writing and send CMRRR to have documentation of delivery/proof of dispute. Use the FDCPA to your benefit towards Asset Acceptance and the FCRA towards the CRAs. The BBB will not be as helpful as you think and I could be wrong about that though.
If your 1-2 punch is unsuccessful, then escalate to the CFPB to resolve issue. These steps may delay you getting your new home depending on how far you have to take it.
If you prefer something quicker, a PFD in writing COULD work as well.
http://www.creditreporting.com/fair-credit-reporting-act/
This is a misconception. It was popular a few years ago on some other boards. The concept is that you DV so they can't collect, or supposedly update the tradeline, and then you dispute with the thought that since they can't update, they have to delete.
Well truth is, all they have to do is mark it in dispute, there is no requirement to delete. There is even wording in the FDCPA concerning just this topic.
July 2013 score: EQ FICO 819, TU08 778, EX "806 lender pull 07/26/2013
Goal Score: All Scores 760+, Newest goal 800+
Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge
Current scores after adding $81K in CLs and 2 new cars since July 2013
EQ:809 TU 777 EX 790 Now it's just garden time!
June 2017 update: All scores over 820, just pure gardening now.
@Shogun wrote:
@LearningMoreAboutCredit wrote:
@macklr21 wrote:Hi,
I've been a member for a while and have gotten a lot of great information from everyone. Here is my situation, I was in the middle of getting pre-approved for a mortgage loan, when all of a sudden asset acceptance appeared on my credit report. I had a debt with them, they purchased one of my charge-off accounts and I paid it off because they filed court documents and I didn't want that. Well they were only being reported in my TU and EX report and not Equifax. Now after 4 years of being only on those two credit agencies and paying off almost $3K they decide to throw it on my Equifax credit. Out of the blue, now it dropped my score by almost 100 points and I can no longer qualify for a mortgage as my median score just fell below required minimum. I went back and forth with them and they refuse to do anything, they updated account to show a 0 balance with equifax, but TU and EX both show a $47 balance. What are your opinions on what I should do. I did report to BBB today, but will have to wait and see what comes out of that.
Any and all suggestions appreciated.
Thanks
Unfortunately, your collection score went up and when you applied for mortgage preapproval, they came out as they knew you needed them gone in order to get mortgage. Most UW will require it paid before they will move forward with your mortgage approval. This is more common than you would think.
However, there is hope. You should do a 1-2 punch (DV Asset Acceptance & Dispute w/CRA(s)) in writing and send CMRRR to have documentation of delivery/proof of dispute. Use the FDCPA to your benefit towards Asset Acceptance and the FCRA towards the CRAs. The BBB will not be as helpful as you think and I could be wrong about that though.
If your 1-2 punch is unsuccessful, then escalate to the CFPB to resolve issue. These steps may delay you getting your new home depending on how far you have to take it.
If you prefer something quicker, a PFD in writing COULD work as well.
http://www.creditreporting.com/fair-credit-reporting-act/
This is a misconception. It was popular a few years ago on some other boards. The concept is that you DV so they can't collect, or supposedly update the tradeline, and then you dispute with the thought that since they can't update, they have to delete.
Well truth is, all they have to do is mark it in dispute, there is no requirement to delete. There is even wording in the FDCPA concerning just this topic.
I typically don't give out advice that I haven't used myself. In fact, I know this works as I did this as recently as last year with a commonly known CA as well as Asset Acceptance and it worked like a charm. However, I respect your opinion to disagree. The OP can decide whether it is worth a try or not. I provide answers to questions...nothing more.
Honestly, I'm not going to pay anyone who can't prove that I owe the debt. I had LVNV tried that in the past and they paid the price as well as the CRA that failed to comply with the FCRA. Unfortunately, I can't provide details as I signed a NDA for compensation.
I don't advocate dodging legitimate debt. I firmly believe that if you owe it, you should pay it. I will negotiate for a PFD if they are lucky enough to make it to my reports. I should knock on wood as that hasn't happened in years as I constantly monitor my reports and I am fortunate to be able to pay my monthly debts.
@LearningMoreAboutCredit wrote:
@Shogun wrote:
@LearningMoreAboutCredit wrote:
@macklr21 wrote:Hi,
I've been a member for a while and have gotten a lot of great information from everyone. Here is my situation, I was in the middle of getting pre-approved for a mortgage loan, when all of a sudden asset acceptance appeared on my credit report. I had a debt with them, they purchased one of my charge-off accounts and I paid it off because they filed court documents and I didn't want that. Well they were only being reported in my TU and EX report and not Equifax. Now after 4 years of being only on those two credit agencies and paying off almost $3K they decide to throw it on my Equifax credit. Out of the blue, now it dropped my score by almost 100 points and I can no longer qualify for a mortgage as my median score just fell below required minimum. I went back and forth with them and they refuse to do anything, they updated account to show a 0 balance with equifax, but TU and EX both show a $47 balance. What are your opinions on what I should do. I did report to BBB today, but will have to wait and see what comes out of that.
Any and all suggestions appreciated.
Thanks
Unfortunately, your collection score went up and when you applied for mortgage preapproval, they came out as they knew you needed them gone in order to get mortgage. Most UW will require it paid before they will move forward with your mortgage approval. This is more common than you would think.
However, there is hope. You should do a 1-2 punch (DV Asset Acceptance & Dispute w/CRA(s)) in writing and send CMRRR to have documentation of delivery/proof of dispute. Use the FDCPA to your benefit towards Asset Acceptance and the FCRA towards the CRAs. The BBB will not be as helpful as you think and I could be wrong about that though.
If your 1-2 punch is unsuccessful, then escalate to the CFPB to resolve issue. These steps may delay you getting your new home depending on how far you have to take it.
If you prefer something quicker, a PFD in writing COULD work as well.
http://www.creditreporting.com/fair-credit-reporting-act/
This is a misconception. It was popular a few years ago on some other boards. The concept is that you DV so they can't collect, or supposedly update the tradeline, and then you dispute with the thought that since they can't update, they have to delete.
Well truth is, all they have to do is mark it in dispute, there is no requirement to delete. There is even wording in the FDCPA concerning just this topic.
I typically don't give out advice that I haven't used myself. In fact, I know this works as I did this as recently as last year with a commonly known CA as well as Asset Acceptance and it worked like a charm. However, I respect your opinion to disagree. The OP can decide whether it is worth a try or not. I provide answers to questions...nothing more.
Honestly, I'm not going to pay anyone who can't prove that I owe the debt. I had LVNV tried that in the past and they paid the price as well as the CRA that failed to comply with the FCRA. Unfortunately, I can't provide details as I signed a NDA for compensation.
I don't advocate dodging legitimate debt. I firmly believe that if you owe it, you should pay it. I will negotiate for a PFD if they are lucky enough to make it to my reports. I should knock on wood as that hasn't happened in years as I constantly monitor my reports and I am fortunate to be able to pay my monthly debts.
I agree that it is a matter of opinion, and some things might work with some of the creditors, not with others. It's luck of the draw. But let's break down the OP's complete problem.
Did the OP have a legitimate debt? Did the debt appear on their CR? Was there anything wrong with the reporting of the debt? It was added to EQ later, but where is the violation of that? If it was ever a collection, if it appears at any time during the CRTP, and was properly placed, then where is the reason for a dispute?
I do have to use caution while moderating the boards, because such use could in fact be a violation of the CROA guidlines which myFICO boards adhere to. I do realize that there are other boards out there that allow other types of postings that we do not and there are times when that information filters to our boards.
I am glad that this has worked for you, but as far as promoting it on the open boards I will have to be vigilant in the monitoring of such activity. The concept has been around for some time, and even some of our posters that are more adept in legal wording and procedures have commented on it in the past.
July 2013 score: EQ FICO 819, TU08 778, EX "806 lender pull 07/26/2013
Goal Score: All Scores 760+, Newest goal 800+
Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge
Current scores after adding $81K in CLs and 2 new cars since July 2013
EQ:809 TU 777 EX 790 Now it's just garden time!
June 2017 update: All scores over 820, just pure gardening now.
@Shogun wrote:
@LearningMoreAboutCredit wrote:
@Shogun wrote:
@LearningMoreAboutCredit wrote:
@macklr21 wrote:Hi,
I've been a member for a while and have gotten a lot of great information from everyone. Here is my situation, I was in the middle of getting pre-approved for a mortgage loan, when all of a sudden asset acceptance appeared on my credit report. I had a debt with them, they purchased one of my charge-off accounts and I paid it off because they filed court documents and I didn't want that. Well they were only being reported in my TU and EX report and not Equifax. Now after 4 years of being only on those two credit agencies and paying off almost $3K they decide to throw it on my Equifax credit. Out of the blue, now it dropped my score by almost 100 points and I can no longer qualify for a mortgage as my median score just fell below required minimum. I went back and forth with them and they refuse to do anything, they updated account to show a 0 balance with equifax, but TU and EX both show a $47 balance. What are your opinions on what I should do. I did report to BBB today, but will have to wait and see what comes out of that.
Any and all suggestions appreciated.
Thanks
Unfortunately, your collection score went up and when you applied for mortgage preapproval, they came out as they knew you needed them gone in order to get mortgage. Most UW will require it paid before they will move forward with your mortgage approval. This is more common than you would think.
However, there is hope. You should do a 1-2 punch (DV Asset Acceptance & Dispute w/CRA(s)) in writing and send CMRRR to have documentation of delivery/proof of dispute. Use the FDCPA to your benefit towards Asset Acceptance and the FCRA towards the CRAs. The BBB will not be as helpful as you think and I could be wrong about that though.
If your 1-2 punch is unsuccessful, then escalate to the CFPB to resolve issue. These steps may delay you getting your new home depending on how far you have to take it.
If you prefer something quicker, a PFD in writing COULD work as well.
http://www.creditreporting.com/fair-credit-reporting-act/
This is a misconception. It was popular a few years ago on some other boards. The concept is that you DV so they can't collect, or supposedly update the tradeline, and then you dispute with the thought that since they can't update, they have to delete.
Well truth is, all they have to do is mark it in dispute, there is no requirement to delete. There is even wording in the FDCPA concerning just this topic.
I typically don't give out advice that I haven't used myself. In fact, I know this works as I did this as recently as last year with a commonly known CA as well as Asset Acceptance and it worked like a charm. However, I respect your opinion to disagree. The OP can decide whether it is worth a try or not. I provide answers to questions...nothing more.
Honestly, I'm not going to pay anyone who can't prove that I owe the debt. I had LVNV tried that in the past and they paid the price as well as the CRA that failed to comply with the FCRA. Unfortunately, I can't provide details as I signed a NDA for compensation.
I don't advocate dodging legitimate debt. I firmly believe that if you owe it, you should pay it. I will negotiate for a PFD if they are lucky enough to make it to my reports. I should knock on wood as that hasn't happened in years as I constantly monitor my reports and I am fortunate to be able to pay my monthly debts.
I agree that it is a matter of opinion, and some things might work with some of the creditors, not with others. It's luck of the draw. But let's break down the OP's complete problem.
Did the OP have a legitimate debt? Did the debt appear on their CR? Was there anything wrong with the reporting of the debt? It was added to EQ later, but where is the violation of that? If it was ever a collection, if it appears at any time during the CRTP, and was properly placed, then where is the reason for a dispute?
I do have to use caution while moderating the boards, because such use could in fact be a violation of the CROA guidlines which myFICO boards adhere to. I do realize that there are other boards out there that allow other types of postings that we do not and there are times when that information filters to our boards.
I am glad that this has worked for you, but as far as promoting it on the open boards I will have to be vigilant in the monitoring of such activity. The concept has been around for some time, and even some of our posters that are more adept in legal wording and procedures have commented on it in the past.
Thank you for the link. Perhaps I read the OP's post incorrectly. I highlighted the portions of OP's post I apparently misunderstood. It sounds like the collection was being reported as recent as OP took a ~100pt hit.
If you believe that my posts violate any TOS, please delete. I don't really see how using the law for once to help me correct errors on my report is in violation, but again if this is in violation please delete. I will not be offended and will carefully choose my words in the future to hopefully continue to pay forward the knowledge I've gained over the years.
No, I will not delete, I love differing opinions which is how I have learned on here. Trust me, I know I am not the know all be all, there's just certain things that myFICO won't allow on the boards. And yes, even if they work. 
And to lend a bit of credence on the issue, here's the precident for the 1-2 punch when it was put to the test.
Edeh makes an additional argument with respect to his FDCPA claim that Judge Noel did
not address. Edeh argues that Midland violated the FDCPA not only when it reported his
disputed debt to a CRA without verifying it to Edeh, but also when Midland, in response to
inquiries from the CRAs, verified that debt to those CRAs before first verifying it to Edeh. Edeh
Br. S.J. at 2; Edeh Obj. R&R at 4. According to Edeh, each verification by Midland to a CRA
was an attempted “collection” in violation of § 1692g(b). In assessing Edeh’s claim, it is
important to distinguish Midland’s reporting the debt to the CRAs on its own initiative from
Midland’s verifying the debt after receiving notification from the CRAs that Edeh had disputed
the debt. This particular claim of Edeh’s involves only the latter.
Edeh cites no authority supporting his interpretation of the FDCPA, and the absence of
supporting authority is not surprising. As Midland points out, while the FDCPA governs a debt
collector’s verification of a disputed debt to a consumer, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b), a different
statute — the FCRA — governs a debt collector’s verification of a disputed debt to a CRA, see
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). The obligations imposed under the two statutes differ significantly.
Under the FDCPA, a debt collector who receives a written dispute of a debt from a consumer
need not verify the debt at all, but can instead cease efforts to collect the disputed debt. See Jang
v. A.M. Miller & Assocs., 122 F.3d 480, 483 (7th Cir. 1997). But under the FCRA, a debt
collector who receives notification from a CRA that a consumer has disputed a debt must
respond to the CRA within a certain period of time. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)-(2).
The Court rejects Edeh’s argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed
debt to a consumer, verifies that debt to a CRA in response to a notification received from the
CRA engages in “collection of the debt” in violation of § 1692g(b). No debt collector is required
to report a debt to a CRA before verifying that debt to a consumer — and thus, as the Court held
above, it is reasonable to view such a practice as a species of debt collection prohibited under
§ 1692g(b). But a debt collector is required by the FCRA to verify a debt to a CRA after the
CRA notifies the debt collector that the debt is in dispute. It makes little sense to view such a
verification as a prohibited attempt at debt collection. The debt collector is acting not on its own
initiative, but in response to a notice sent by the CRA, and the debt collector is responding to that
notice not to collect a debt, but to avoid violating the FCRA.
The Court therefore rejects Edeh’s argument that Midland violated the FDCPA when,
after being notified by the CRAs that Edeh was disputing his debt, Midland verified that debt to
the CRAs.
July 2013 score: EQ FICO 819, TU08 778, EX "806 lender pull 07/26/2013
Goal Score: All Scores 760+, Newest goal 800+
Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge
Current scores after adding $81K in CLs and 2 new cars since July 2013
EQ:809 TU 777 EX 790 Now it's just garden time!
June 2017 update: All scores over 820, just pure gardening now.
@Shogun wrote:No, I will not delete, I love differing opinions which is how I have learned on here. Trust me, I know I am not the know all be all, there's just certain things that myFICO won't allow on the boards. And yes, even if they work.
Edeh makes an additional argument with respect to his FDCPA claim that Judge Noel did
not address. Edeh argues that Midland violated the FDCPA not only when it reported his
disputed debt to a CRA without verifying it to Edeh, but also when Midland, in response to
inquiries from the CRAs, verified that debt to those CRAs before first verifying it to Edeh. Edeh
Br. S.J. at 2; Edeh Obj. R&R at 4. According to Edeh, each verification by Midland to a CRA
was an attempted “collection” in violation of § 1692g(b). In assessing Edeh’s claim, it is
important to distinguish Midland’s reporting the debt to the CRAs on its own initiative from
Midland’s verifying the debt after receiving notification from the CRAs that Edeh had disputed
the debt. This particular claim of Edeh’s involves only the latter.
Edeh cites no authority supporting his interpretation of the FDCPA, and the absence of
supporting authority is not surprising. As Midland points out, while the FDCPA governs a debt
collector’s verification of a disputed debt to a consumer, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b), a different
statute — the FCRA — governs a debt collector’s verification of a disputed debt to a CRA, see
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). The obligations imposed under the two statutes differ significantly.
Under the FDCPA, a debt collector who receives a written dispute of a debt from a consumer
need not verify the debt at all, but can instead cease efforts to collect the disputed debt. See Jang
v. A.M. Miller & Assocs., 122 F.3d 480, 483 (7th Cir. 1997). But under the FCRA, a debt
collector who receives notification from a CRA that a consumer has disputed a debt must
respond to the CRA within a certain period of time. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)-(2).
The Court rejects Edeh’s argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed
debt to a consumer, verifies that debt to a CRA in response to a notification received from the
CRA engages in “collection of the debt” in violation of § 1692g(b). No debt collector is required
to report a debt to a CRA before verifying that debt to a consumer — and thus, as the Court held
above, it is reasonable to view such a practice as a species of debt collection prohibited under
§ 1692g(b). But a debt collector is required by the FCRA to verify a debt to a CRA after the
CRA notifies the debt collector that the debt is in dispute. It makes little sense to view such a
verification as a prohibited attempt at debt collection. The debt collector is acting not on its own
initiative, but in response to a notice sent by the CRA, and the debt collector is responding to that
notice not to collect a debt, but to avoid violating the FCRA.
The Court therefore rejects Edeh’s argument that Midland violated the FDCPA when,
after being notified by the CRAs that Edeh was disputing his debt, Midland verified that debt to
the CRAs.
Awesome read! Thank you, @Shogun!
