Wow. ECMC is hard core. Just got a letter saying I'm making frivilous dispute (not a dispute at all) and they are no longer required to respond to requests for validation (I made no request for validation) and said provide documentation if I have a legit dispute.
I wrote earlier about my 2 goodwill letters, which stated clearly that they were goodwills & not disputes. After the second one, they updated my reporting, originally set to fall off this month, to now fall off in 14 months. Apparently, was previously set based on date of last activity & now is set at date of default, for student loan. Plus, they marked my account "disputed." They responded to both those with nasty letters & this new letter came out of the blue.
Why would a company go out of the way to screw me over on a PAID debt? Now I'm scared & unsure whether to try to direct dispute the fall off date. Whether to try through CFPB, or not?? Most importantly, I can understand a co. deciding not to GW, but why would they go to these lengths to just be plain nasty? I don't get it.
I wrote earlier about my 2 goodwill letters, which stated clearly that they were goodwills & not disputes. After the second one, they updated my reporting, originally set to fall off this month, to now fall off in 14 months. Apparently, was previously set based on date of last activity & now is set at date of default, for student loan. Plus, they marked my account "disputed." They responded to both those with nasty letters & this new letter came out of the blue.
Why would a company go out of the way to screw me over on a PAID debt? Now I'm scared & unsure whether to try to direct dispute the fall off date. Whether to try through CFPB, or not?? Most importantly, I can understand a co. deciding not to GW, but why would they go to these lengths to just be plain nasty? I don't get it.
Starting Score: TU 490 on 11/2012
@lavencedora wrote:
Wow. ECMC is hard core. Just got a letter saying I'm making frivilous dispute (not a dispute at all) and they are no longer required to respond to requests for validation (I made no request for validation) and said provide documentation if I have a legit dispute.
I wrote earlier about my 2 goodwill letters, which stated clearly that they were goodwills & not disputes. After the second one, they updated my reporting, originally set to fall off this month, to now fall off in 14 months. Apparently, was previously set based on date of last activity & now is set at date of default, for student loan. Plus, they marked my account "disputed." They responded to both those with nasty letters & this new letter came out of the blue.
Why would a company go out of the way to screw me over on a PAID debt? Now I'm scared & unsure whether to try to direct dispute the fall off date. Whether to try through CFPB, or not?? Most importantly, I can understand a co. deciding not to GW, but why would they go to these lengths to just be plain nasty? I don't get it.
The CRTP is from the DOFD if they have violated the law hit them with CFPB complaint with deletion as the remedy along with 1K for violating the FCRA. If this is a SL company they are tied in with the govt and think they are above the law...
I would file CFPB in an instant for re-aging, but only one issue: I have been unable to obtain a clear answer as to whether DofFD is the date that starts the reporting period for SLs. I am seeing DofFD, date of default and date of payment listed alternately by seemingly reputable sources when it comes to student loans. Equifax says it's DofFD. If so, then they clearly just re-aged me. But, I want to be very clear on this prior to filing with CFPB.
The other question is why? I understand why CAs want to do this for maximum leverage when trying to get payment, but I don't understand why they would do it on a PAID collection. They don't need to hold anything over my head at this point ... Anyway, if I can get this point of clarity then I will feel confident about filing a dispute.
SLs stay on report for 7 years from date of default, I dont see how the date of default can be so far ahead of the date of last activity, federal law considers them in default 270 days after the last payment is made. If you have a report indicating fall off date this month and the new report shows its been aged into the future I would supply this evidence to the CFPB as well to back up your claim.
Old reports all show fall off date of 06/2014, which seems to correspond with a reported date of last activity of 07/07. ECMC is saying my date of default is 08/08, which is more than the 270 days, not sure why, then a payment in 2010 via tax return intercept. They are now reporting my DofFD to be the same as date of default, which should not be the case. Even if there is a Q about which triggers reporting fall off, I don't understand how DofFD can be same date as default & my last activity over a year earlier? I'm so confused and dispirited. It would have just fallen off without notice if I hadn't made a simple request they delete a couple months early.
I do have the old reports, however, which do not explicitly show DofFD, but clearly show a fall off date of 6/2014. I can certainly make a claim that the fall of date has suddenly changed, but I am wondering if they can counter that NOW it's the correct fall off & BEFORE it was the error? I don't know if that's possible, but that's what I'm trying to understand.