Debt validation issue

Anonymous · ‎05-11-2010

I'm looking for advice from the forum on a sticky credit issue (aren't they all?). I don't have full command of all the acronyms, but do have the link to the guide handy. Thanks in advance for any help you provide!

I co-signed a lease for an apartment for my stepson in August of 2006. During the first night of occupancy, he violated the lease and was "evicted" the next day. The apartment complex owners wanted full payment for the entire year ($8300) and we refused to pay.

For many years, nothing really happened with the exception of my stepson receiving occasional credit collection letters which we disputed by asking for validation on the basis of proof that they had not re-rented the apartment during the year and thereby possibly were collecting double-rent which is illegal in the state of CO.

The CA never provided proof that the apartment was not rented again. They simply provided a statement showing that he owed the money as well as a copy of the lease.

In November of 2009, I found the TL on my CR marked as in dispute even though I was never notified that they were going to put something on my CR. (I did receive a letter 20 months ago, but asked for DV which I never received.)

In January 2010, I did lots of research and found the following problems with the CA tactics. (The CA is National Credit Systems in Atlanta, GA.):

1. They never notified me before putting the TL on my CR.

2. They re-aged the debt by 15 months - the DOLA should be 09/2006 but is not set as 12/2007.

3. They have not provided the proper DV - in short, they haven't shown that the room wasn't rented out again during the period of the lease.

I hired a lawyer to research and send a letter to National Credit stating that they had not proven the debt and had violated the FCRA. National Credit responded with the same bogus paperwork in February 2010. They also offered to settle at 25% off the original amount.

I called the CA in March and tried to negotiate something better but was thoroughly ineffective. In addition, I caught the CA "specialist" pretending to be 2 separate people with 2 different names. In fact, he sent me 2 letters with 2 names but the same signature.

I don't know where to go at this point. My credit score has gone from 800+ to 690. I don't want to pay $300/hr to a lawyer to file a lawsuit, but also don't want to pay the CA anything considering what crooks they are. Anything thoughts about what I should do next?

Another question, if I pay this bogus debt, will it actually improve my credit score again or am I screwed for a while no matter what?

guiness56 · ‎05-11-2010

Hi and welcome to the forums.

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm looking for advice from the forum on a sticky credit issue (aren't they all?). I don't have full command of all the acronyms, but do have the link to the guide handy. Thanks in advance for any help you provide!

I co-signed a lease for an apartment for my stepson in August of 2006. During the first night of occupancy, he violated the lease and was "evicted" the next day. The apartment complex owners wanted full payment for the entire year ($8300) and we refused to pay.

For many years, nothing really happened with the exception of my stepson receiving occasional credit collection letters which we disputed by asking for validation on the basis of proof that they had not re-rented the apartment during the year and thereby possibly were collecting double-rent which is illegal in the state of CO.

The CA never provided proof that the apartment was not rented again. They simply provided a statement showing that he owed the money as well as a copy of the lease.

In November of 2009, I found the TL on my CR marked as in dispute even though I was never notified that they were going to put something on my CR. (I did receive a letter 20 months ago, but asked for DV which I never received.)

In January 2010, I did lots of research and found the following problems with the CA tactics. (The CA is National Credit Systems in Atlanta, GA.):
1. They never notified me before putting the TL on my CR.
2. They re-aged the debt by 15 months - the DOLA should be 09/2006 but is not set as 12/2007. What is the DoFD?
3. They have not provided the proper DV - in short, they haven't shown that the room wasn't rented out again during the period of the lease. They are not responsible for providing this information. They are only collecting what the OC forwarded to them. That issue would be with the OC.

I hired a lawyer to research and send a letter to National Credit stating that they had not proven the debt and had violated the FCRA. National Credit responded with the same bogus paperwork in February 2010. They also offered to settle at 25% off the original amount.

I called the CA in March and tried to negotiate something better but was thoroughly ineffective. In addition, I caught the CA "specialist" pretending to be 2 separate people with 2 different names. In fact, he sent me 2 letters with 2 names but the same signature.

I don't know where to go at this point. My credit score has gone from 800+ to 690. I don't want to pay $300/hr to a lawyer to file a lawsuit, but also don't want to pay the CA anything considering what crooks they are. Anything thoughts about what I should do next?

Another question, if I pay this bogus debt, will it actually improve my credit score again or am I screwed for a while no matter what? No, just paying it will not help your score. It would need to be removed.

Although your stepson violated the terms of the lease, I would look up the Landlord/Tenant laws for CO.

For clarification, the CA is not responsible to provide proof the apartment was not re-rented. That would be on the OC. I find it highly unlikely they did not re-rent it.

Credit Scoring 101
Guide to Common Abbreviations
Other Frequently Requested Threads
Closing Credit Cards
Direct Dispute

Anonymous · ‎05-11-2010

@guiness56 wrote:
Hi and welcome to the forums.

@Anonymous wrote:
[...]

In November of 2009, I found the TL on my CR marked as in dispute even though I was never notified that they were going to put something on my CR. (I did receive a letter 20 months ago, but asked for DV which I never received.)

In January 2010, I did lots of research and found the following problems with the CA tactics. (The CA is National Credit Systems in Atlanta, GA.):
1. They never notified me before putting the TL on my CR.
2. They re-aged the debt by 15 months - the DOLA should be 09/2006 but is not set as 12/2007. What is the DoFD?

The DoFD is July 2014, which I guess would suggest that it is earlier than I thought but still 1 year off from the original date of "non-payment".
[...]
_____________________________________________________________________________

Although your stepson violated the terms of the lease, I would look up the Landlord/Tenant laws for CO.

For clarification, the CA is not responsible to provide proof the apartment was not re-rented. That would be on the OC. I find it highly unlikely they did not re-rent it.

I've contacted Tenant lawyers in CO. They typically understand the tenant laws but don't quite know what to do about the CA issue. In their mind, I have a potential case but not a slam-dunk. The lease puts me in a grey area of CO law since it says they have to fill up the entire building of apartments before giving me a refund on the lease. Again, they've never provided any proof on any of this so far.

However, what I think I'm hearing is that neither the CA nor the CRA are going to investigate Colorado tenant law. In addition, I should be trying to deal with the OC to get the issue resolved so it can be removed from my CR. Is that correct?

guiness56 · ‎05-11-2010

@Anonymous wrote:

@guiness56 wrote:
Hi and welcome to the forums.

@Anonymous wrote:
[...]

In November of 2009, I found the TL on my CR marked as in dispute even though I was never notified that they were going to put something on my CR. (I did receive a letter 20 months ago, but asked for DV which I never received.)

In January 2010, I did lots of research and found the following problems with the CA tactics. (The CA is National Credit Systems in Atlanta, GA.):
1. They never notified me before putting the TL on my CR.
2. They re-aged the debt by 15 months - the DOLA should be 09/2006 but is not set as 12/2007. What is the DoFD?

The DoFD is July 2014, which I guess would suggest that it is earlier than I thought but still 1 year off from the original date of "non-payment".
[...]
_____________________________________________________________________________

Although your stepson violated the terms of the lease, I would look up the Landlord/Tenant laws for CO.

For clarification, the CA is not responsible to provide proof the apartment was not re-rented. That would be on the OC. I find it highly unlikely they did not re-rent it.

I've contacted Tenant lawyers in CO. They typically understand the tenant laws but don't quite know what to do about the CA issue. In their mind, I have a potential case but not a slam-dunk. The lease puts me in a grey area of CO law since it says they have to fill up the entire building of apartments before giving me a refund on the lease. Again, they've never provided any proof on any of this so far.

However, what I think I'm hearing is that neither the CA nor the CRA are going to investigate Colorado tenant law. In addition, I should be trying to deal with the OC to get the issue resolved so it can be removed from my CR. Is that correct?

Having to fill an entire apartment building to get a refund seems a little out there. I have only ever heard that they have to fill the vacated apartment.

Yes, you should be dealing with the OC. It is their responsibility to inform the CA of monies owed. And they very well could have. CAs are not known for their honesty and could be trying to collect on something not owed them.

The forum expert on something like this is O6. You can PM him if you wish. He is an attorney and is very helpful.

Also, DoFD can not be 2014. That would be the date it dropped from your reports. But, counting backward from that date they are saying July 07 is your DoFD.

DoFD is the date you got behind and never got the account current again.

Credit Scoring 101
Guide to Common Abbreviations
Other Frequently Requested Threads
Closing Credit Cards
Direct Dispute

guiness56 · ‎05-11-2010

I did some searching and found this: They only need to re-rent the vacated apartment, not the entire complex.

Tenant’s Continuing Liability for Rent

If a tenant leaves the premises before the end of the lease term in compliance with a landlord’s demand to vacate, the tenant may still be responsible under the terms of their lease to pay rent or other costs. However, Colorado courts view the election of the eviction remedy as terminating the lease, and costs owed by tenants may be limited accordingly.

Rent Liability for Early Move-Out

The landlord must make a reasonable effort to re-rent the premises if the tenant moves out early. The tenant may be responsible for rent until the premises are re-rented or until the lease expires. If the unit is re-rented for a lower amount the tenant may be assessed the difference in the rent. The tenant may also be charged for the landlord’s reasonable costs of re-renting. It is important to look to the lease to see who is responsible for re- renting the unit.

Credit Scoring 101
Guide to Common Abbreviations
Other Frequently Requested Threads
Closing Credit Cards
Direct Dispute

Anonymous · ‎05-11-2010

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm looking for advice from the forum on a sticky credit issue (aren't they all?). I don't have full command of all the acronyms, but do have the link to the guide handy. Thanks in advance for any help you provide!

I co-signed a lease for an apartment for my stepson in August of 2006. During the first night of occupancy, he violated the lease and was "evicted" the next day. The apartment complex owners wanted full payment for the entire year ($8300) and we refused to pay.

For many years, nothing really happened with the exception of my stepson receiving occasional credit collection letters which we disputed by asking for validation on the basis of proof that they had not re-rented the apartment during the year and thereby possibly were collecting double-rent which is illegal in the state of CO.

The CA never provided proof that the apartment was not rented again. They simply provided a statement showing that he owed the money as well as a copy of the lease.

In November of 2009, I found the TL on my CR marked as in dispute even though I was never notified that they were going to put something on my CR. (I did receive a letter 20 months ago, but asked for DV which I never received.)

In January 2010, I did lots of research and found the following problems with the CA tactics. (The CA is National Credit Systems in Atlanta, GA.):
1. They never notified me before putting the TL on my CR.
2. They re-aged the debt by 15 months - the DOLA should be 09/2006 but is not set as 12/2007.
3. They have not provided the proper DV - in short, they haven't shown that the room wasn't rented out again during the period of the lease.

I hired a lawyer to research and send a letter to National Credit stating that they had not proven the debt and had violated the FCRA. National Credit responded with the same bogus paperwork in February 2010. They also offered to settle at 25% off the original amount.

I called the CA in March and tried to negotiate something better but was thoroughly ineffective. In addition, I caught the CA "specialist" pretending to be 2 separate people with 2 different names. In fact, he sent me 2 letters with 2 names but the same signature.

I don't know where to go at this point. My credit score has gone from 800+ to 690. I don't want to pay $300/hr to a lawyer to file a lawsuit, but also don't want to pay the CA anything considering what crooks they are. Anything thoughts about what I should do next?

Another question, if I pay this bogus debt, will it actually improve my credit score again or am I screwed for a while no matter what?

While to prevail in court should they sue they may need to show this, it is not a requirement for a proper DV.

Anonymous · ‎05-12-2010

@Anonymous wrote:

While to prevail in court should they sue they may need to show this, it is not a requirement for a proper DV.

So, let me summarize the options that I seem to have:

1. Do nothing and wait until July 2014 when my credit score goes back up.

2. Sue the OC (and possibly the CA) to remove the TL from my CR (possibly, also for damages since I'm trying to buy a new house and getting mixed results on the mortgage)

3. Work with the OC to negotiate a settlement and have it removed from my CR

Any options I'm missing or have wrong?

Anonymous · ‎05-12-2010

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

While to prevail in court should they sue they may need to show this, it is not a requirement for a proper DV.

So, let me summarize the options that I seem to have:

1. Do nothing and wait until July 2014 when my credit score goes back up.
2. Sue the OC (and possibly the CA) to remove the TL from my CR (possibly, also for damages since I'm trying to buy a new house and getting mixed results on the mortgage)
3. Work with the OC to negotiate a settlement and have it removed from my CR

Any options I'm missing or have wrong?

I guess a lot depends on what motivation you have to get this taken care of. I mean, if it stands in the way of you buying a new house or there is a chance they will sue you, obviously there is more pressure on you to try and settle. Another issue is whether or not you really owe them $8300 since it seems inconceivable that the apartment remained vacant for a year despite the owner's best efforts to rent it.

Options that I see include doing nothing and waiting them out or trying to reach a settlement.

I am not sure what grounds you'd have to sue them unless you have further FDCPA violations. I don't think there is a cause of action just because they say you owe a debt (which you might) and you disagree on the amount.

I think another thing to consider is that even if you do pay what they want, unless they agree to delete the trade line it probably won't improve your credit score. Yes, it would look better on a manual review and in many cases it will help in obtaining a mortgage, but other than that it might not benefit you.