EOS-CCA DVed when I didn't request it

[darwin_wins]

So EOS-CCA was reporting on my TU CR for a while and then I disputed it saying it's too old. It was taken off back in Feb. I was receiving letters from them asking to settle and then it stopped after it dropped off.

Today I get a letter saying 

"As requested, we have enclosed verification of your debt as provided by the client". Of course it is SOL but I don't remember when it was supposed to drop off. Who would have requested a DV? I am confused. Did they get a notification from TU about everything gone and that set off an alarm? I have never DVed with any of my creditors (couple I couldn't pay) and I think this one and United Illuminating is the other one that I never paid. 

How could have this happened?

[RobertEG]

You "disputed" as too old, which then likely resulted in the CRA referring to the debt collector for their "investigation" as a dispute under the FCRA.

The CRA is required under the FCRA to forward a copy of a disptue to the furnisher of the disputed information for their investigation.

The debt collector, seeing a referral from the CRA for their investigation, then treated it as a request for validation of the debt.

A compilation of errors that began with the mis-representation of a request for exclusion as a dispute of accuracy.

[darwin_wins]

But wouldn't such an investigation be done in 30 days of a dispute? Why would such an investigation take more than 30 days and take more than 60 days after that to respond to?

I just checked CK and it showed that EOS-CCA dropped off on May 12th so I was wrong on when it was supposed to drop off. It is almost July and the drop off date is Dec 16 so if it gets added, I will just call TU and see if they can help me get rid of it forever.

[RobertEG]

There was no accompanying showing of any inaccuracy in actual credit reporting, so was not really a proper dispute.

The furnisher was thus likely not too concerned over lateness,, as there was nothing to verify or corrrect.

It should not have even been referred to the furnisher, but apparently was.

Nothing was done by the book, so hard to hold anyone to the book.

Just tuck the validation away and proceed.  A debt collector can validate without being asked, so there is no substantie problem with their having done so.

It simply removes any issue of a future DV.

[darwin_wins]

With the debt past SOL, the issues of DV won't really matter though! If they had to sue and I DV, in that case only would they really benefit from it though, right?

At this point if it comes back I will just ask TU to EE as it is less than 6 months. But it was really good to get some knowledge on this issue, thank you RobertEG

[Anonymous]

---

@darwin_wins wrote:
With the debt past SOL, the issues of DV won't really matter though! If they had to sue and I DV, in that case only would they really benefit from it though, right?

At this point if it comes back I will just ask TU to EE as it is less than 6 months. But it was really good to get some knowledge on this issue, thank you RobertEG

---

Validation has nothing whatsoever to do with SOL. 

If you were to be sued, asking for DV would get you nowhere fast.

[darwin_wins]

True but what I meant to say is, if it was still within SOL, after this letter they could very well sue for the amount.

I understand what you meant though!

[Anonymous]

They could still sue, but you would have an SOL defense - its not automatic....

[darwin_wins]

Is there a point in suing someone if it's past SOL though? I mean I know people have lost because they didn't show up or didn't know about the case at all.

But other than that, isn't that just a waste of time?

[Anonymous]

---

@darwin_wins wrote:
Is there a point in suing someone if it's past SOL though? I mean I know people have lost because they didn't show up or didn't know about the case at all.

But other than that, isn't that just a waste of time?

---

They count on people not showing up. SOL becomes a moot point once they have a default judgment. They can come after you full bore then, no matter how old it was.