I've spent the last few days researching and miraculously ran into these forums so I'm hoping someone can help.
I spent 2007-2011 on credit counseling and successfully paid off all of my cc debt, in turn my accounts were all reported as paid in full. This week my bf and I applied for a new apt and was confident my credit was good. Unfortunately, the potential landlord informed me that she could not rent to us because I am in collections for T-Mobile (Debt Recovery Solutions) for $58 placed in collection on 3/2011, Progressive Insurance (Credit Collection Services) for $111 placed in collection on 7/2012 and AT&T (EOS CCA) for $405 placed in collection on 12/2009. Against my better judgment, I had added two different family members to my mobile accounts and car insurance & found out through this credit check that they failed to pay
Since I moved from CA to NY in 2009 I had never received any notice of these attempts to collect from the OC. Also, I currently have an AT&T wireless acct registered to my SS# so I'm unclear why I wasn't informed of this earlier. I would figure any account registered to the same SS# would be linked.
I've read about debt validations and pay for deletes - is one easier than the other? Since the amounts are minimal would PFD be the way to go on these or would DV be better because of the same reason? I'm so confused!
If anyone has dealt with any of the above mentioned CAs, I'd appreciate any info and sample letters or contacts you may have. I worked really hard at paying off my debt and it's a real heart breaker to learn that a family member could have potentially ruined everything (not to mention my trust - lesson learned).
Thank you in advance!
If you send a DV request, and it is timely, it invokes an automatic cease collection bar on the debt collector. Verification on their part has no set time period.
So you are in a state of limbo pending a response. While they are under a cease collection bar, they are precluded from any PFD negotiations.
So its kinda your call.... are you OK with putting PFD attempt on the back burner until they provide verification?
A secondary issue that appears to be looming behind the effect of any DV at this point is one of its timeliness. A DV only invokes a cease collection bar if sent either without any prior dunning notice, or within the 30-day period set by their dunning notice.
Did you ever receive dunning notice?
Never merge a DV with a PFD for a couple of reasons. First, if the DV mailed within the 30 days, then the CA cannot respond to the PFD portion. By law they are prohibited to collect until they can provide verification. Next, the CA might provide info from the DV that would demonstrate the debt is either invalid or the balance is incorrect. You wouldn't want to send a PFD on an invalid debt. Finally, I see PFDs as a GW for unpaid debts. Throw in the legal jargon of the FDCPA and it'll be harder to pursuade the CA to accept a PFD.
No, it does not.
Any DV request made prior to dunning notice or before expiration of the 30 limit set in a dunning notice invokes the automatic cease collection bar on the debt collector.
If they did not send dunning notice, any DV is timely.
On a practical note, it is not common for debt collectors to actually hold a DV to be untimely. If they consider it so, they just continue about their business and leave to the consumer to complain. Some will even respond to untimely DVs without any mention of the issue. Most consumers dont know, and the debt collectors usually sidestep the issue unless it is raised.