How to approach - DOFD reported incorrectly by CA for small collection

[Anonymous]

With the help of CB I was able to successfully find out what was going on with this small value collection item.

Essentially I moved out of a house late 2010.  Apparently ATT didn't properly cancel a portion of my service since they are a segmented company and I got hit with a $39 collection.  I told them over the phone to close my acocunt and zero it (I paid what they told me with a credit card).  That was only the u-Verse portion though and I was unaware.  The CA (IC Systems) is reporting the DOFD as 2012, I bought an EQ report online to confirm this.  The advice I was given once I finally figured out what was going on was to essentially DV the CA and dispute with the CRA with generic dispute forms.  If not removed then file with the CFPB.  My goal is to get this removed as I was denied personal loans from preferred lenders even with an 800 credit score!!

Some facts.

• I knew about this for a long time.  Several times in the past I've tried calling the CA to work out a PFD. I now have the time to dedicate to disputing this.
• Due to this they marked my account as "in dispute" and my mortgage company made me sign a statement stating that that "I am no longer disputing and agree with the TL as written".  The EQ report still shows dispute.
• I called the OC once or twice a while ago to try to pay it and PFD.  They couldn't take my money.  They said something about they stopped the account from gaining interest.  

Now that I know what this is about I want a second opinion before sending my letters.  What happens if the debt comes back "verified" which it likely will.  IC Systems computers show me as having the debt (they verify with the CRA) and ATTs computers will likely show an account even though it was their fault they likely waited until 2012 to formally close it.  I'm not sure if the CA is reaging or if ATT is reporting it wrong.

The debt is far far outside the SOL and almost set to fall off (late 2010) so I don't want to risk reaging it by making a payment or anything unless it's PFD.

[RobertEG]

You are apparently considering sending a request for debt validation to the debt collector, and sending a dispute to the CRA of the accuracy of the reported DOFD?

A DV must be sent within 30 days after receipt of dunning notice to be timely.

Even if timely, a DV does not impose any requirement to or period for sending validation.

Since the debt is apparently admitted to be legit, I am not sure that a DV would be of any value.

As for a dispute of the accuracy of the reported DOFD, you simply file a dispute with the CRA showing your documentation to support when your first delinquency actually occured, such as account records.

Credit report exclusion will occur no later than 7 years plus 180 days from the reported DOFD, regardless of whether or not the debt is paid.

Nothing will affect the exclusion date other than the reported DOFD, so you should file a dispute if you can show that it occured in 2010 rather than 2012.

[Anonymous]

Well if I report the correct date to the CRA, won't they just.... correct the TL?

I'd really rather have the thing removed.  This got on there through no fault of my own (I told the company to close my account and pay it off... heres my credit card) and the OC messed up.  I never got the bill after that.  The debt is so old that I doubt there are accurate records of it.

That's my rationale with disputing with the CA itself and threatning FDCPA violations if they can't verify my debt and for reporting the DOFD wrong.  My hope is they tell me to GTFO and delete the TL or accept a PFD.  It's a very low dollar debt.  Worst case scenario they correct the TL to reflect the accurate DOFD.

Am I allowed to request DV even years after my dunning notice or is it assumed to be valid at that point?

[RobertEG]

You are "allowed" to request debt validation at any time, but unless the DV request is timely (meaning sent either within 30 days after receipt of dunning notice, or without any prior dunning notice), it imposes no cease collection bar, and can simply  be ignored.

Even if timely, there is no requirement for the debt collector to ever send validation.

If they choose to cease further collection activities, then they do not need to reply.

There is no provision or requirement for deletion of a reported collection based on lack of debt validation.

The congressional intent of the DV process was to provide a reprieve for consumers from collection activites.  The intent was not to require validation.

Lack of validation is not an item of information in a consumer's credit file and not a requirement under the FDCPA, and thus is not disputable.

[Anonymous]

Robert,

You state:

"If they choose to cease further collection activities, then they do not need to reply."

"The congressional intent of the DV process was to provide a reprieve for consumers from collection activites"

Well can I demand they cease collection activities and cite them reporting false information?  I certainly (or at least hope) it is illegal for a debt collector to simply report whatever they want to a CRA or try to collect on a debt that is false hence the ability to make them cease.  Although they don't have to respond to a DV, I would think they can't collect on a false debt.

If they are the ones collecting isn't the burden of proof on them to actually obtain accurate information?  If they do not have accurate information on my debt and can not obtain it, isn't that a violation of sorts?  Is the onus on me to say "Well actually CA, I lived at the house from X to Y.  Please please please correct it."