cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Never ever try to outsmart even if the account hasn't reported in long time

tag
darwin_wins
Established Contributor

Never ever try to outsmart even if the account hasn't reported in long time

I knew I shouldn have left it alone for next 7-8 months and the account would have just dropped off but I thought, hey the account hasn't been updated by this ulility company since 2010 may be they will not validate the account. BAM, it comes back updated with new amount and and now shows updated on 2/1/2016. 

 

So I am sure a lot of people can get accounts removed, this is something that could also happen. So be careful, my job now is just to wait it out for next 8 months and see if I can get it excluded 2 months prior to drop off. 

Message 1 of 6
5 REPLIES 5
gdale6
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Never ever try to outsmart even if the account hasn't reported in long time

I would attempt the PFD now that its been updated better chance since they know they are going to lose power shortly

Message 2 of 6
darwin_wins
Established Contributor

Re: Never ever try to outsmart even if the account hasn't reported in long time


@gdale6 wrote:

I would attempt the PFD now that its been updated better chance since they know they are going to lose power shortly


From what I searched before United Illuminating is not very PFD. This was back when I was in CT, not sure it's going to work. Any idea if United Illuminating works with PFD?

Message 3 of 6
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: Never ever try to outsmart even if the account hasn't reported in long time

The flaw is also in what you requested/attempted.  It had no validation requirement attached to it.

 

Debt validation requests only apply to debt collectors, not creditors.  Hope that "they will not validate the account" is baseless, as a debt validation request to them is simply an informal request which imposes no requirement on them.

Even had they been a debt collector, there is no requiirement or period to send validation.  If the DV request is not timely (meaning not sent within 30 days fo their dunning notice), it imposes nothing, and can be ignored.  If the DV request is timely, it imposes a cease collection bar, which they can choose to honor without any response.

Message 4 of 6
darwin_wins
Established Contributor

Re: Never ever try to outsmart even if the account hasn't reported in long time


@RobertEG wrote:

The flaw is also in what you requested/attempted.  It had no validation requirement attached to it.

 

Debt validation requests only apply to debt collectors, not creditors.  Hope that "they will not validate the account" is baseless, as a debt validation request to them is simply an informal request which imposes no requirement on them.

Even had they been a debt collector, there is no requiirement or period to send validation.  If the DV request is not timely (meaning not sent within 30 days fo their dunning notice), it imposes nothing, and can be ignored.  If the DV request is timely, it imposes a cease collection bar, which they can choose to honor without any response.


RobertEG I know I shouldn't have tried to dispute it because I know it was valid. I have never gotten any letter saying pay this using this number and we will close this account. I honestly have no idea if there was anything I should have done other than not dispute it. 

Message 5 of 6
gdale6
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Never ever try to outsmart even if the account hasn't reported in long time

I have no experience with this creditor OP.

Message 6 of 6
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.