cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

What's after DV?

tag
guiness56
Epic Contributor

Re: What's after DV?

I wasn't taking anything out of context.  It is what I understood it to mean.  Just like you understand it a different way.

 

Yes, it was the Consent Decree, or what they said the CA cannot do, after they were sued.

 

It is on the FTC website, along with the law suit.  There are a couple of different ones there.

 

I was not implying they had to delete until they proved it, I said they have to delete if they can't or won't validate.

 

If the FTC says that if one CA cannot show the consumer owns the debt, they cannot sell it or provide it to any business other than the OC, why would that not apply to all.

 

Seems to me the FDCPA is not as consumer friendly as they want you to believe.

 

Message 21 of 28
bichonmom
Senior Contributor

Re: What's after DV?

"if the account is not yours, then I see two possibilities:

 

1.  You are the victim of identity theft; or

2.  It is a case of mistaken identity."

 

There actually is another possibility. They are claiming I owe money from Columbia music. I had an acct with them years ago. I know I paid for my purchases and cancelled the program. 

 

When I Googled the name of the CA and the music company, I found online complaints from people who had experienced the same thing. There are also posts on this forum from a year or two ago also stating the same problem with this CA. That is how I discovered that they're a JDB.

 

When I called the CA (before I found the forum and read to never call them), they were rude and refused to give me any information about the debt to prove that it was mine. They also refused to give me any contact info for the OC so I could call them and straighten it out. I firmly believe from both my experience and all of the many experiences I've read about online that this is an unethical CA.The ONLY response to my phone call was to send me the letter they were supposed to have sent *before* putting on my CR. (Though some of what's been posted here states that they don't even need to do that.)

 

From reading the posts on this thread, I am still not left with a definitive answer, as it seems to me in reading the quotes from the FTC that there is NO clear-cut answer, which really there should be. Because of this, I guess the CAs can pretty much get away with whatever they want (except maybe calling after certain hours). They can put a debt on my CR wihtout notifying me. They don't have to respond to my DV, which cost me nearly $6! And they may or may not have to remove it from my CR -- or note that it's disputed -- if they don't validate the debt.

 

What I don't get is how so many people have posted here either: #1, to DV or #2, that they DVd and the CA removed it from their CR. If DVing doesn't help us in any way, then what is the point in our taking the time and money to DV the CA? If the CAs know the law, which one would assume they do, then why would ANY CA remove a collection after getting a DV letter?

 

It's interesting that the CAs don't have to prove anything -- they don't have to prove that the debt is in fact mine and they don't have to prove that they sent me the original letter they're supposed to send. While I have to prove everything: I have to have CMRRR (not that it is likely to help, it appears) and I somehow have to prove I don't owe a debt that  know nothing about. How am I supposed to prove I don't owe something?

 

I still say that Mr. CA is sitting back in his chair laughing his head off at my DV letter. Now I"m not even sure if filing complaints against CA will do any good.

 

EQ FICO 750 | TU FICO 761 (Walmart) | EX FAKO 767 | Goal: 800+

Edits, funky spacing and spelling due to my iPad not getting along with the forum editor!

Message 22 of 28
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's after DV?


@guiness56 wrote:

I wasn't taking anything out of context.  It is what I understood it to mean.  Just like you understand it a different way.

 

Yes, it was the Consent Decree, or what they said the CA cannot do, after they were sued.

 

It is on the FTC website, along with the law suit.  There are a couple of different ones there.

 

I was not implying they had to delete until they proved it, I said they have to delete if they can't or won't validate.

 

If the FTC says that if one CA cannot show the consumer owns the debt, they cannot sell it or provide it to any business other than the OC, why would that not apply to all.

 

Seems to me the FDCPA is not as consumer friendly as they want you to believe.

 


 

Look at a consent decree like you would a computer hacker on parole.  They can prohibit him from using any type of computer, but we all know using a computer is perfectly legal.  The reason they can get away with forcing them to not do something that is legal is because they consented to the restrictions instead of facing a trial or, in the case of the hacker, failure to get early release from prison. 

 

I would also like to see that all tradelines disappear if the CA cannot properly respond to a DV, but even on the forums we can see that doesn't necessarily happen.  Again, as the FTC stated, the law is vague in this area.  Clearly the initial placement of a TL is a collection activity.  Updating the TL is also a collection activity.  Marking it as in dispute, but not conducting any further update (i.e. leaving the TL alone once placed) seems not to be.

 

The FDCPA also states that it is, more or less, illegal to knowingly report inaccurate data.  If you can clearly show the debt is not yours then there is substantial risk of the CA getting sued.  They must remove the TL.  However, in the overwhelmingly vast majority of "it's not mine" debts, there is no "magic bullet" which proves the debt is not yours.  Many times a CA has nothing more than a name and address (maybe even a very old address at that) and LexisNexis tells them what your new address is.  Only problem is that LN is screwed up.  The CA honestly believes you are the debtor -- there is a legitimate dispute. 

 

However, if they say your DOB / SSN is whatever and you show it is not, there is no legitimate dispute.  They are wrong and you are right.  TL goes bye-bye.

Message 23 of 28
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's after DV?


@bichonmom wrote:

"if the account is not yours, then I see two possibilities:

 

1.  You are the victim of identity theft; or

2.  It is a case of mistaken identity."

 

There actually is another possibility. They are claiming I owe money from Columbia music. I had an acct with them years ago. I know I paid for my purchases and cancelled the program. 

 

When I Googled the name of the CA and the music company, I found online complaints from people who had experienced the same thing. There are also posts on this forum from a year or two ago also stating the same problem with this CA. That is how I discovered that they're a JDB.

 

When I called the CA (before I found the forum and read to never call them), they were rude and refused to give me any information about the debt to prove that it was mine. They also refused to give me any contact info for the OC so I could call them and straighten it out. I firmly believe from both my experience and all of the many experiences I've read about online that this is an unethical CA.The ONLY response to my phone call was to send me the letter they were supposed to have sent *before* putting on my CR. (Though some of what's been posted here states that they don't even need to do that.)

 

From reading the posts on this thread, I am still not left with a definitive answer, as it seems to me in reading the quotes from the FTC that there is NO clear-cut answer, which really there should be. Because of this, I guess the CAs can pretty much get away with whatever they want (except maybe calling after certain hours). They can put a debt on my CR wihtout notifying me. They don't have to respond to my DV, which cost me nearly $6! And they may or may not have to remove it from my CR -- or note that it's disputed -- if they don't validate the debt.

 

What I don't get is how so many people have posted here either: #1, to DV or #2, that they DVd and the CA removed it from their CR. If DVing doesn't help us in any way, then what is the point in our taking the time and money to DV the CA? If the CAs know the law, which one would assume they do, then why would ANY CA remove a collection after getting a DV letter?

 

It's interesting that the CAs don't have to prove anything -- they don't have to prove that the debt is in fact mine and they don't have to prove that they sent me the original letter they're supposed to send. While I have to prove everything: I have to have CMRRR (not that it is likely to help, it appears) and I somehow have to prove I don't owe a debt that  know nothing about. How am I supposed to prove I don't owe something?

 

I still say that Mr. CA is sitting back in his chair laughing his head off at my DV letter. Now I"m not even sure if filing complaints against CA will do any good.

 


 

You are right, the account can belong to the consumer, but the actual account balance could be in error.

 

You stated the CA never gave you the name of the OC.  How, then, do you know the OC is Columbia Music?

 

In any event, you are right in that the law does not cover with precision each and every possible situation.  From what I see, the account is yours, but that there is a balance due is the issue.  Unfortunately, that is an extremely common situation.  Columbia Music told the CA you owed them money.  You tell the CA you do not.  Who should they believe?  It probably will not be you. 

 

Let's say that the CA does respond to your DV.  They do not have to provide you any documents with your signature, old billing statements or anything of that nature.  They simply send you a letter stating that they have verified with the OC that you owe X.  If the amount they claim you owe consists of other charges such as late fees or added expenses, they need to tell you that, too.  And that's all.  So unless Columbia Music corrects their error, you are still stuck in a "He said / She said" situation and the tradeline stays and they can update the tradeline monthly or as often as they desire for the 7.5-year CRTP.

 

If they do not respond to your DV, they do not delete a previously placed TL.  But they cannot update it, either.  From the latest FTC Advisory, they need to report that it is disputed by the consumer.

 

Perhaps contacting Columbia Music would help.  If they show that you, in fact, do not owe a balance then the TL would have to be removed as reporting inaccurate data is illegal.

 

You ask why any CA would remove a TL after getting a DV that they do not respond to.  Why do some people drive 55 mph when the speed limit is actually 65?

 

I am not sure, but also I believe that if the CA cannot continue collection activities they return the debt back to the OC.  If the CA has no authority to collect anymore, I don't think they can keep their TL on your credit reports.  Maybe Guiness55 knows more about that.  If the CA owns the debt and they cannot collect on it, perhaps they sell it to yet another CA and end up having to delete their TL because they no longer own it.   

Message 24 of 28
bichonmom
Senior Contributor

Re: What's after DV?

 


@Anonymous wrote:

@bichonmom wrote:

"if the account is not yours, then I see two possibilities:

 

1.  You are the victim of identity theft; or

2.  It is a case of mistaken identity."

 

There actually is another possibility. They are claiming I owe money from Columbia music. I had an acct with them years ago. I know I paid for my purchases and cancelled the program. 

 

When I Googled the name of the CA and the music company, I found online complaints from people who had experienced the same thing. There are also posts on this forum from a year or two ago also stating the same problem with this CA. That is how I discovered that they're a JDB.

 

When I called the CA (before I found the forum and read to never call them), they were rude and refused to give me any information about the debt to prove that it was mine. They also refused to give me any contact info for the OC so I could call them and straighten it out. I firmly believe from both my experience and all of the many experiences I've read about online that this is an unethical CA.The ONLY response to my phone call was to send me the letter they were supposed to have sent *before* putting on my CR. (Though some of what's been posted here states that they don't even need to do that.)

 

From reading the posts on this thread, I am still not left with a definitive answer, as it seems to me in reading the quotes from the FTC that there is NO clear-cut answer, which really there should be. Because of this, I guess the CAs can pretty much get away with whatever they want (except maybe calling after certain hours). They can put a debt on my CR wihtout notifying me. They don't have to respond to my DV, which cost me nearly $6! And they may or may not have to remove it from my CR -- or note that it's disputed -- if they don't validate the debt.

 

What I don't get is how so many people have posted here either: #1, to DV or #2, that they DVd and the CA removed it from their CR. If DVing doesn't help us in any way, then what is the point in our taking the time and money to DV the CA? If the CAs know the law, which one would assume they do, then why would ANY CA remove a collection after getting a DV letter?

 

It's interesting that the CAs don't have to prove anything -- they don't have to prove that the debt is in fact mine and they don't have to prove that they sent me the original letter they're supposed to send. While I have to prove everything: I have to have CMRRR (not that it is likely to help, it appears) and I somehow have to prove I don't owe a debt that  know nothing about. How am I supposed to prove I don't owe something?

 

I still say that Mr. CA is sitting back in his chair laughing his head off at my DV letter. Now I"m not even sure if filing complaints against CA will do any good.

 


 

You are right, the account can belong to the consumer, but the actual account balance could be in error.

 

You stated the CA never gave you the name of the OC.  How, then, do you know the OC is Columbia Music?

The OC's name was on my credit report. I said that the CA refused to give me contact info for the OC.

 

In any event, you are right in that the law does not cover with precision each and every possible situation.  From what I see, the account is yours, but that there is a balance due is the issue.  Unfortunately, that is an extremely common situation.  Columbia Music told the CA you owed them money.  You tell the CA you do not.  Who should they believe?  It probably will not be you. 

 

Let's say that the CA does respond to your DV.  They do not have to provide you any documents with your signature, old billing statements or anything of that nature.  They simply send you a letter stating that they have verified with the OC that you owe X.  If the amount they claim you owe consists of other charges such as late fees or added expenses, they need to tell you that, too.  And that's all.  So unless Columbia Music corrects their error, you are still stuck in a "He said / She said" situation and the tradeline stays and they can update the tradeline monthly or as often as they desire for the 7.5-year CRTP.

That is why I wanted contact info for the OC.

 

If they do not respond to your DV, they do not delete a previously placed TL.  But they cannot update it, either.  From the latest FTC Advisory, they need to report that it is disputed by the consumer.

 

Perhaps contacting Columbia Music would help.  If they show that you, in fact, do not owe a balance then the TL would have to be removed as reporting inaccurate data is illegal.

Would Columbia Music still owe it if the CA is a JDB? I can't find contact info for them on Google. It looks like their mail order service went defunct.

 

You ask why any CA would remove a TL after getting a DV that they do not respond to.  Why do some people drive 55 mph when the speed limit is actually 65?

 

I am not sure, but also I believe that if the CA cannot continue collection activities they return the debt back to the OC.  If the CA has no authority to collect anymore, I don't think they can keep their TL on your credit reports.  Maybe Guiness55 knows more about that.  If the CA owns the debt and they cannot collect on it, perhaps they sell it to yet another CA and end up having to delete their TL because they no longer own it.   


 

EQ FICO 750 | TU FICO 761 (Walmart) | EX FAKO 767 | Goal: 800+

Edits, funky spacing and spelling due to my iPad not getting along with the forum editor!

Message 25 of 28
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: What's after DV?


@bichonmom wrote:

 


@Anonymous wrote:

@bichonmom wrote:

"if the account is not yours, then I see two possibilities:

 

1.  You are the victim of identity theft; or

2.  It is a case of mistaken identity."

 

There actually is another possibility. They are claiming I owe money from Columbia music. I had an acct with them years ago. I know I paid for my purchases and cancelled the program. 

 

When I Googled the name of the CA and the music company, I found online complaints from people who had experienced the same thing. There are also posts on this forum from a year or two ago also stating the same problem with this CA. That is how I discovered that they're a JDB.

 

When I called the CA (before I found the forum and read to never call them), they were rude and refused to give me any information about the debt to prove that it was mine. They also refused to give me any contact info for the OC so I could call them and straighten it out. I firmly believe from both my experience and all of the many experiences I've read about online that this is an unethical CA.The ONLY response to my phone call was to send me the letter they were supposed to have sent *before* putting on my CR. (Though some of what's been posted here states that they don't even need to do that.)

 

From reading the posts on this thread, I am still not left with a definitive answer, as it seems to me in reading the quotes from the FTC that there is NO clear-cut answer, which really there should be. Because of this, I guess the CAs can pretty much get away with whatever they want (except maybe calling after certain hours). They can put a debt on my CR wihtout notifying me. They don't have to respond to my DV, which cost me nearly $6! And they may or may not have to remove it from my CR -- or note that it's disputed -- if they don't validate the debt.

 

What I don't get is how so many people have posted here either: #1, to DV or #2, that they DVd and the CA removed it from their CR. If DVing doesn't help us in any way, then what is the point in our taking the time and money to DV the CA? If the CAs know the law, which one would assume they do, then why would ANY CA remove a collection after getting a DV letter?

 

It's interesting that the CAs don't have to prove anything -- they don't have to prove that the debt is in fact mine and they don't have to prove that they sent me the original letter they're supposed to send. While I have to prove everything: I have to have CMRRR (not that it is likely to help, it appears) and I somehow have to prove I don't owe a debt that  know nothing about. How am I supposed to prove I don't owe something?

 

I still say that Mr. CA is sitting back in his chair laughing his head off at my DV letter. Now I"m not even sure if filing complaints against CA will do any good.

 


 

You are right, the account can belong to the consumer, but the actual account balance could be in error.

 

You stated the CA never gave you the name of the OC.  How, then, do you know the OC is Columbia Music?

The OC's name was on my credit report. I said that the CA refused to give me contact info for the OC.

 

In any event, you are right in that the law does not cover with precision each and every possible situation.  From what I see, the account is yours, but that there is a balance due is the issue.  Unfortunately, that is an extremely common situation.  Columbia Music told the CA you owed them money.  You tell the CA you do not.  Who should they believe?  It probably will not be you. 

 

Let's say that the CA does respond to your DV.  They do not have to provide you any documents with your signature, old billing statements or anything of that nature.  They simply send you a letter stating that they have verified with the OC that you owe X.  If the amount they claim you owe consists of other charges such as late fees or added expenses, they need to tell you that, too.  And that's all.  So unless Columbia Music corrects their error, you are still stuck in a "He said / She said" situation and the tradeline stays and they can update the tradeline monthly or as often as they desire for the 7.5-year CRTP.

That is why I wanted contact info for the OC.

 

If they do not respond to your DV, they do not delete a previously placed TL.  But they cannot update it, either.  From the latest FTC Advisory, they need to report that it is disputed by the consumer.

 

Perhaps contacting Columbia Music would help.  If they show that you, in fact, do not owe a balance then the TL would have to be removed as reporting inaccurate data is illegal.

Would Columbia Music still owe it if the CA is a JDB? I can't find contact info for them on Google. It looks like their mail order service went defunct.

 

You ask why any CA would remove a TL after getting a DV that they do not respond to.  Why do some people drive 55 mph when the speed limit is actually 65?

 

I am not sure, but also I believe that if the CA cannot continue collection activities they return the debt back to the OC.  If the CA has no authority to collect anymore, I don't think they can keep their TL on your credit reports.  Maybe Guiness55 knows more about that.  If the CA owns the debt and they cannot collect on it, perhaps they sell it to yet another CA and end up having to delete their TL because they no longer own it.   


 


If by Columbia Music you mean Columbia House, they are still alive and well.

 

If the CA is a JDB then likely Columbia doesn't own the debt any more.  They still may have details on the account.

 

 

Message 26 of 28
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: What's after DV?

A DV letter is a "dispute" only to the extent that you dispute owing at least a portion of the debt, and request that the debt collector verify that the OC has told them that the debt is owed.  They must tell you the name of the OC, and the amount of the asserted debt.  They dont have to provide "proof."  If your DV request additionally requested the address of the OC, they must also provide that.  So why DV?  To at least have them state that they have checked with the OC, and that the OC asserts owing the debt.  Additioally, to get the address of the OC, if you are unsure.  And finally, and most importantly, the primary reason for FDCPA 809(b), it requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt until such time as they choose to validate.

 

To get to the substantive issues, you must resort to the FCRA, and not the FDCPA.  If any reporting they have done is inaccurate for any reason, you can file a dispute, either thorugh the CRA or directly with the party who reported the information.

In the case of an "account not mine" dispute, the best recourse is to file a dispute with the party who asserts the intial debt (i.e., the OC).  However, if the OC never reported to a CRA, there is no basis for filing a dispute with them.  In that event, your dispute would go to the debt collector, asserting the lack of any debt, and thus inaccuracy of reporting of authority to collect on a non-existent debt.  It is hard to prove a negative, and harder yet for the debt collector to investigate asserted dealings between the consumer and the OC.  So those disputes lead to many diversions from the real issue.

 

What is after DV?  Disputing the factual issues by use of the FCRA dispute process.  Lastly, you can always file a civil action and have the court resolve the issues.

Message 27 of 28
bichonmom
Senior Contributor

Re: What's after DV?

Thank you for all of the informaiton. I've read the FDCPA and will read the FCRA, which appears to be written in more legalese than the former. I still maintain that they have unethical business practices and do intend to file a complaint against them. Maybe if enough people do, things will begin to change.

 

 

EQ FICO 750 | TU FICO 761 (Walmart) | EX FAKO 767 | Goal: 800+

Edits, funky spacing and spelling due to my iPad not getting along with the forum editor!

Message 28 of 28
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.