Rebuilding Your Credit

[pipeguy]

LVNV is well known for being a "pioneer" in playing the edge of proper conduct. As far as I know LVNV started the "Factoring Company" CRA category which Midland is now also currently doing. LVNV states they DV before reporting, but they never do since the sublet the actual collection to a handful of sub-contractors. LVNV is also willing to ignore state requirements for licensing, and lost a major case in Maryland where they were fined and barred from collecting thousands of accounts (see link below).   

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2729101155164780710&q=lvnv+funding&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_y...

The CRAs won't do anything about LVNV, I have no idea why. My hope is that the new CFPB will actually force abusive CAs like LVNV to play by the rules, now that they are looking closely at regulating debt collectors..

[RobertEG]

I would suggest as a first line of defense against this appartently growing tactic is that anyone effected file a formal complaint with the FTC.

Yeah, I know that while the FTC is charged under the FCRA with administrative enforcement, they have a practice of not taking action on individual consumer complaints.

However, they do take action on complaints that show a pattern and effect numerous consumers.  They clearly have the authority to take legal action.

If their "LVNV DV is a Direct Dispute Ploy" file gets bigger, they may choose to use their muscle.

Since both the DV and direct dispute processes are basically personal procedures between the consumer and the debt collector, I really see no direct means for the CRAs to take any action, other than to possibly question the accuracy of a dispute flag reported to them.  I highly doubt that they will stick their nose in that hornet's nest.

[Yodafer]

I submitted a dispute last week, and my score did go up 10 points while it is pending.  I have read several articles that indicated that this is a possibiilty while something is in dispute.

[Williamsjk2]

So, with what you guys have said, why couldn't I send the letter in the "Take The First Steps" section to the CRAs?:

"I requested debt validation per FDCPA 809 from “CA” and they have failed to properly respond. FDCPA states that if the CA doesn’t or can’t validate a debt, they must cease collection activities. The FTC has issued the opinion that reporting on one’s credit report is indeed collection activity.  My letter explicitly asked for debt validation, but my account was put into disbute by the "CA"." ......or something along those lines

Even if they do come back and validate the debt, the last part of that letter is pretty clear and shows they are violating the opinion of the FTC.

[Williamsjk2]

Bump!

[Williamsjk2]

Hey guys.  I've been doing some reading and it seems that people are having success with getting LVNV to delete TL's when using the BBB.  I''ve found this letter on another credit board and altered it to my situation....tell me what you think:

---

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is in regards to an account you placed on my credit report.  I do not have an account with you.  It is listed on my reports as an open account, however I do not have an open account with you.  I do not have a past due balance with you.  It is listed as opened on three different dates, all of which are false.  You are NOT a factoring company as you report on my credit reports.   In addition to this, upon receipt of my request for  ONLY debt validation, the account is now reporting as "consumer disputes".  As such, I am demanding that this be removed from my credit reports and not sold to another agency. 

If this is not removed from my credit report in a timely manner, I will forward this issue to the Better Business Bureau and my attorney.  You are illegally misrepresenting debt and illegally communicating information you know to be false.  You are reporting incorrect and damaging information to the credit reporting agencies, which is in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

All telephone calls are inconvenient at any time.  Please send all communications via the United States Postal Service.

---

[llecs]

---

Williamsjk2 wrote:

So, with what you guys have said, why couldn't I send the letter in the "Take The First Steps" section to the CRAs?:

"I requested debt validation per FDCPA 809 from “CA” and they have failed to properly respond. FDCPA states that if the CA doesn’t or can’t validate a debt, they must cease collection activities. The FTC has issued the opinion that reporting on one’s credit report is indeed collection activity.  My letter explicitly asked for debt validation, but my account was put into disbute by the "CA"." ......or something along those lines

Even if they do come back and validate the debt, the last part of that letter is pretty clear and shows they are violating the opinion of the FTC.

---

That's a point of contention with many of us who engage in repair or who had engaged in repair in the past.

First things first. FTC opinion letters are just that...an opinion letter. Attorneys (typically) for CAs will write the FTC and ask for advice or clarity given this or that action so that they can proceed with a course of action that won't get them in trouble. The laws are often vaguely written (e.g. the FCRA and FDCPA) and one attorney within the FTC will issue their own opinion addressing the asked issue. These are called FTC opinion letters. They aren't representative of the FTC and they aren't legally binding in any way. You can have one FTC attorney issue an opinion on a subject and another attorney voice the opposite opinion. The only thing that is fact within the FTC is a FTC Ruling, but there isn't much in therms of credit or repair. FTC opinion letters should not be relied upon unless you are in court and you can get that same exact attorney to voice his/her opinion as an expert witness at trial. Even then, the judge can rule opposite the author and the FTC opinion letter.

On the topic of the dispute comment, there's no harm with them adding that. There's no law anywhere that states they have to add/not allowed to add that comment. When I was in repair, I had CAs add it and it was validation in my mind that they received my DV. I've seen some posters in the past claim they had to add it. I even saw the same posters complain they added it. IMO, ignore it. The items of importance are the DOFD, the balance, and the OC.

ETA...Opinion letters are available for viewing online. I do recall reading one that talked about reporting as a form of collection activity. IIRC, the debtor mailed the DV inside the required 30 days. They stopped calls and letters as required by the FDCPA while they validate. However, they continued to report or they added to the debotrs CRs after receiving a timely DV. Seems like the debtor was legally challenging the CA and the CA's attorney wrote the FTC for an opinion as to whether or not reporting was included in the FDCPA's collection activity mention. This is as I recall it. I remember they talked about the Boatley case which involved a CA reporting AND suing right after receiving a timely DV from the debtor.

[llecs]

---

Williamsjk2 wrote:

Hey guys.  I've been doing some reading and it seems that people are having success with getting LVNV to delete TL's when using the BBB.  I''ve found this letter on another credit board and altered it to my situation....tell me what you think:

---

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is in regards to an account you placed on my credit report.  I do not have an account with you.  It is listed on my reports as an open account, however I do not have an open account with you.  I do not have a past due balance with you.  It is listed as opened on three different dates, all of which are false.  You are NOT a factoring company as you report on my credit reports.   In addition to this, upon receipt of my request for  ONLY debt validation, the account is now reporting as "consumer disputes".  As such, I am demanding that this be removed from my credit reports and not sold to another agency. 

If this is not removed from my credit report in a timely manner, I will forward this issue to the Better Business Bureau and my attorney.  You are illegally misrepresenting debt and illegally communicating information you know to be false.  You are reporting incorrect and damaging information to the credit reporting agencies, which is in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

All telephone calls are inconvenient at any time.  Please send all communications via the United States Postal Service.

---

I'm on the fence with regards to the reporting. I'm confident that the CA isn't purposely reporting in your Accounts section of your reports as opposed to the Collection Agency section. I think the CRAs are at fault. I don't think CAs like AFNI, MCM, LVNV and other that often report in Accounts are doing so with intent. Either way, FICO and lenders score them as CAs. In rare cases, FICO will read them as an OC which can either help your score or hurt it more depending on how it reports.

Past due balance would be correct if the debt is valid. If claiming you don't have any debt with the OC or CA, then you'd be right.

Open date refers to when the CA took over. It has no bearing on FICO scoring. If there's a large swing in time between the dates, then maybe there's an issue in terms of reporting. Wouldn't hurt to bring it up.

Factoring Company Account is another name for a CA and scored as such. I'd rather have them say that than "Collection Agency", because maybe in the off chance, a manual reviewer would miss it as a CA.

Talked about the comment already. See above.

Also, the BBB does nothing. Well, it does put a little heat, but legally, the BBB can't do anything. They are just like Yelp or Angies List. If you complain, then not many will care.

__________________

I personally wouldn't send the letter due to some reasons mentioned. If I went after a CA who is collecting on an unpaid debt, I would go after them if they misreported or misreprented the following:

1) The name of the OC

2) The balance

3) DOFD

4) They aren't licensed in their state (if required)

5) They aren't licensed in my state (if required)

6) They have pending legal issues against them by my or their state (I'd mention it and use it against them if it helped me).

7) The consistently lost court cases that fell along the same lines I was complaining about.

8) They committed an obvious violation of the FDCPA (e.g. they tell me I'm going to jail, they charge "collection fees", they collect inside of validating if I sent the DV on time, etc).

9) They committed an obvious violation of any other law like the FCRA, state laws, etc.

In the above reasons, or any reason you put in any letter, be sure to back it up with specific statutes and reasonings behind it. Don't say a violation of the FCRA without citing the law.

ETA...Stupid HTML code.

[Williamsjk2]

Well looks like I'm not going to be sending it then.  I also got DV back yesterday.  I'm going to send out a PFD today - kind of nervous how that will shake out especially given the lack of PFD success I've seen with LVNV.  It's out of SOL but there's still 2.5 years until it should drop.

*cross my fingers*

[llecs]

Don't let me deter you.   If there's a beef, definitely pursue.

IMO, my main goal is to get something deleted. If pressing for a removal on small stuff like being a Factoring Company, it might take all 2.5 years to get it deleted w/ legal wranglings, lawsuites, etc. It might take 2 weeks to get it deleted with a PFD. I'm all about picking my battles to get to my goal faster. Now if after a few attempts PFDs won't work, then you can always revisit. Or maybe during the time they respond to PFD requests, they slip up and you'll nab them. Another alternative, though risky, is to pay it and then GW. I've read a few success stories, but obviously there's a big risk.