topic Re: Midland finally responds in Rebuilding Your Credit

Midland finally responds

Shokk — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 01:34:57 GMT

Was a good day for mail at my house. Midland finally replied today. I guess they can't be too stupid because they did reference TFC in their reply when I didn't cite it in my original DV letter. And this is after I spoke with them and they told me I needed to DV the 3rd party who was handling the collection for them. I sent that letter 2 days ago

They sent 2 seperate letters, one for each account saying the same as the rest have so far. We've investigated your dispute and found you owe us, blah, blah, blah.

First letter, account 1:

Gives original account number.

Current amount owed.

OC name.

Midlan's internal account number.

Account 2:

Same thing and they included 3 copies of statements.

They did however, deny any innacuracy. Am I citing the wrong part of the TFC? I don't see anything in Sec. 392.202 where itmentions anything about validation. Only they have to respond. Help?

Re: Midland finally responds

DaBears — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 01:44:26 GMT

What is the basis for your dispute? Need more info.

Re: Midland finally responds

Shokk — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 01:52:43 GMT

I asking for debt validation from the CA. Don't need a basis for dispute when asking for validation.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I have that right in Texas.

Re: Midland finally responds

DaBears — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 02:51:57 GMT

Sorry when I was typing Tornado sirens went off. In TX they have to validate per TFC. I would send another DV and reference the Texas code.

Re: Midland finally responds

Shogun — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 02:54:45 GMT

@DaBears wrote:
Sorry when I was typing Tornado sirens went off. In TX they have to validate per TFC. I would send another DV and reference the Texas code.

Sirens? Get underground, don't make me come get you!

Re: Midland finally responds

Shokk — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:14:40 GMT

@DaBears wrote:
Sorry when I was typing Tornado sirens went off. In TX they have to validate per TFC. I would send another DV and reference the Texas code.

Lol, I did this already in my second letter. That's why I'm asking more questions. I see nowhere in Texas Finance Code Section 392.202 that says how they have to validate. Only they have 3 options to respond.

(1) denying the inaccuracy;

(2) admitting the inaccuracy; or

(3) stating that the third-party debt collector has not had sufficient time to complete an investigation of the inaccuracy.

Am I missing the actual validation part? Technically, what they sent doesn't even cover FDCPA, but I'm using TFC instead since I'm way outside the normal 30 day response window.

Re: Midland finally responds

Shogun — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:18:00 GMT

If they don't respond they have to delete. This is above and beyond what the feds require in their DV process.

Re: Midland finally responds

Shokk — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:24:40 GMT

Alright, now I'm getting really confuesd. They did respond. I said that already. Their response does not meet FDCPA. I didn't believe it met TFC 392, but I can't find anywhere in that code where it mentions anything about validation, only that they must respond...

Re: Midland finally responds

Shogun — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:29:08 GMT

@Shokk wrote:
Was a good day for mail at my house. Midland finally replied today. I guess they can't be too stupid because they did reference TFC in their reply when I didn't cite it in my original DV letter. And this is after I spoke with them and they told me I needed to DV the 3rd party who was handling the collection for them. I sent that letter 2 days ago

They sent 2 seperate letters, one for each account saying the same as the rest have so far. We've investigated your dispute and found you owe us, blah, blah, blah.

First letter, account 1:
Gives original account number.
Current amount owed.
OC name.
Midlan's internal account number.

Account 2:
Same thing and they included 3 copies of statements.

They did however, deny any innacuracy. Am I citing the wrong part of the TFC? I don't see anything in Sec. 392.202 where itmentions anything about validation. Only they have to respond. Help?

This is a proper validation of debt in my opinion. I believe it to meet the guidlines concerning a proper validation.

What else were you expecting?

Re: Midland finally responds

Shokk — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:47:04 GMT

This is what I've seen posted here by guiness and others. Seen the same thing on the web and another site, but can't find it in TFC 392.

Texas Finance Code Section 392.202 requires a debt collection agency or credit bureau to provide the alleged debtor with specific information concerning their debt including but not limited to:

The name of the original creditor
The original date of default or non-payment of the debt
The date the debt was transferred from the original creditor to the third party debt collector
The original balance
The current balance
and surety bond information

Is this accurate? Does anyone know for sure? Is there another part of the Texas code I need to be reading?

Re: Midland finally responds

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 07:29:27 GMT

Some of this is intermingled with the FDCPA.

Surety bond info is a different code but is required.

392.202 specifically states the amount of the debt is disputed.....they have to tell you how they came up with the amount they say you owe vs the original amount.

The other 2 I am not 100% sure on. I found this info on an attorneys web site.

I am still looking at the codes to see what I can find.

Re: Midland finally responds

Shokk — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:05:45 GMT

Thank you once again, guiness. Anything you find would be great. Maybe I'm just not searching correctly, but I haven't been having much luck.

Re: Midland finally responds

Shokk — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:11:39 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:

392.202 specifically states the amount of the debt is disputed.....they have to tell you how they came up with the amount they say you owe vs the original amount.

I'm not even seeing this. I did see a post on another forum stating only an answer was required. What constitutes validation isn't covered by TFC.. What I have been able to gather is that they do need to provide orginal debt amount, and if higher, how they reached that amount, but may not have to do so unless a suit is filed as I see nothing about this in 392.202.

That begs another question. TFC 392 states they must perform an investigation, but doesn't state what "investigation" means. What's to keep them from sitting on the letter for 3 weeks, doing nothing, and then saying they investigated? One of the debts Midland owns is from a Sears/Citibank account. This account was deleted by all 3 bureaus after disputing. If they didn't respond to CRAs, do you really think they responded to an investigation from the CA? Do they have to contact the OC as part of the investigation? I realize I probably need to speak to an attorney at this point. Didn't want to do that unless someone filed suit. All but 3 accounts are out of SOL.

I will mention that NONE of the DV responses have listed the original amount.