topic Re: Need Help......... in Rebuilding Your Credit

Need Help.........

bigman023 — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:42:13 GMT

Back in May 2009, TU & EQ had a 4 yr old CA listed on my reports. This account was listed as a $600 account in the "accounts" section, and again in the collections section of the report. I disputed with both CRA's, and soon after DV'd the CA. The CRA's responded first, and the account came back as verified. Couple of weeks later the CA responded with a letter saying they are not able validate and they are putting the account on hold status, while they obtain validation of the debt. They said they would mark the account as disputed.

Pulled my reports about a 2 months later and both CRA's still had this account listed in the "Collections" section. In the accounts sections, both CRA's changed the balance from $600 to $0, and in the status sections it read "refinanced or renewed". I just pulled TU, and saw the account has now been deleted from the accounts section. But it is still in the collections section showing a balance of $600.

My question is, how is it that the CA is able to admit in writing that they can't validate, but some how the CRA's are able to verify the account. How is EQ able to show the account balance as $0 in the "accounts" section. But show the exact same account (same account #) with a $600 balance in the "Collections" section. Is this a clear cut case of willful non-compliance on the part of the CRA's and/or the CA. Or is there something that I'm just not aware of that makes all of this legal.

I'm looking to get a mortage this summer and I still need to gain 30 points on my EQ. So I would appreciate any input. If this issue has been previously covered on the board, please point me in that direction, with a link.

Thanks!

Re: Need Help.........

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:25:10 GMT

Hi bigman023,

How long ago did you submit your dispute to the CRAs? When did you DV the CA?

Re: Need Help.........

bigman023 — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:33:54 GMT

This process started in May of 2009. I disputed the CRA's in May, and maybe 2 weeks later I DV'd the CA. The responce from the CA is dated 6/30/2009. As I see it, from 6/30/2009 until now, the CA has been reporting a debt to the CRA's, that they are not able to validate. The 6/30/2009 letter is like a confession. Could the CA really be that careless or am I missing something.

Message Edited by bigman023 on 12-26-2009 05:33 PM

Re: Need Help.........

bigman023 — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:15:31 GMT

Well, I decided to move forward on this. I wrote a letter to the CA insisting they stop reporting this debt or provide validation, I informed them that in their 1st letter, they admitted they were not able to validate, but were still reporting to the CRA's, I also made them aware I felt they were violating FDCA by doing this and was ready to take action.

Today, I got a letter from them saying enclosed is the info I requested. Enclosed with the letter was a copy of a check I stopped payment on from '05. I began to laugh. I stopped payment on this check, because I decided not to use a certain contractor to install my windows in my home, a day after he gave me a quote. In Illinois we have 3 days to reconsider. I just so happen to find a guy to beat his price. I informed the contractor I was going another route, and all was well . Never heard about it. I must have missed the Dunning letter,as I moved out of the 1 1/2 yrs later, and I do work on the road alot.

I know for fact this is not proper validation on the CA's part. I now know for fact this is not a valid debt, as the OC was listed as ARCertgy, and I was never 100% where this CA or ARCertegy got the account. ARCertergy has never reported this to the CRA's. The check was made to ABC Windows.

So now Im going to excercise my right to sue. Even by the slim chance this could be considered proper validation, from the time they sent the first letter until today, they were reporting a debt they were not able to validate. I have it in their own handwriting.

Im gonna serach the forum stickys to see what should be my next move. I think a letter to the DA or the FTC is in order. If anyone has any additional pointers, I would love to hear them.

Thanks

Message Edited by bigman023 on 01-04-2010 03:13 PM

Message Edited by bigman023 on 01-04-2010 03:14 PM

Message Edited by bigman023 on 01-04-2010 03:15 PM

Re: Need Help.........

RobertEG — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 05:23:05 GMT

Be very careful with any action against them, and first carefully read FDCPA 809(b). IMHO, I dont really see any violation here. They never had to send you anything.

I will throw out to you a strawman response that I would use, if I were the CA, in any response to your protestations:

FDCPA 809(b) sets no period for completion of verificaton, or providing notice to the consumer. We have notified, as a courtesy to you, that we have received your debt verification request, and are working on it. We are in full compliance with our obligations under the FDCPA.

Be advised that what FDCPA 809(b) requires is that, upon receiving a proper debt verification request from you, we cease all active debt collection until such time as verification is provided.

Re: Need Help.........

bigman023 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:05:43 GMT

The CA's big mistake is that the CA put in writing that they could not validate. They would have put themselves in a better position if they had not responded at all, and marked the account in dispute. It is my position that they should have stopped reporting at that time they admitted they couldn't validate, and resumed reporting when they were able to validate.

Wed. I filled a complaint with the FTC. The FTC rep said if they can not validate they can not report. But I know he is just a rep. He gave me a case number and that was it. Im assuming I might receive something in the mail.

Today I contacted the OC. The OC says they have a record of the account, but no paper work to suuport it They informed me they sold the debt, to a different CA than is reporting. The OC, nor the CA they sold it to, has ever reported this alleged debt.

I have disputed to the CRA's twice. All 3 verified it in May 2009. I disputed again last week. Ex (on-line dispute) has come back as verified. I requested a method of verification over the phone, and I re-disputed via mail and included copy of the letter where the CA states they cant verify. I sent the same, via mail, to TU & Eq and have not received a reply. If it comes back verified again, what should I do???

Would a 623 letter to the OC do any good in this situation? Like I said, the OC is not reporting. I really dont want to consider PFD, because this is a bogus debt. I guess if they agreed to 25% or less, I would that pay in lieu of paying a lawyer.

Message Edited by bigman023 on 01-07-2010 06:05 PM

Re: Need Help.........

bigman023 — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:23:12 GMT

Im still stuck in the mud with this one.

The OC is not reporting. But the CA has the OC listed. I contacted the OC and asked them investigate the validity of this debt. The OC replied with letter stating that they sold the debt, and no longer have any record of the account. The CA the OC says they sold account to, is not the the same CA that is reporting. I filed complaint with FTC, but I get the feeling it won't do much, and if it does it won't be for quite some time.

The debt is not valid. The CA has not been able to validate. The OC can't validate. But I have this collection reporting on my CRs. What should be my next step?? Sueing seems to be the only option left. Maybe even a PFD, which I would hate to do because the debt is not valid.

Any help will be appreciated.....

Re: Need Help.........

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:51:31 GMT

From the FCRA:

If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

Re: Need Help.........

bigman023 — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:59:07 GMT

@bigman023 wrote:
Im still stuck in the mud with this one.

The OC is not reporting. But the CA has the OC listed. I contacted the OC and asked them investigate the validity of this debt. The OC replied with letter stating that they sold the debt, and no longer have any record of the account. The CA the OC says they sold account to, is not the the same CA that is reporting. I filed complaint with FTC, but I get the feeling it won't do much, and if it does it won't be for quite some time.

The debt is not valid. The CA has not been able to validate. The OC can't validate. But I have this collection reporting on my CRs. What should be my next step?? Sueing seems to be the only option left. Maybe even a PFD, which I would hate to do because the debt is not valid.

Any help will be appreciated.....

Looks like a lawyer or PFD will be my only options with this CA. It's amazing that they are able to get away with this. I contacted the FTC, but they don't actually enforce the law on an individual basis.

Does anyone know if the fact that they list an OC that no says they sold the account to different CA means anything relevant. The OC says they dont own the debt and therefore cant verify the account.

Message Edited by bigman023 on 02-01-2010 04:59 PM

Re: Need Help.........

RobertEG — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:34:30 GMT

I respectfully offer that maybe you are mixing apples and oranges.

DV requests under FDCPA 809(b) have absolutely nothing to do with validity of credit reporting under the FCRA.

CRAs dont, and shouldnt, consider DV disputes, or DV validaton, as part of their statutory authority to act upon as regards anything in their credit files. They are separate statutes, with totally separate intents.

When you DV a CA, they have no obligation to even respond. The CA did not say that they cannot validate, only that they have yet not validated.

They had no obligation to even tell you that, so I see no way that such a letter influences anything of legal merit. They just remain under authorty of FDCPA 809(b) for cessation of further collection activity untl such time, at their choosing, they may decide to present verifiation.

The OC has told you that the debt has been sold to the CA, and thus they are no longer a party to the debt.

If you dispute the debt itself, then your recourse for dispute with the CRAs is under FCRA 611(a), and not FDCPA 809(b).

Re: Need Help.........

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:47:05 GMT

In a similar situation, I had success writing Equifax a letter stating that I requested DV from the CA and the CA was unable to properly validate. I said that I disputed the referenced account with you (Equifax) before and you verified. I asked how this was possible since even the CA cannot verify. I sent a copy of the green card from where I sent the CA a DV letter.

Experian verified again (I am still fighting) and Equifax deleted. It is worth a shot.

Re: Need Help.........

bigman023 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:27:43 GMT

@RobertEG wrote:
I respectfully offer that maybe you are mixing apples and oranges.
DV requests under FDCPA 809(b) have absolutely nothing to do with validity of credit reporting under the FCRA.
CRAs dont, and shouldnt, consider DV disputes, or DV validaton, as part of their statutory authority to act upon as regards anything in their credit files. They are separate statutes, with totally separate intents.
When you DV a CA, they have no obligation to even respond. The CA did not say that they cannot validate, only that they have yet not validated.
They had no obligation to even tell you that, so I see no way that such a letter influences anything of legal merit. They just remain under authorty of FDCPA 809(b) for cessation of further collection activity untl such time, at their choosing, they may decide to present verifiation.
The OC has told you that the debt has been sold to the CA, and thus they are no longer a party to the debt.

If you dispute the debt itself, then your recourse for dispute with the CRAs is under FCRA 611(a), and not FDCPA 809(b).

I pretty much knew this, but I probably didn't make it clear that I did. My issue is no longer that the CA did not validate when I initially requested validation from them. My issue is with what the CA actually provided for validation. A copy of a stop payment check. The check is stamped by the other party's bank as "stop payment do not resend". It is my understanding that consumers have the right to stop payment on checks. I did not receive any services from the contractor, and the stop payment was done with-in 3 days of me receiving the guys bid for work,which is what Illinois law requires. I would think the CA would at least have to include with the validation how my stop payment negatively effected their client. Although, I know it didn't because the contractor never performed any work, and I cancelled with him the same day I got the bid.

It is my opinion that this CA has not properly validated,and therefore is reporting an unvalidated debt. I am a bit confused when you say they aren't required to respond to my validation requests. I understand the part about how they aren't required to respond. But, when they do respond, and the validation they provide is not proper or incomplete, am I wrong to think that I may have them on a violation.On the grounds that they could be reporting a debt they can't validate.

I am thinking that disputing with the CRA's is no longer an option. It appears to me that CA feels their validation is sufficient enough for them to legally report the debt. Therefore, when CRA's asks the CA for verification, the CA simplys verfys with the CRA's.And because the CRA wants verification and not validation from the CA, the CRA's will continue to report. Therefore, I have taken this to be a situation were the fight is between myself and the CA. I'm just not sure what is the proper and cheapest venue for this fight.

I'm going to shoot the CA one last letter. Included with this letter will be, the written position I have on this matter, as well as proof that I have filed a complaint with my state's AG, and proof that I am prepared to hire a private attorney to work on behalf. I will state in the letter I am making this one last attempt to seetle this via a PFD for $0.20 on the dollar, since thats about the amount of what it will take for the attorney to start working on my case. If this scare tactic doesn't work, I will have to make the decision, if I truley want to pay an attorney to pursue this.

Thanks to everyone for all their input.

Message Edited by bigman023 on 02-02-2010 05:27 PM