CA with multiple problems

[Anonymous]

OK, so I have an CA collection showing on EQ only listing Verizon as the OC.  It is for about $50.  I disputed as not mine back in Aug since the phone number listed as the account is my active number, and came back verified.  I asked for validation, and got it - creditor name, yes it's you, etc.  So I disputed via 623 since I still didn’t think it was mine and I wanted to see the bill.  I got a printout from CA of a bill from Verizon marked “Final Bill”.  It list charges for the amount in question under “Non-Basic”.  I had none of the non-basic services during this timeframe, nor any other.

The only thing I have been able to put together is that during both 2004 and 2005, Verizon was offering DSL as new to our rural area.  We had been on dial-up.  So in 2004 we called, were told DSL was available, and signed up.  Verizon sent us the equipment and we set it up and could not get it to work.  We called them back and they now said DSL was not available in our area.  UGH!  So we sent their equipment back.  2005 rolls around and we decide to try again.  We call, tell them what happened last year.  They call back and assure us yes, DSL is now available.  I think you know where this is headed.  Same story again, double UGH.  We return the equipment, again.  A year or so later we get an email from a neighbor with an address of Mod Cut!  We ask them and they say yeah, they had it for a couple of months, so we signed on and third time was a charm, sort of. 

Please do not post your personal information or that of others in the forums, this also includes personal email addresses.

Thanks for your cooperation!

--fused, myfico moderator

In 2008, I pulled my CRs and there was a collection from Verizon for the $50 but at that point I had so many baddies and had so many things in SOL that I just shelved all of it until last fall.  So now a well known CA has the debt.  All I can guess is that Verizon never credited our account for returning the equipment. 

So I call Verizon today.  They tell me they have no records of my account at all other than it was sold.  They tell me to dispute with the CA.  I told them the CA is going to say that they have this Final Bill from you, to which the CSR was no help.

The problems with the account that I see are:

#1, CA does not have an itemized bill.  A statement that says Final Bill is all they have.  Verizon has no records.  Is a simple statement like that valid? 

#2, the Final Bill is three pages long and has three different billing dates on the three pages from Jan 2006 to Mar 2006.  It looks like it is just pieced together.  Nowhere is there an actual date of anything.  Just things like 1/06 and August 31. 

#3, CA has re-aged the debt and EQ has let them do it.  Verizon’s listing in 2008 on my EQ CR shows the account as having a DOFD of 03/2006.  My EQ from 2011 shows CA’s listing for the same account as DOFD 08/2006.  The bill they sent on Page 1 says “Billing Date:  1/06”.  Additional lines on the same page say Previous Charges $0, No Payment Received $0, Total Adjustments $50, Past Due Charges (please pay now) $50.  Then below that it says Final Bill.  So if in 1/06 there had been no payment received and there was already a past due amount, wouldn’t the FCRA DOFD be no later than 12/05.  The 2008 EQ report lists the status in March 2006 as 120 days late - nothing before or after.  That makes Feb 90, Jan 60, and Dec 30, right?  No way DOFD is 8/2006.  But Verizon is no longer reporting.  I know that the CA can claim they don't know the DOFD because the OC hasn't provided it and use the date of referral.  In this case that seems to be what happened, but first, it clearly states on the Final Bill 1/06, and second EQ's own report shows that in 3/2006 it was 120 days late and previously had an earlier DOFD.

Who is my next letter to and what does it say?  I know this is not valid.  Verizon washes their hands of it by telling me they sold it and they have no more records, so even though it’s their screw up, it comes back to me.  How do I prove that Verizon got their stuff back 6 years ago?  CA has just a simple statement that anyone could make and no other burden of proof of anything?  CRA reports DOFD in 2008 as 3/2006 on the same report they list 120 days late on 3/06.  Why can no one show even a modicum of competence?

[Booner72]

I read a post the other day that said the OC is required to furnish the DOFD to the CA within 90 days or 60 days of selling the debt.

It's on Verizon to have reported that DOFD.

This is a gigantic mess and it sucks!  If it were me, I'd be all over Verizon, calling, emailing, and faxing all day, every day, until someone fixed this.  Who is the CA?

[IOBA]

I am sorry.  Verizon did something similar to me with a Net card.  Swore up and down and into tomorrow that it would work on both the PC and the Mac.   Uh, false.   After many frustrating attempts to get it to work, many long phone calls, someone finally admitted their products do NOT work with Macs.  So I insisted that they cancel the 2 yr contract for it and give me a full refund.   It took MONTHS after the equipment was turned in to get all the credits promised.  MONTHS.  I persisted.  I walked into stores.  I called.   Eventually, got it all worked out.   The only saving grace I would have now, if they decided I owed them, is to show current and past bills.

For you, what specifically would be your first goal?

1.  Establish DOFD as 2005, or earlier, to make it past credit reporting eligibility?

2.  To establish it's a bogus debt?

3.  What is your state and the state's SOL?

[Anonymous]

Primarily, I want to move the DOFD to no later than 12/2005.  I think 3/2006 is going to be easy enough.  Like I said, EQ had it once as 3/2006, so they have to revert to that.  But they also had it on the same report as 120 late in 3/2006.

If I can do that, I'd probably accomplish what I want.  I'd like to go away but it will probably take until Dec and by then it should be gone anyway.

I'd like  to get a mortgage in spring 2013 so if I can get it to Dec 2005, it will be gone and mission accmplished.

I am in PA, SOL long past.

[RobertEG]

AS for DOFD, here is what the statute requires, in very specific terms  (FCRA 623(a)(5)):

You state that the OC reported a DOFD of 3/2006.  If that is their last or only reporting of DOFD, that is end-game under the FCRA.  You dont have to show anything else.

Section 623(a)(5) requires an OC to report a DOFD to the CRA within 90 days of reporting of a collection referral or charge-off.  Apparently, they did that.

Thereafter, anyone reporting any information to the CRA regarding an account placed for collection or charged-off must ALSO report the DOFD on the OC account to the CRA within 90 days of their reporting

.

DOFDs dont occur with a debt collector, they occur with the OC.  Thus, the statute clearly accepts any DOFD reported or provided by the OC as the trump card.  If the OC has reported a DOFD to the CRA, that is the date.  If the OC has not reported a DOFD to the CRA, the debt collector is required to contact the OC and attempt to get that date from them.

Section 623(a)(5)(B)(i) is unequivocable.  If the OC has reported a DOFD to your credit file, the debt collector must report that same date.

It appears to me that the trump card is on the table.

[Anonymous]

Any chance that the 120 days late in 3/2006 can back that up any to December?  I mean I have Verizon's bill dated 1/06 that clearly states final bill with no activity.  Is there zero recourse?

I forogt, after my first dispute, the CA sent me a letter stating they would remove.  I sent a follow up 2 months later, nothing, so I sent the 623.  That's when I got the Verizon bill.

Is the Verizon final bill with no other reference as to what it is actually for valid?  That's crazy, no back up, no itemization.  It's like legal blackmail.  They might as well have put $50,000 if they don't have to prove it.

[RobertEG]

They only have to "verify" that they have investigated and affirm the accuracy.  They are not required to provide proof.  A dispute/DV process is not a legal finding of fact.  That is reserved for the courts.

As for a DOFD earlier than the reported 120-day late, I agree that would be logical.  It clearly infers a date of first delinquency four months prior.  However, they have apparently reported the 3/2006 date, so that kinda stands with the CRA.  The CRA normally doesnt have the authority to alter a reported DOFD unless they choose to intervene using their reinvestigation rights associated with a dispute, and having no pending dispute, I dont see them jumping in as judge and jury.

Best bet is to get the OC to update their reporting.  That is the factual date upon which the CRA is calculating the exclusion date.  With their statement that they have no records upon which to do that, you could use your argument of logic as the basis for a direct dispute sent to the OC.  They would then be required to either affirm its accuracy, correct it so as to make it accurate, or delete their reporting.  They may just take your view of DOFD and update it to resolve the dispute. 

I would give a direct dispute a try.  Based on your facts and arguments, I think you have substantial new issues upon which to continue to dispute the accuracy of their reporting.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, the OC is no longer reporting, only the CA, so is there a purpose to a 623 with the OC?

[RobertEG]

No, if the information is no longer in your CR, there is no basis under the FCRA for disputing its accuracy.

Probably the main reason why creditors delete accounts, even if closed.  It makes the FCRA go away.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Robert, I am going to go to EQ first and try to get them to clerically change the DOFD, then work on the CA..

I have a similar question on another acct I would like your input on but I don't want to confuse this topic so I will start a new thread.