Convergent Outsourcing Re-Aging recourse. Please help.

[redshoes]

Thanks for the clarification, Robert. What they're doing is definitely improper reaging. I went ahead and filed a complaint with the CFPB. I'll keep this thread posted with updates on my progress.

[redshoes]

So this was my first go-round with the CPFB. Overall, I was impressed with the speed they handled thing. Be advised, anything you type in a complaint online will be forwarded directly to the company you have a dispute with. In retrospect, I should've left some stuff out of my complaint. Regardless, Convergent replied today. They claim that the mobile phone company retained them; that they didn't purchase the debt. But here's the meat of their response and it smells like bullhonkey. (Side note: we should totally bring back "bullhonkey" as a thing.) 

"We found that the last payment received on the account was on 09/03/08. Our client listed this account for pre-collections in our office on 12/14/08 with a balance of $228.94. On 12/18/08 we sent you a validation letter to the address on file. [phone company] assessed fees and an ETF charge to the balance on 12/29/08, the first date of delinquency. The account was canceled in our office by our client and charged off on 01/26/09. [phone dompany] then relisted the charged off account in our office on 06/04/13 with a balance of $XXX.XX."

Even if my last payment on that account was on 09/03/08 (which, according to my phone call with the phone company, it wasn't, though I'm not ruling out phone company agent error there), DOFD would've been 10/08 at the latest, no? These guys are claiming 1/09 as DOFD now, when 1/09 was the charge-off date.

Thoughts?

[RobertEG]

"We found that the last payment received on the account was on 09/03/08. Our client listed this account for pre-collections in our office on 12/14/08 with a balance of $228.94. On 12/18/08 we sent you a validation letter to the address on file. [phone company] assessed fees and an ETF charge to the balance on 12/29/08, the first date of delinquency. The account was canceled in our office by our client and charged off on 01/26/09. [phone dompany] then relisted the charged off account in our office on 06/04/13 with a balance of $XXX.XX."

Their letter contradicts itself.

Last payment is meaningless as to establishment of DOFD.

If the last payment was on 9/3/08, DOFD must have preceded that date.  Thus, the DOFD could not have been 12/29/08.

Bottom line is that their letter "explains" how THEY determined DOFD, and does not address the statutory issue of what the OC provided to them as the DOFD.

They were specifically required to ask the OC for that date, not concoct their own version unless the OC gave them nothing.

They are silent on that issue.

[redshoes]

Thanks, Robert. That was my take, too. The phone company said I could likely get a copy of those old billing statements at one of their stores. I should also note that the CA is claiming that they didn't purchase the debt; that they're merely representing the phone company; that the phone company resubmitted this debt. Somehow, I really *doubt* that that's the case. Though that may be immaterial.

Having stated that the debt is five years old, they're also stating that the "the account does not appear to be outside of [my state's] statute of limitations." My state's statute of limitations is really clear on this. It's four years from DOFD. So even by their erroneously-revised DOFD, it's outside the SOL.

Supposedly, they DO the date I last paid a bill from the OC. If I paid the bill on 9/03/08, but didn't pay the following bills. 1/26 does seem like a reasonable charge-off date to me, roughly 90 days after a 10/08 DOFD. But they should NOT be using the charge-off date as DOFD. Pinnacle had DOFD listed as 9/08 when they had the account and on the phone, the phone company confirmed that they didn't receive a payment for the billing period that ended in late August. Which would suggest that the 9/08 DOFD is correct. Obviously, if I can, I need to get printed verification of that.

One clarification, RobertEG. You write, "Last payment is meaningless as to establishment of DOFD. If the last payment was on 9/3/08, DOFD must have preceded that date."

I'm missing something here. I get that last payment is meaningless as to establishment of DOFD, given billing cycles and whatnot. That last payment gives me a ballpark figure based on a monthly billing cycle of what a DOFD likely was. What I'm confused by is your assertion that the DOFD must have preceded the 9/3/08 last payment. If I had been making timely payments (and I was, up until I abandoned that phone), wouldn't that last payment precede DOFD and not the other way around? Or am I missing something that's either rather arcane or totally staring me in the face? I've been known to do both. Thanks again!

[redshoes]

I called the mobile phone company again. They have the last payment listed as 9/03/08 — so the previous agent I spoke to was in error. What they WON'T provide me is the DOFD; they claim not to have it. Only that they closed the account on 12/13/08. They suggested I write the legal department. My worry is that I have 30 days to dispute this with CFPB; not sure that the mobile company's legal department will get back to me within that timeframe.

Here's where it gets interesting: "On 12/18/08 we sent you a validation letter to the address on file. [phone company] assessed fees and an ETF charge to the balance on 12/29/08, the first date of delinquency. The account was canceled in our office by our client and charged off on 01/26/09." [emphasis mine] Why would Convergent, who recently just picked up this account, send me a validation letter BEFORE what they're listing as DOFD? Or before the mobile company even levied an Early Termination Fee? Unfortunately, I can't confirm this, as they sent the letter — if they indeed sent it — to the wrong address. I went back through my file of CA letters from that period and they're not in there. I have never received a collection letter regarding this account.

One assertion I made, however, has turned out to be wrong. It looks like Convergent didn't buy the debt; that they really *are* representing the mobile company. I am considering adding the mobile company to my CFPB complaint for improperly recording DOFD. Anybody have input on that tactic?

Based on my conversation with the rep, however — and I should've done this while I was on the phone with them, I now realize, is that they *do* have a list of the collection agencies they've assigned to the case. I should get that list.

[redshoes]

One other thing came to mind. If the OC apparently has no actual record of the DOFD (which it appears they don't), would this be grounds for claiming the collection invalid?

[Rkalynsmith]

Okay so I won't know anything until the 15th of this month which will be the day my 30 dispute will be over. Convergent Outsourcing is full of it. Receivables Performance had it first and I got them to remove it off my credit report. T-mobile won't even send me a copy of my last bill which I think and hope it's some type of law against this. Will continue to keep you posted. Good luck

[redshoes]

Thanks for the update! I'm currently in the CFPB holding pattern. And I'm in the same boat as to the last bill. They know when my last payment was. They know when they closed the account, but they can't give me a DOFD because they say they don't have the billing information because the account was sent to collections. Convergent was trying to pass off the date the ETF fees were assessed as the DOFD. But how could they assess ETF fees without the account going into default in the first place, unless I cancelled the account? Which I didn't do. So if NOBODY has an actual DOFD, shouldn't this all be declared invalid?

[Shogun]

Yes, if they cannot come up with a DoFD, then any information they post to the CRAs would be incorrect, therefore invalid.  IMO anyways.

[afr4life06]

this topic got me looking into my own debt, cause i have one from convergent sourcing also with tmobile, i sent a PFD and havent heard anything. Now i think i am going to do a full investigation and see if i can get this removed from my credit too.