cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

MCM 623 dispute *update:success!*

tag
Gstew
Valued Member

MCM 623 dispute *update:success!*

Midland funding is reporting an installment with a past due balance. Can they do this? The OC is cap1
Do I DV? ITS? I know they are in violation I just don't know what to do or how to proceed.
This is what's showing on my ex report;

Date opened mar 2010
First reported may 2010
Date of status may 2010
Type installment
Terms 1 month
Monthy payment not reported
CL or orig amount 897$
High bal not reported
Recent bal 1,268 as of apr 2012
Responsibility individual
Status past due as of apr 2012 account on record until oct 2015


What options do I have if any?
Message 1 of 43
42 REPLIES 42
Shogun
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Midland funding.. Reporting Intallment?

Where did you get the report?  Is it directly from EX or a 3rd party?  Either way, it's a collection account, no matter what they may try to say.  Does it say "factoring company" anywhere?

Starting Score: 504
July 2013 score:
EQ FICO 819, TU08 778, EX "806 lender pull 07/26/2013
Goal Score: All Scores 760+, Newest goal 800+
Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge

Current scores after adding $81K in CLs and 2 new cars since July 2013
EQ:809 TU 777 EX 790 Now it's just garden time!

June 2017 update: All scores over 820, just pure gardening now.
Message 2 of 43
Gstew
Valued Member

Re: Midland funding.. Reporting Intallment?

I got this report directly from experian. I don't see any place where it says factoring company.. I know it's supposed to be a collection but why are they saying its an Installment? I would LOVE to get this off my report if I can. Also I'm in Louisiana.. Does anybody know the SOL here ?
Message 3 of 43
Gstew
Valued Member

Re: Midland funding.. Reporting Intallment?

I found these violations online but I'm not sure if they are correct or not.
Someone here good with fcra violations?

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as "Installment."

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely reporting the legal status of the account as "Installment."

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as "Installment."

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as "Installment."

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as "Installment" to result in a greater negative impact to Plaintiff's credit scores.
Message 4 of 43
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: MCM/ Midland funding Reporting As installment. DV?

When they acquired the debt, was the account delinquent?

That would determine whether or not they are a debt collector, which in turn determines whether or not any violation is only of credit reproting, or additionally one of a debT collection practices violation under the FDCPA.

 

I assume that since the OC was Cap1, the debt was revolving, not installment.

Even if they purchased the debt in good-staniding, and thus are heir to the debt rather than a debt collector, they could not unilaterally alter the terms of the agreement creating the debt, and thus could not convert the account to an instamment loan.

 

Before considering any legal action, I would send them a direct dispute, asserting inaccuracy iin reporting of the type of account/credit.

Violation of the FCRA does not occur simply by reporting inaccurate information.  Statues dont hold violation for simple, inevitable, and correctible human error or good faith acts. Accordingly, the FCRA requires that information must not knowlilgy be inaccurate, not that it must always be accurate.

 

Any violation of the FCRA requires a showing of willful or negligent noncompliance before any damages can be awarded.  Simple reporting of an inaccurcy is not enough.

Thus, you want to first create a record showing that they investgated the matter and were aware of your position that their reporitng is inaccurate.

That begins to support a case of willful noncompliance on their part.

 

I would not jump the gun.  Run it through the normal administrative dispute process before asserting a violation on their part.

Message 5 of 43
Gstew
Valued Member

Re: MCM/ Midland funding Reporting As installment. DV?

Thank you for your help! I won't jump the gun.

Yes this was a cap1 credit card so it was revolving not installment.

Do I direct Dispute via letter to all three agencies? Tu, ex and EQ while also sending a
Direct dispute to midland? I thought I read somewhere that you has to DD to the CRA's first. The copy and paste letter that's stickied to the forum should be good enough right? Cmrr ? Sorry for all the questions I just want to get this right the first time.
Message 6 of 43
DaBears
Senior Contributor

Re: MCM/ Midland funding Reporting As installment. DV?


@Gstew wrote:
Thank you for your help! I won't jump the gun.

Yes this was a cap1 credit card so it was revolving not installment.

Do I direct Dispute via letter to all three agencies? Tu, ex and EQ while also sending a
Direct dispute to midland? I thought I read somewhere that you has to DD to the CRA's first. The copy and paste letter that's stickied to the forum should be good enough right? Cmrr ? Sorry for all the questions I just want to get this right the first time.

Direct Dispute letter would go Midland. I would send it CMRRR. Keep us posted. 

 

Community Leader, 

 

DaBears

Message 7 of 43
Gstew
Valued Member

Re: MCM/ Midland funding Reporting As installment. DV?

Gotcha! So no disputing online with CRA's first.

I need printer ink and all that jazz. I will keep you all updated and hopefully I can help someone else out with this too.

I have no information to provide them if they ask i only have some old bills from capital one I've never received anything from MCM except a letter that they were checking my credit report. I also don't have an address to send anything to except the privacy notice they sent me. Have you dealt with MCM personally?
Message 8 of 43
Gstew
Valued Member

Re: MCM/ Midland funding Reporting As installment. DV?

Here is a letter that I put together from bits and pieces I found on the Internet.
Any suggestions?

To: Collection Manager at
Midland Credit Management, INC Midland Funding LLC
MRC Receivables Corporation
And
Midland Funding NCC-2


This is a Notice of Direct Dispute with you, under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D), of the accuracy of information you have reported to my credit file.

In compliance with FCRA §623(a)(8)(D), and enacting regulations published at 16 CFR § 660.4, this Notice of Direct dispute includes:

Identification of the specific information being disputed:

Midland Funding as shown on my Credit Report (attached), Account #xxxx is showing incorrect information.

Basis for the dispute:

1. The type of account is listed as installment. Please remove this incorrect information. Midland is not a creditor and I have never entered an installment account or agreement with the company.

2. The account status is shown as “Past Due”. Please delete this incorrect information. Midland is not a creditor, you cannot report an account as past due or current.

3. The "Recent Balance" Midland has most recently reported is 1,268$ and listed this account as 120 days past due. Please remove this incorrect information. There is no payment history to report as Midland is not a creditor.

4. Terms are listed as 1 month. Please remove this incorrect information. I have no terms or installment agreement with Midland as Midland is not a creditor.

5. The Payment status is listed incorrectly as “past due date as of April 2012 Please remove this incorrect information. I have no terms or installment agreement with Midland as Midland is not a creditor.



Supporting evidence:

A party who purchases a debt that is in default for the sole purpose of collecting the debt is not a creditor. FDCPA 803(4). Midland Funding is not my creditor. I have attached a copy of my credit report showing the incorrect information being reported.

Under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(E) and 16 CFR §660.4,, you have the duty to review all of the information I have provided to you, to complete your investigation of this Direct Dispute within 30-days of my Notice of Direct Dispute, and report directly back to me the results of your investigation within 5-days of your completion of your investigation.

Should you find the disputed information to be inaccurate or incomplete, or if you cannot verify the accuracy or completeness of the disputed information, you are additonally required, under FCRA 623((1)(E), to also promptly notify the credit reporting agencies of deletion of this information from my credit file.

-Printed name.
Message 9 of 43
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: MCM/ Midland funding Reporting As installment. *updated: critique my DD letter please*

Looks like it hits all the points...

 

To clarify the direct dispute process as it relates to also disputing with the CRAs, whatever you read about first disputing with a CRA is inaccurate.

 

A bit of history will explain...

The direct dispute process was incorporated into the FCRA a decade ago, but with the proviso the actual implementation was left to the federal agencies to implement.

That implementation did not occur until 2010, with the publication of the final rules..

The rulemakers conducted hearings on their proposed rules, part of which was a their recept of a recommendation by crediit industry representatives that a consumer first be required to dispute with a CRA before they could send a direct diispute to the furnisher of the disputed information.  It was their attempt to "water down" the process.

What you read was most likely based on that obsolete proposal.

 

The rulemakers, in their final rules, rejected that proposal, and took just the opposite approach.  In recognition of the fact that sending dual disputes would require the furnisher to ultimately make two investigations on the same issue, the final rules, published at 16 CFR 660.4 et seq., provided that any direct dispute could be dismissed without any investigation by the furnisher if it related to substantially the same information as was previously disputed through a CRA.

 

Bottom line.... one issue, one requirement to investigate.

Unless your renewed dispute involves new issues or additional documentation, you pick one process or the other.

If you do one followed by the other, it can be summarily dismissed as "frivoloous or irrelevant." 

 

 

Message 10 of 43
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.