rom828 wrote:Then they are indeed in violation as they signed for the DV on 5-14 and reported on 5-16.5-16 may be date that it appeared on your report, they may have actually reported it before they received the DV, they'd have to prove that tho. CRA can take their time updating.I should be hearing back from atty today, but wondering what to expect?!?!Not sure what the next step is? Will my atty have to sue to get it off my report?!As I said, I read posts on this forum that lead me to believe Midland doesnt care whether they 'follow the rules' and once they report it can be difficult to get the removed. And according to some of the posts, their method of validation is to request they be provided with proof of the debt rather than the other way around....and I guess it must work for them or they wouldnt keep trying these tactics.And the paralegal at my atty's office said this is common behavior for Midland (they've handled many many cases against them) and that they (Midland) tend to look at suits etc as just the cost of doing business.But since this is a violation, doesnt the CRA have to take it off when advised they didnt validate?Nope.I wish I had a better handle on how all this works and I'm sure I'm ask ing questions that are answered if I'd read back thru the FCRA and other threads, but I guess right now I'm just looking for some encouragement. I'd hoped this wasnt going to get so convuluted, and was having the atty help because I didnt feel confident in my ability to handle this one myself.Any further thoughts, advices etc are appreciated!
Message Edited by rom828 on 05-22-2008 06:54 AM