Need Help.........

[bigman023]

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! 

[Anonymous]

Hi bigman023,

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

[bigman023]

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

[bigman023]

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

[RobertEG]

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.

[bigman023]

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

[bigman023]

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.....

[Anonymous]

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.

[bigman023]

---

@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

[RobertEG]

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).