Ok gurus i need some help

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The other thing i notice on this midland account is, the fall off date is 1 year after the DOFD with the original creditor, but my other collection has the same fall of date as my DOFD with that creditor. 

So midland will stay on my CRA 1 year after the original account. Actually 1yr 2mo

---

Dispute the DoFD as being incorrect - Midland should be using the OC's DoFD.

---

I disputed it 3 times with all CRA's. Came back verified, i then went to the BBB. made a complaint and thats pretty much when he told me if i dont like it to bad. Take it up with the CRA's not them. BBB closed the complaint. 

I called them today and the lady on the end i could barely understand with her tremoring voice as she tried to talk to me. I said this is unexceptable and she put me on hold, came back on the phone and said its reporting correctly and they will do nothing for me. 

Im guessing a complaint with the cfbp is my next step but i want to make sure i have all my i's dotted and T's crossed for a possible removal of the account. 

The last collction is going to be removed so this one ( midland) will clear all the collections off my CR. 

Im guessing this is why my TU is so low? And it was brought up that i had an open collection. Its how all this got started. I knew i had paid everything. The remarks are all that says its been paid. 

---

Send Midland a direct dispute, include copies of your reports showing the reported DoFD on the OC's account. If they fail to correct it, then escalate to CPFB. Send CPFB the same documents showing that Midland is not using the OC's DoFD. If the idiots still can't figure it out, you may have to threaten them with a lawsuit for willful incorrect reporting.

---

Your raw EQ reports should show the actual DoFD rather than expected drop dates....

---

i only have my TU, waiting on EX and EQ, im guessing should be here friday/saturday. Ordered them all the same day. 

[Anonymous]

---

---

---

---

---

Happy turkeyday btw normanFH..LOL

[RobertEG]

---

Harley14 wrote:

The other thing i notice on this midland account is, the fall off date is 1 year after the DOFD with the original creditor, but my other collection has the same fall of date as my DOFD with that creditor. 

How can the "fall offf date" on the OC account be 1 year after the DOFD?  Do you mean only that the estmated fall off date shown for the collection is a year after the fall off date shown in the OC account?  If that is the case, does the OC account show the reporting of a charge-off?

If not, then the OC would not have reported a DOFD under their account.

You need clear evidence of what the OC reported as a DOFD, if they did indeed report a DOFD.

---

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The other thing i notice on this midland account is, the fall off date is 1 year after the DOFD with the original creditor, but my other collection has the same fall of date as my DOFD with that creditor. 

How can the "fall offf date" on the OC account be 1 year after the DOFD?  Do you mean only that the estmated fall off date shown for the collection is a year after the fall off date shown in the OC account?  If that is the case, does the OC account show the reporting of a charge-off?

If not, then the OC would not have reported a DOFD under their account.

You need clear evidence of what the OC reported as a DOFD, if they did indeed report a DOFD.

---

---

Im looking at the fall off date. It shows 1yr later on midland vs the original OC. yes the OC was charged off. Midland aquired the debt in march of 14. So its showing 3/2021 as that fall off date, the original OC's fall off date in 1/2020

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@RobertEG wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The other thing i notice on this midland account is, the fall off date is 1 year after the DOFD with the original creditor, but my other collection has the same fall of date as my DOFD with that creditor. 

How can the "fall offf date" on the OC account be 1 year after the DOFD?  Do you mean only that the estmated fall off date shown for the collection is a year after the fall off date shown in the OC account?  If that is the case, does the OC account show the reporting of a charge-off?

If not, then the OC would not have reported a DOFD under their account.

You need clear evidence of what the OC reported as a DOFD, if they did indeed report a DOFD.

---

---

Im looking at the fall off date. It shows 1yr later on midland vs the original OC. yes the OC was charged off. Midland aquired the debt in march of 14. So its showing 3/2021 as that fall off date, the original OC's fall off date in 1/2020

Whats your take on this robert? The whole senerio? Is it reporting correctly or do i actually have something here? 

Ive read that i dont want to liste everything thats wrong but take it steps at a time. Just putting everything may make them revisit it and update everything, but if i keep at it with item after item their more incline ro just be sick of me and delete it.

from my vantage point i see 3 things that are wrong.

reporting it open

reporting it as a factoring account

reporting the wrong DOFD

[RobertEG]

You may have basis for disputes, but each item that may be inaccurate is a separate item for investigation and correction or verifcation.

There is no assertion that the collection itself was improper, so ultimate outcome of any dispute would not involve any requirment to delete the collection.

Treatng each issue:

1.Reporting as Open.

Any collection has an open status until it becomes closed,either by way of discharge of the debt or by temination of their collection authority prior to any payment of the debt.

Apparently, the debt was paid, which terminates further collection on the debt.  Thus, the collection should be updated to closed status.

That assumes that Open refers to the status of the collection itself.  As stated earlier by Norman, it could also refer to the type of OC account that created the debt.

Regardless, you can pursue clarification or correction, but the outcome only relates to an admin matter, and wont affect the continued accuracy of the collection itself, and thus wont mandate any delettion.

2.  Reporting as a factoring account.

This is an issue that has been beat to death, both here in the forum and on other sites.

It is not clear that a factoring account cannot be based on a delinquent debt, and thus that a debt collector cannt report their collection as a factoring account.

Again, correction is there is an ultimate finding that such reporting is inaccurate will not makdate deletion of the collection, only correction of that inaccuracy.

3.  Reporting of the DOFD

If it has been disputed and verified, then the debt collector has verified its accuracy.

There is insufficient showing that a verifcation would necessarily be improper.

The debt collector may have contacted the OC and obtained the DOFD that they reported, which would make their reporting of the DOFD fully compliant with FCRA 623(a)(5).

However, I agree the same DOFD would apply to the OC reporting of thei charge-off and to the debt colelctor reporting of their collection.

If the debt collector was provided the DOFD that they (the debt collector) then provided to the CRA, that would infer that the DOFD that remains of record under the OC account reporting may now be the inaccuracy, and that the OC should be correcting THAT reporting rather than the debt collector reporting being inaccurate.

You might thus send a dispute of the accuracy of the OC reporting of the DOFD under thir account, and gett the OC's side of the story as to what they consider to be the DOFD on their own account. 

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

You may have basis for disputes, but each item that may be inaccurate is a separate item for investigation and correction or verifcation.

There is no assertion that the collection itself was improper, so ultimate outcome of any dispute would not involve any requirment to delete the collection.

Treatng each issue:

1.Reporting as Open.

Any collection has an open status until it becomes closed,either by way of discharge of the debt or by temination of their collection authority prior to any payment of the debt.

Apparently, the debt was paid, which terminates further collection on the debt.  Thus, the collection should be updated to closed status.

That assumes that Open refers to the status of the collection itself.  As stated earlier by Norman, it could also refer to the type of OC account that created the debt.

Regardless, you can pursue clarification or correction, but the outcome only relates to an admin matter, and wont affect the continued accuracy of the collection itself, and thus wont mandate any delettion.

2.  Reporting as a factoring account.

This is an issue that has been beat to death, both here in the forum and on other sites.

It is not clear that a factoring account cannot be based on a delinquent debt, and thus that a debt collector cannt report their collection as a factoring account.

Again, correction is there is an ultimate finding that such reporting is inaccurate will not makdate deletion of the collection, only correction of that inaccuracy.

3.  Reporting of the DOFD

If it has been disputed and verified, then the debt collector has verified its accuracy.

There is insufficient showing that a verifcation would necessarily be improper.

The debt collector may have contacted the OC and obtained the DOFD that they reported, which would make their reporting of the DOFD fully compliant with FCRA 623(a)(5).

However, I agree the same DOFD would apply to the OC reporting of thei charge-off and to the debt colelctor reporting of their collection.

If the debt collector was provided the DOFD that they (the debt collector) then provided to the CRA, that would infer that the DOFD that remains of record under the OC account reporting may now be the inaccuracy, and that the OC should be correcting THAT reporting rather than the debt collector reporting being inaccurate.

You might thus send a dispute of the accuracy of the OC reporting of the DOFD under thir account, and gett the OC's side of the story as to what they consider to be the DOFD on their own account. 

---

Seeing as ive taken the steps from disputing 3 times, then the bbb, would a CFPB complaint be the next process? 

Im thinking if i do go the CFPB route, should i also list how this is a known problem with midland and bring up their past on collection tactics etc? 

I want this to be the salt in the wound type letter...i wish i could post this guys response...i was about 10 shades of red....LOL 

[RobertEG]

If you have disputed with the debt collector and they have investigated and verified, then my point is that their verification could be proper.

The fautl may reside with the accuracy of the reporting under the OC account, which the OC may now have determined to be the date they provided to the debt collector, but they (the OC) failed to correct under their own account reporting.

I dont see, at this point, sufficient facts to determine which DOFD reporting is in error, and thus no current basis to complain to the CFPB that the debt collector's verirication is in violation of the FCRA.  I would cross that last "t" before casting allegations of violation of the FCRA.

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

If you have disputed with the debt collector and they have investigated and verified, then my point is that their verification could be proper.

The fautl may reside with the accuracy of the reporting under the OC account, which the OC may now have determined to be the date they provided to the debt collector, but they (the OC) failed to correct under their own account reporting.

I dont see, at this point, sufficient facts to determine which DOFD reporting is in error, and thus no current basis to complain to the CFPB that the debt collector's verirication is in violation of the FCRA.  I would cross that last "t" before casting allegations of violation of the FCRA.

---

The OC is the correct one. I have the letter from them in my file cabinet from all of this. They actually were nice enough to help me out because they feel what midland is doing is wrong. They even called them on my behalf to get it corrected and she stated that in the letter also that she called. 

I did let midland know that I have that letter and there was a call placed to them from the OC. again they pretty much responded with we don't care. And the OC could have talked to anyone. 

Like I said they have been down right dirty about this. 

[Anonymous]

I agree they are being total asshats. It seems to that you have ample evidence, if the OC is completely on your side. Their intransigence is baffling, and the arrogance is astounding. Present all of the evidence you have in a CFPB complaint, and if they still refuse to correct, then sue their butts. They should not be allowed to do this crap. If it comes to that, make sure to subpeona the jerk that wrote the smart ass letter and every other cretin from there you have dealt with.