PLEASE HELP! CA placing multiple entries on report!

[briantoy84]

Hello everyone,

I have been working on improving my credit report using some of the great advice that is on this forum.

I do have a new situation that I cannot find much info on.. here it goes:

I had a debt from an old apartment lease that was sent to National Credit Systems. They started to contact me about 1.5 years ago for the debt from about 2 years ago. I disputed with the CRA since some of what they were trying to charge me for I disagreed with.  Dispute came back verified. I sent a PFD via CMRRR, and never heard back. I contact them after a month or so and spoke with a man who basically tried to pull a fast one by saying they would accept the settlement offer and update my CR. I asked more details and found out that they wouldnt even mark it paid in full, just settled for less. He then told me nevermind, since i wouldnt pay him right then, that I should call back when i have the entire balance, since no one there would work with me on anytype of settlement since i didnt agree to pay him then. Then he hung up on me!

Fast forward til a few months ago, where i get a notification that i had a new negative entry on my report. I looked, and low an behold they added the same debt again to my credit report with a slightly different balance and account number. i immediately disputed as a duplicate account, and it came back verified as well. Now i am getting collection letters from them, seperate letters with the different balances and different account numbers, but same original creditor...

What steps should I take?

[RobertEG]

Debt collectors can and do file updated reporting of their collection.  Update of the asserted debt is a normal update.

It should be reported under the same collection.  Is your CR actually showing two separate collections on the same debt reported by the same debt collector?

That is obviously improper.

Or is the update being reported under the same collection, but with a different account number?  That could be proper, maybe just updating the administrative information on their collection.

[briantoy84]

There are two different, seperate entries. I am also receiveing collection letters, one with one account number and balance, and another with a different account number and slightly different balance. Both list the same original debt/acccount number from the apartment complex.

All of this is from the same debt collector. The collection letters are even dated the same day.  This caused my score to drop by about 50+ points!

[briantoy84]

Anyone have any tips or advice on how to best manage this??

[Anonymous]

I am also interested in hearing what how to handle this.  I am having the same problem with EOS CCA who has the same charged off account listed 3 times with 3 different balances and account numbers on my TU CR.  It is only once on the others.

[briantoy84]

Anyone??  Please help us!!

[Anonymous]

I'd like some advice on this, also. I haven't disputed with the CRAs for the CAs yet, but I have two situations that are similar:

1. I have one CA for a medical bill ($204) that is being reported twice on all 3 of my CRs. It has a different account number for each of them and a difference in date of like a month, but it is for the same $204 for the same medical bill. So it looks like I owe $204 for 2 separate accounts.

2. On only my EX report, I have a collection for a CO acct and it is dated 2 years ago. I now have a new collection showing from a different CA for the same exact CO acct, but showing that this CA got the acct in 1/2012. So, did the 2nd CA buy it from the 1st CA? If so, should they both be showing on my report? Doesn't seem like it, since that would mean I owe 2 people for the same bill. What should I do here?

What should we all do when a CA shows twice with slightly different info (ie acct numbers and dates)???

[Anonymous]

Anyone have any suggestions, please? ^

[briantoy84]

*Bump*

Doesn't anyone have any suggestions or advice for us??

[Student_Loans_Kill]

I would love an answer to, very interesting sounds like a method to make a PFD invalid and give CA more power