Joint account holders are both parties to the account agreement, and are both separately liable for any defaults or derogs. An authorized user is, by definition, authorized to use the account and have to posted to their credit report, but is not legally responsible for the debt,   If it is a sole account, then "adding" a joint account holder involves a new legal account agreement. Some lendors may permit conversion of sole to joint, but many will require application for  new, joint account. ... View more

If you send via snail mail, you can include anything of relevance. You can also provide relevant comments.   The CRAs established online disputes for their benefit, and not primarily for benefit to the consumer in documentation of a dispute. They simplify and limit documentation ability to their advantage, not yours.   If you have significant supporting documentation or arguments, I would suggest forgoing an online dispute, and simply do it via mail........ ... View more

The Higher Education Act includes provisions that totally exempt certain federal studentl loans from the normal 7 year credit report exclusion provisions of the FCRA until the loan has been repaid. As such, your federal student loan may not be subject to any exlusion of reported delinquencies, charge-offs, or collections until the loan has been repaid in full. ... View more

I would answer the phone and find out.   As an aside, when you say it was a "bogus collection," was there some sort of official determination that the debt was either not yours or was never delinquent, which would have terminated their collection authority per se? ... View more

In your answer to the court, do you plan to deny the debt or admit to it? Offering a settlement agreement before the court likely will be asserted as an admission of validity.   Normally, settlement negotitions are separate from court filings. I would recommend contacting their attorney and making offers without admission of validity of the debt. If they agree and you then settle, they will notify the court and the civil action will be dismissed. ... View more

Have you called the creditor and discusssed with a supervisor? The fact that they reported the DOFD as being the same as the "delinquency first reported" looks suspiciously like a simple misunderstandting of DOFD on the part of the employee who reported the DOFD when they reinstituted reporting. I would suspect that an informal resolution would be likely...... ... View more

Is the collection being reported by a third party debt collector, or was it reported directly by the original creditor as an internal collection by the creditor?    A PFD is a civil contract between the parties that becomes enforceable in court. A credtior cannot make  contractural agreement that is binding upon a third party who is not a party to the contract. ... View more

Do you have billing records for the period that show when you first became delinquent, and subsequent billing statements that show continued delinquency up to the time it became 120-late? Did they every report a charge-off? ... View more

What is the reported payment history profile, which shows the delinquency history? In partcicular, did they ever report a charge-off?   Are you getting the reported DOFD from annualcreditreport.com? ... View more

Billing statements setting a due date are sent for both delinquent and non-delinquent accounts. The fact that a billling statement with a due date after the date of first delinqeucncy is thus common.   Do you recognize the alleged debt, and if so, do you have any independent account records establishing the prior delinquency history? There is simply not enough info provided in the posted scenario to establish when the debt became delinquent, and thus subject to collection by a debt collector...... ... View more

What is their stated reason for refusing a payment in full? ... View more

It is stated that you filed a dispute over the lack of update by the debt collector of reporting made by the original creditor. REporting by a debt collector reflects information pertaining to their own collection activities on a debt that originated with a creditor. They are not responsible for any update, correction, or investigation of the accuracy of reporting made by the credtior. The basis for a dispute of lack debt collector update of reporting they are not responsible for and did not make is thus unclear. Can you explain?   Additionally, if the dispute pertained to lack of some unspecified update by the debt collector, then how did the original credtior become involved in response to the dispute?   Finally, if MetaCorp never had collection authority,then how did they accept payment of the debt?   Can you clarify? ... View more

Exclusion of derogs, such as collections and charge-offs, is imposed upon the CRAs under the provisions of FCRA 605(a). It does not delete the derogs from your credit file, it only mandates that a CRA cannot (normally) continue to include the derogatory information in credit reports they issue after the expiration of the exclusion peiod.   However, none of the exclusion provisions of section 605(a) are absolute.  FCRA 605(b) explicitly removes all of the exclusion provisions of section 605(a) under very specfic and limited situations, such as when a credit inquiry is made regarding a consumer-initiated request for credit or insurance with a principal value of $150K or more. If the inquiree includes a showing that the inquiry is being requested for review of a consumer-initiated request for credit of $150K or more, the CRA can provide them a special credit report that includes any and all normally excluded information.   While the credit lobby was able to get that exclusion included as part of the FCRA, it has not, over time, been used to any substantive extent by credtiors.  In my decade and a half of active time here in the forums, I have seen only a handful of anecdotal posts stating that a consumer has been subjected to request for such a credit report. It is essentially a provision of law which, while still in effect, is routinely not pursued. ... View more

Debt collector interest assessment is controlled under federal law by FDCPA 808(1):   " FDCPA § 808.  Unfair practices A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. " ... View more

The FCRA provides specific and detailed instructions to debt collectors on how they are to obtain the DOFD on the original credtior account for reporting to the CRA.   FCRA 623(a)(5) sets forth a multi-step process that they should employ. In a nutshell, they are to first review the consumer's credit report and determine whether the credtior has previously reported the DOFD to the CRA.  If they have, such as if they have reported a CO, then the debt collector simply reports that same DOFD to the CRAs. That is apparently the situation in the posted scenario, and results in the same DOFD.   However, if the credtior has never previously reported the DOFD on the delinquency, the debt collector is then required to personally attempt to contact the creditor and obtain the DOFD from them.   As a final possible step, if contact with the credtior cannot be made or the contact does not provide a statement of DOFD from the credtior, the steps set forth under FCRA 623(a)(5) then, and only then, permit the debt collector to make their own best guesstimate. ... View more

The court issued the judgment, so was satisfied at the time of entry that proper procuedures were shown to have been followed, including proper serviice upon the defendant. In most states, actual physical service upon the defendant is not required if prior attempts have been tried and failed.  Alternate terms of proper service are then provided for, such as by publlication in a local newspaper. A reveiw of the case file is thus necessary for determination of how service was alleged to have been complleted before concluding that proper service was not made. You should contact an attormey for compliance review, and for advice on whether or not any attempt now at vacature of the judgment on the grounds of admin error is still timely.   Even if service was improper, most states req ... View more

What are you trying to accomplish?   There are many prior threads relating to supposed "609 letters," most of which are inaccurate as to their pupose and content. FCRA 609 provides the right for a consumer to send a request to a CRA for disclosure of some item(s) of information contained the consumer's credit file. It does not provide a separate process for sending requests to creditors or debt collectors for their disclosure of information to the consumer. ... View more

A complaint sent to the CFPB  is not a "dispute" under either the FCRA or a request for debt validation under the FDCPA. It is an assertion of some lack of compliance/violation of some provision of those statutes. What specifically was the asserted violation the formed the basis for your CFPB complaint?   A complaint sent to a BBB is an assertion that the business has conducted some improper business practice. Additionally, while the BBB can request reponse from the business, they have no authority to require any specific action.   If they have responded by stating they see no error, that is their right.  You can pursue other processess, such as a formal dispute filed with the CRA, if you can show some inaccuracy in their reporting.   As for their refusal to accept payment, do you mean they are refusing to simply accept any payment in full, or that they are refusing to negotiate other terms and conditions, such as a settlement for less? What exactly did they state regarding refusal to accept payment?   ... View more

Whenever a creditor makes a reporting to a CRA and the debt remains delinquent, that update extends the reported total period since initial delinquency, and thus the negative scoring impact. REporting of current status as CO is an update stating that the debt remains delinquent.   Updated reporting of continued delinquency thus does not make the delinquency look more recent, it makes the total period of reported delinquency longer.  The total period of delinquency is the date of the updated reporting minus the date of the DOFD. ... View more

An account that is reported to a CRA as a 90-late is actually 120 days since initial delinquency. Delinquencies dont become reportable to a CRA until they at least 30 days passed the billing due date, and a delinquency reportable as a 30-late is actually 60 days or more from the DOFD.   Charge-offs can be taken under federal regulations after 120 days of delinquency for installment loans.     The separately reported DOFD, required to be provided to the CRA once a CO is reported, should thus be appprox 30 days prior to the first properly reportable 30-late. ... View more

They would need to motion the court for a writ of satisfaction, asking the court to impose garnishement of wages as a specific means to collect the judgment debt. Yes, it is a legit possibility while the judgment is still in its period of enforceability, which is normally ten years. A judgement can also be extened past the initial period of enforceability.   I would begin by visiting the clerk of the judgment court and review your file for a clear determination of the current status. I would then advise at least a prelim consultation with an attorney for review of possible options. I would not advise simply ignoring the real possibility of them pursuing garnishment after they have acquired a judgment. ... View more

Can you amplify on the posted scenario?   More specifically, University Accounting Services (UAS) is not a lendor or financial institution.  Rathwe, UAS is a student loan billing service provider that is hired by colleges, universities, and financial institutions across to assist with administering and billing of federal and private student loans including:   If you entered into a repayment agreement with terms that modified your original loan agreement, that repayment agreement would be with the college, university, or financial instution with whom the private student loan was contracted.  Any UAS involvement would merely have been as an intermediary. What, specifically, were the agreed terms in the repayment agreement for which the creditor agreed to any deletion of reported late payments that they have reported to the CRAs?  How did UAS become responsible for deletion of lates reported by the creditor? If you have a legal disagreement as to deletion, the terms of the repayment agreement will likely be controlling as to whether they are now in breach of that agreement.   Can you post the actual portion of that agreement pertinent to promised removal of late payments? ... View more

The currrent owner of a debt, be they an original creditor or a purchasing debt collector, can always assign collection authority to another debt collector.  The assigment then permits the new debt collector to report their collection to a CRA.   A common reason for a purchasing debt collector to hire another debt collector to conduct collection activities on their behalf is that the purchasing debt collector may not be licensed to conduct collection activities in the consumer's current state of residence. They thus can hire another licensed debt collector to do the work..... ... View more

They can remain in the shadows until such time as they decide to initiate communication with the consumer. They can, in the interim, make inquiries to monitor your current credit report.   Once they did initiate communication, they triggered their requirrement to then send  a formal collection ("dunning") notice, identifying the amount and current owner of the debt, and advising of your right to request debt validation within 30 days of that dunning notice. The time to make formal debt validation request thus begins when you receive their dunning notice. ... View more

The original creditor can always require the consumer to contact and pursue any payment of the debt with their assigned debt collector. They hire a debt collector to avoid the hassle themselves, and can refer any payment negotiations/issues to them. Thus, that is proper.   If the debt collector has not reported their collection to a CRA, you can include in any negotiation with them that they agree to a "pay for NOT reporting" limitation.  That will ensure that once you pay, the debt collector cant report their collection.   However, the debt collector cannot agree to any deletion of information reported by the original creditor, so is the credtior wont negotiate a PFD agreement, your only option is to pursue a goodwill request to the creditor after you pay the debt. ... View more

There is no distinction under the FCRA between required permissible purpose and coding of debt collector inquiries as hard or soft. It applies equally to both.   Inquires by a debt collector can normally be coded as hard.  However internal account reviews by existing creditors are, per CRA policy, always considered as soft inquiries if properly coded as such.   Debt collectors will often see some benefit in optional coding of their permissible inquiries as soft in order to "hide" them from the consumer.   Both hard and soft inquiries get the same credit report information, but if a debt collector is using inquiries to monitor consumer ability to pay, such as in perparation for possible civil suit seeking a judgment, they might not wish the consumer to be aware from normal pulls of their own credit reports of the debt collector snooping.  Unless the consumer is pulling their credit reports from  a source that shows both hard and soft pulls, such as annualcreditreport.com, the consumer will be unaware of the pulls. ... View more