I am experiencing a similar situation on this matter. I have an account that is nearing 7 years old. It is something I disputed for some time then gave up with the battle because nothing happened. I let it go thinking it will soon fall off. I have recently rcvd my reports and this item is now with a collection agency. They indicate the date it opened was Feb 2002 (NOT TRUE) and a last payment date of March 2005. When I contacted this agency, I was advised the 2002 date is the date the account was placed with them. Can they use this date as a "date opened" and how can they report a last payment date (re-aging???) this account when there has NEVER been any dispute. When I asked that they send proof of this debt, as I do not owe it. I was told that the statute on that has expired. The state I had 30 days in 2002 from their initial letter and since I failed to request it then the do not have to prove I owe this. What can I do???
Every interaction you have with another party telegraphs to you information about what future interactions would likely be like: Are they honest, law abiding, competent, rude, responsive, etc. They have shown in your first contact what they think of their legal obligations to comply with the law, as well as whether they have any qualms about collecting from a consumer who doesn't owe a debt. You should use this as a guide to how you will handle this. This simplifies things, since they will not be motivated by "good will", but only by self interest. Since they cannot be trusted, manners and phone conversations have no place. Everything you write, and every reply they send, is potentially part of legal action you may need to bring. Keep systematic records, and send everything CRRR. Dispute thru all channels available (CRAs, FTC, state AG, BBB), and in each reply document and dispute each falsification or violation. Your final audience for all communications may be a judge. Review FDCPA and FCRA for their violations. Is this a debt that you once owed, but paid or settled to the OC or a CA, someone else's account for which you are not responsible, a fraudulent account opened in your name, or a debt that has passed your state's SOL for legal action to collect?
What are they reporting to the CRAs as the date of first delinquency that is the basis for CRA removal after 7 years? What did any prior CA, or the OC report for this date?
Thank you so much for your reply. I realize their appraoch and intent to rectify or resolve an account means "Give us the Money" or "Get off our phone". That much did not surprise me in the least. My question though is about "re-aging" of this account. Should the date opened and the last payment date refelct when the CA got the account and when they reviewed it. This is NOT accurate. This account is nearly 7 years old. With the dates they report this account account will now remain until 2012 rather than dropping off this year!!! If a CA gets an old account and reports it against your file, what "date opened" and "date of last activity" should this line reflect. I do not mean to seem dumb but I really need to know that I know that I understand the law in this matter clearly. When I write these letters, I want to insure I approach this with knowledge. Oh and one last thing: what about their claim that since I didn't request "validation" within 30 days of their initial letter to me that they do not have to prove I legitimately owe this account? Is that WRONG??? Thanks again in advance for your expertise. This place is like heaven on earth. I have worked in the Accounts Receivables/Credit & Collections Industry for years. It may sound ignorant but I do not know the law to the letter. My experience has always been the angel the consumer did not expect to get on the other line. I have had soooo many people thank me for helping them to sincerely get to the bottom of their issues, work out reasonable and amicable terms or respect the fact that they do not care or are not able to pay the demand. My thought has always been, I didn't personally loan them the money so it's no personal attack for me to make or recive if they don't pay it. Sooner or later, they'll realize the value of a good name (as I have) and they will fight and nail to reclaim just that. In this industry I was always ranked in the highest percentage of recovery specialists. That success is based on the fact that I appeal to the debtor with tact, empathy, respect and professionalism. They in turn LOVE me and hurry to pay (if they can). That is not the case here!
In an ongoing business or consumer/vender relationship, there is the possibility of symbiosis that may lead both parties to work together: an ongoing series of business transactions has a value beyond the immediate issue. That does not exist with JDB vs. consumers. It is one shot, and the consumer does not choose the collector. There is a potential profit motive to ignore all laws and say or do whatever scares the consumer to cough up money quickly. The actual legal downside is usually limited by both the legal unsophistication of most consumers who have bad debts, as well as their lack of resources to defend themselves. You see consumers say things like: "I paid this to the original creditor 5 years ago, and a collector is threatening me to collect it again. Do I have to pay it twice?" Why is this crap even happening? The concept of "contract" has been corrupted to be an excuse for a mugging. The reason I ask about the basis for the debt and its level of legitimacy is that you start with your strongest case first. If you know the claim is bunk, you know its SOL, you know you can prove its fraud, or whatever, you know how strong your hand is, and what the end game will be if you force the issue. It is to your advantage to force the issue, including litigating if need be, since delay damages you further. In the poker game the collector is trying to play, you know his hand, and how hard to hit back, whatever BS he might make up or claim. You can also bring in other players who have responsibility for enforcing the law, or attorneys who will take a strong case on contingency, and you are in the strongest position to do this when your own hands are clean and theirs are not. At one level, the decision to fight or just pay up may appear to favor paying any claim, since any litigation always has some cost. Case by case its cheaper to pay off every nuisance. But if everyone followed this, we would have a horde of extortionist liers plagueing us. We already have many collection cases won by default judgement, often with no actual service to the defendent. At some point bluffs must be called. If it costs the same to litigate as to pay, and you preserve your good name in the process, you actually come out ahead, as by just paying you are not counting the cost of ongoing damage into the future. Just because you believe you have settled with one party does not mean the same account will never return. An agreement is worth no more than the trustability of the other party.
"Oh and one last thing: what about their claim that since I didn't request "validation" within 30 days of their initial letter to me that they do not have to prove I legitimately owe this account? Is that WRONG??? " See the text of the FDCPA on the FTC site. Not disputing within 30 days only means the CA can assume the debt was valid, but that courts cannot take this as an admission by the consumer. The CA need not provide anything anyway, but then they need not continue collecting. That is called giving up. The FDCPA is a Consumer protection law, not a Collector protection law. It was written to address CA abuses. If you went to court you would demand their proof, why should they expect to not provide it just because they claim to have sent some letter. This misrepresents the requirements of the FDCPA, use of deception to collect a debt, and overshadowing the consumer's right to dispute. You don't use your opponent as your legal council. He is not your friend, and although the law may expect that he not deceive you, that is no guarrantee that he follow it. See http://www.artofcredit.com/ for discussions on CAs who make this claim, and the case law surrounding it. See also the FTC website on legal obligations required of CAs for compliance with FDCPA. You can also do general Google searches on debt collection.
