I've posted below two accounts that are in "Collections" from Capital One that stemmed from two very small $200 or $300 dollar CC's that I received immediately after my BK DC in 2000. The amount of Credit Limit/Original Amount: NA That isn't correct, it was either 200 or 300. This info is from Experian On another CR, TU It shows the high balances at 130 and 185 respectively, but the current balance is 986 and 916. Don't they have to put the Limit, not NA in there? What should be my next step. Letter requesting all accounting of account, and so forth? And that I dispute? Then if they can prove it, offer a pay to delete, but of the original balances that I can verify? Thanks. CAPITAL ONE BANK Address: PO BOX 85520 RICHMOND, VA 23285 Account Number: ****************. Status: Account charged off/Past due 180 days. $536 written off. $926 past due as of 7-2004. Date Opened: 08/2000 Type: Revolving Reported Since: 08/2000 Terms: NA Date of Status: 06/2001 Monthly Payment: $0 Last Reported: 07/2004 Responsibility: Individual Credit Limit/Original Amount: NA High Balance: $926 Recent Balance: $926 as of 07/2004 Recent Payment: $0 CAPITAL ONE BANK Address: PO BOX 85520 RICHMOND, VA 23285 Account Number: ******************* Status: Account charged off/Past due 180 days. $565 written off. $997 past due as of 7-2004. Date Opened: 09/2000 Type: Revolving Reported Since: 09/2000 Terms: NA Date of Status: 07/2001 Monthly Payment: $0 Last Reported: 07/2004 Responsibility: Individual Credit Limit/Original Amount: NA High Balance: $997 Recent Balance: $997 as of 07/2004 Recent Payment: $0
They never put the credit limit there... Yes, they are supposed to provide 100% complete, and accurate information. Federal Regulators Urge Creditors Not to Withhold Debtor Data http://www.cdiaonline.org/metrofed.cfm FFIEC Advisory Letter http://www.ffiec.gov/press/pr011800a.htm FFIEC Press Release http://www.ffiec.gov/press/pr011800.htm
Even better links for C1 C1 is a member of AFSA http://www.americanfinsvcs.com from the below listing of AFSA CC members In response to the above release, AFSA issued the following press release, explicitly stating that AFSA members agreed to comply with the recommendations of the FFEIC in this matter, to provide the data which their members have previously declared to be protected. (So that their customers couldn't be shopped around for by their competitors.) A copy of the AFSA Press Release http://www.cdiaonline.org/afsa.cfm
The question is whether or not the account is within the SOL for your state, sending anything could awaken the sleeping dragon. So what you may want to try is styling a letter based on the following...
They were opened in 2000, but the DOLA is unknown, the original credit limit is unknown. Questions, questions, questions. I think I want to request the original application, with a full accounting of the account, DOLA and original credit limits to be accurate. Both accounts. If they can furnish this, then perhaps make an offer to pay the original balance (not over 150) on each card in exchange for a paid as agreed and remove all negative tl's. Anyone have thoughts or experience with C1 regarding this? Thanks.
C1 probably won't do anything less than the full amount including the interest, and fees which they've piled on, and any communication (on anything) and they will probably try to sue first and ask questions later. My sister received a collection letter from a CA allegedly regarding a C1 account, she sent a validation letter, apparently (as best as we could guess) their WestMoreland Agency subsidiary had purchased an account which was at or near the SOL at the same time as C1 processed the validation response (by putting into writing that they couldn't find anything on this account), within a few months after she got this letter, she got a summons from C1 for what we can only presume for the account that their WMA subsidiary purchased, the summons was so vague, and the lawyer couldn't even provide an account number, so we'll never know for sure. Anyhow, the lawyer didn't show, either he never intended to show in the first place, or he was perplexed when the district magistrates office sent his office a stack of validation letters, and his companies response contradicting his claims in the summons that it was a written application that he was suing on, and that his client couldn't provide anything.
Well, should I send the info to get it verified, I know Validation is for CA's not OC's. Once I get green card back, send in a dispute to bureaus as not mine, then see if they update Bureaus before updating me, and then issue ITS letter noting the violation of continued collection? With demand for deletion and 1000 fee per account, which would mean 2000 which is more than the amount they "allege" I owe, and inform them they could settle for dismissal of lawsuit and "paid as agreed". Or win in court, collect $2,000 and keep fighting the validity of the debt. I don't have DOLA so I'm not sure what the statute is, but I'll keep pressing them for information. Sound good????
Both validation *AND* the cease of collection activities only apply to CA's, so even if C1 would verify with the CRA's they would not be violating. You'll probably open up a can of worms, until you are contacted by a CA for the account. *THEN* the FDCPA applies...
Jam, I agree with you about they don't have to validate, but they are reporting an account with inaccurate info to the CRA's. 1. I am not going to wait additional years before they get a CA on it. That's not right. 2. I'm disputing the account as even being mine with them, which they then have to update the CRA's as in Dispute, and prove it to me. If they continue to verify with CRA, then that is considered collection activity, right? Then I have a violation with them. 3. DOLA is no where in sight. 4. If they list a balance of $900+ dollars, don't I have a right to have them verify that the debt truly exists, and a complete accounting for it? I'm not applying this as a CA, but the Original Creditor. They have to prove it. Insight?
Jam, I agree with you about they don't have to validate, but they are reporting an account with inaccurate info to the CRA's. 1. I am not going to wait additional years before they get a CA on it. That's not right. 2. I'm disputing the account as even being mine with them, which they then have to update the CRA's as in Dispute, and prove it to me. If they continue to verify with CRA, then that is considered collection activity, right? Then I have a violation with them. 3. DOLA is no where in sight. 4. If they list a balance of $900+ dollars, don't I have a right to have them verify that the debt truly exists, and a complete accounting for it? I'm not applying this as a CA, but the Original Creditor. They have to prove it. Insight?
The OC doesn't have to provide any proof under the FCRA. Their only obligation is to update the credit report, and they can only be sued for how they update the credit report if that dispute is initiated through the CRA. Nowhere in the FCRA, does it require that they provide the proof to validate or even verify the account. Where MBNA messed up in Johnson v. MBNA was verifying that the account which was probably her ex-husbands was her own personal account, despite them knowing that because of their document retention policy, they had destroyed all evidence which would allow them to verify whose account it really was, but MBNA was not required to PRODUCE that documentation for her, they were only required to review the original documentation when their review of the system should have had them realize that the account may not be hers (the fact that they didn't have either her SSN or DOB should have been a major clue, had they completed a reasonable investigation). The only time the consumer has a right to DEMAND PROOF is under the FDCPA, through the validation provisions. Now, if you decide to wake the dragon, and C1 tries to sue you for the account, in court is where you can demand that they provide the proof that the amount is legitimate.
What about the REQUIREMENT that it be accurate on the Report? I don't believe the position should be, sit on your rear and wait until they collect or sue you, especially if the entries on the Credit Report are incorrect. Is that what you are suggesting? Anybody else on the board agree or disagree? Also it is listed as a "Collection Account" on my credit report. What do you think the course of action should be?
I have seen personally this company's litigious side. That is why I am leary about waking the dragon, because if you wake them, they could go right to summons. Yes, there is a requirement for them to be 100% complete, accurate, and verifiable. But they do not have to provide you with any proof that they are reporting accurately. Yes, they are supposed to comply with their agreement with their trade association and report all trade line information to the CRA's, but they aren't even doing that with their CURRENT accounts, yet; and the fine print of the press release is that their members CAN withold information in select situations where the accounts are DISPUTED. If it states that it is a collection account, then chances are it was just placed for collection, and you should hear from the CA shortly, THEN you can demand that the original creditor provide PROOF that the amount is correct down to the exact penny which they are trying to claim is owed, and that every penny is legal under both state and federal law, and the agreement which created the account. Now, you may want to check to see if your states Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws provides any backdoors which you can use. Thanks to PA's suit of Cross Country, I have a clear model of how to get the FDCPA to apply to an OC under PA's UTPCPL, and Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. It cites all the violations as if they were FDCPA violations, then states that by violating the FDCPA they violated the FCEUA at cite, if it is determined that they are a creditor as defined by FCEUA, then they violated the FCEUA at a secondary cite; and that violating the FCEUA is a violation of the UTPCPL. See if your states AG has filed actions against a creditor, and take a look at the cases to see if you can see a way that you may be able to bind the FDCPA to them, and if you can find a way to bind the FDCPA to them, then great, you can then get them to validate, just make sure you emphasize that you are demanding them to provide the validation in accordance with your STATE laws.
C1 had a collector back in 2001 contact me about making payments. I told him to never call me again. That was the end of it. In 2001. We are in 2004 now. No letter, no communication, no nothing. I dispute the amount being reported. I want it off my credit report. I'm in California. I'll have to keep checking to see what OTHERS recommend as well. There has to be a way to get them to furnish the "Correct" data, and they must be able to provide the "DOLA" so that I can see the SOL, but even better, I think they "aren't" my accounts (WINK, WINK). How do you propose a solution?
Okay, found this..... Debt Collection Statute of Limitations: Open Acct. Reduced to writing 4 Years, Not in writing 2 Years. Written Contract 4Years in California. - Domestic Judgments 10 Years and renewable at 10 Years - Foreign Judgments 10 Years commencing with judgment and debtors commencement of a California residence. This is for California. If the DOLA is in 2000 does that mean that I can make the CRA remove it? it will be time barred, so do I write the OC a letter, stating this debt is time barred, stop reporting it to the Bureaus????
Re: OC Capital One incorrect info a A common mistake. You are confusing SOL with the 7-years that a negative TL can be reported to the CRA. SOL is known as an affirmative defense in court if they should choose to seek judgment in court. Do a search and you'll find plenty on this here. Good luck.
Re: OC Capital One incorrect info a Okay, so how do I find out the DOLA so that if statute has passed, I can demand verification of account, and so forth to try to get them in a reporting error???
Re: OC Capital One incorrect in Normally I don't call the CRA, but in the case where I'm just seeking factual info I will phone. You must have a hard copy of your report during the call, so you can provide the report number. You can ask for the DOLA. Personally, I think they should provide it on the hard copy (snail mail) because the creditor receives a report WITH the DOLA (at least the mortgage company does, I know for sure). This is a starting point. Naturally this reported DOLA can be inaccurate.
Re: OC Capital One incorrect in That comes back to the basis of my whole post. I WANT C1 TO PROVE I EVER HAD AN ACCOUNT WITH THEM. Don't I have that right? They list it on my credit report. If the DOLA is in 2000 and my sol in CA is 4 years, am I okay, making a stink with them to PROVE I EVER HAD AN ACCOUNT WITH ALL DOCUMENTATION. Then work from there about getting the info deleted, or pay to delete with tradelines, and see if they screw up and "collect" by reporting to CRA while I have a CMRRR indicating the ENTIRE ACCOUNT in dispute??? I'm clear that they are the OC, and they haven't had a CA attempt in years to collect. I want it off, and want proof it was ever mine... What would your detailed plan of attack be?
Re: OC Capital One incorrect in Under the FCRA, there isn't a requirement for them to prove anything. But there are other laws in play, state laws, and the FCBA *MAY* be able to help, the problem is that the company could refuse any non-timely FCBA dispute (not within 60 days of the statement date). But here is the rub for them at least, you aren't disputing the 'old' statements themselves, but how they got from the 'old' statements to the 'new' numbers after charge-off, and demanding that they produce statements to account for those 'transactions' which resulted in the new amount, therefore you haven't received any statements for there to be a 60 day time limit on. Butch may be able to chime in to make sure I'm 100% on-target with this, and you will want to read his post Learn Your FCBA Some CRA's do report the DOLA, Experian (subtract 7 years from the "REMAINS UNTIL" date), Equifax has a DOLA field. Whether you were contacted before by a collection agency is a major detail. It is a false and misleading representation for anyone to say that the transfer or sale of the account to anyone else (including the original creditor, per the commentary), subjects the consumer to any conduct prohibited by the FDCPA. This is the big backdoor that most creditors probably didn't even think about. The second that a collection agency is hired for an account, they are conferring rights upon you that can not be taken away. The only problem I see, is that since you told the CA to cease communications, instead of requesting validation, there isn't anything preventing C1 from resuming collection activities.
