Midlan Credit Management's response to my dispute .. . what's next?

I'm not trying to go there Ontrack. I'm not trying to disagree with either you nor apex nor with Erica.

You claim to be "ontrack" which is fine but in this particular instance I'm just trying to be a bit more like you by adding an extra letter "e" to your good name. (pun intended)

Not having much luck so far it seems.

 

No, I am not saying that. Did you even read my response?

Send them a letter that simply states it is not your responsibility to prove you own the debt, it is theirs. Refuse to send any identifying documents, and give them 15 days, instead of 30 to comply with the first DV letter you sent.

I recommend doing just what I said.

If you still have nothing after 15 extra days, send them a third letter giving them 5 days.

Then if nothing, sue. Don't sue just to sue, be prepared to fight to the death.



There is a process. You must create a paper trail. One letter and one time of them ignoring is not enough evidence. You must send at least 3 letters, all CMRRR, and if they continue to ignore you, sue. Especially if they are still reporting to the CRA's. Continued reporting is continued collection activity, a violation of the FCRA.

I would never try to sue someone without having all my ducks in a row.

 

Offering a settlement is a violation. Save that, and send them the second letter in the DV series.

It's never too early to create your paper trail.

 

Cap1sucks,

I start by looking at what paths to a solution might be available, assuming there might be possible details missing that a consumer should consider. You tend to point out where a consumer's position might have gaps that might let a CA off the hook if he sued. I doubt we are in disagreement.

 

Yes, multiple times.
What I understood you to be saying or implying is that if one sends a debt validation demand and they don't answer within 30 days then send them a second one giving them an additional 15 days and if they don't answer that then send them a 3rd one and if they don't answer that then sue them.

My question, once again, is what grounds would you use to sue them on?

Yes, I think we are on the same path so far.

What grounds would you use if they had never reported anything to the credit bureaus at all?

 

Here's something interesting. I just checked the delevery status of some certified mail I sent to Midland at the 5775 Roscoe Ct address. According to the Post Office, the items are being returned to sender because the "forwarding order for this address has expired".

 

The obvious answer then is to find a newer address for them.

 

Indeed it is, but the adress listed on my experian report is the Roscoe Ct address. Why would I be required to search out the correct address? They provided an address and I was unable to get a valadation letter to them. Just more fodder for eventual deletion.

I sort of thought that was obvious

 

Have you ever heard of doing your due diligence? What is objectionable about putting their name in a google search box to see what you can come up with?

 

After all of the various comments by everyone including myself, it gets a bit difficult to keep on topic so I hope that I am on the topic when I refer to the following from your first post.

It appears to me that they may be attempting to skirt your original demand for validation by asking what you base your dispute on. When they do that it tends to throw you off track, making you invent some dispute which they can usually shoot down with little or no problem. This happens when VOD letters are not correctly worded so as to reduce or eliminate the possibility of such
demands by them. It is a common trick often used by collection agencies.

I think Erica has made the proper suggestion in that you send them a second and more clearly worded demand for validation. Keep it very simple. Something like this.

Dear Sirs:
On [date] I sent you a letter stating that I wished to avail myself of my right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof. That letter demanded that you provide me with full and complete documentation of the alleged debt as does this letter.

I am certain that you are aware that federal law states that I have the right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof and that you cannot deny me that right nor can I waive it. Federal law furthermore states that you must obtain that information from the creditor and mail it to me. Federal law also states that you must cease all efforts to collect until you have complied with my demand for full and complete documentation of the alleged debt.

Please comply with my demand by doing what the law says you have to do.

Sincerely.

I would either use that wording above or something similiar to it but I would not give them any information whatever.

 

You might not have any knowledge of it because it might not be your account at all.

Even if you had an account, it might not even be from 2002, which might be conveniently chosen to be within SOL, or still reportable, but might really be from a decade earlier.

Did you even ever have an MCI account?

This appears to be becoming a popular CA answer to dispute and validation requests. Seem oh so "reasonable" but just ignore that there is any validation request, or just claim it isn't timely, or that YOU have to prove it isn't valid, or whatever. (See, for example, Afni's response to many consumer dispute and validation letters sent in response to their bogus bills, which, by the way, are also on phone accounts.)

Isn't that amazing? They found your letter instantly when you described it, as a plain white envelope. That really helped them find it. But oh, so sorry, they don't have to respond to it and give you any information on the account, yet you have to respond to their letter.

Again false and deceptive.

You probably got nothing because they probably never sent anything. They may not even have gotten the account in July. Or they may have sent some letter to the last address on the account, gotten no response, found that your name was close enough, and now sent a letter to you. Oh, but they got all that nasty FDCPA stuff out of the way, so tough luck.

And as long as they never send you actual validation, obtained and forwarded from the OC, how do you know:
1) There really is an account that someone owes?
2) It is really an MCI account?
3) It is really from 2002?
4) It is really an account in your name?
5) It is really for $595.22?
6) Anything is really owed by you?
7) They actually own the account?

False and deceptive. Besides, how do you prove an account isn't yours or isn't owed when you have no information on it? (Same ploy used by Afni, by the way. Are they attending the same school?)

False and deceptive. Why would they no longer be able to get validation "after 30 days", but be able to get it within 30 days? If they sued, or you sued, they couldn't produce anything on the account under discovery? And if they couldn't, why is that your problem?

If they convince you, once you pay them, you aren't ever getting it back. This is, after all, a con game.



Notice the common pattern: You can't do anything. They don't have to prove anything. They lie, but they do it all on the phone, where they can deny it. You have to pay. All responses "on script".

It might be an angle, as apexcrsrv believes that they might be part of Encore, which might be incorporated in Texas and subject to Texas law.


More directly, can you call their bluff? If, for example, you know you never had an MCI account, you can proceed down many complaint paths (AGs, FTC, etc.), including suing for misreporting under FCRA, regardless of their marking of your account as "in dispute".

 

It looks like they are very busy, and it is not uncommon for them to dunn the wrong party.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff235772.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff233963.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff232258.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff230563.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff228896.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff200319.htm

I guess if you don't respond to the police, you get to continue to collect on even fraudulent accounts (Police should know better. After all, they do deal with criminals. OP should have filed FTC id theft complaint, which also qualifies as a law enforcement report for FACTA purposes, as well as AG complaint against both Midland and local police):
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff226129.htm

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff221225.htm

 

Hypothesis:

Maybe Verizon is unloading all old pre-merger bad debts?

GTE/Verizon to Afni.
MCI/Verizon to Midland?

If Afni is evading validation requests, maybe there is a "no docs available" agreement as part of the sale?

If so, garbage MCI "debt" might have been sold under the same terms.

 

Over half the consumer complaints here are for attempting to collect from the wrong party, on accounts long ago paid in full and closed, or on accounts already settled. In a number of cases midland sued, but could not produce any documentation on the alleged "debt".

http://www.budhibbs.com/debtcollectorpages/midland_credit_management.htm