Ok, so I've sent off 5 Validation letters to creditors. I have been soaking up the board for the past couple of weeks and thought that was the right thing to do. As you might read in some of my other posts, I have checks to pay them per my recent loan agreement. However, in at least one case, they've completely overblown charges and there are some other discrepancies. I figured based on what I've read in threads, that requesting validation won't really hurt anything, and might just bring some of these to resolution. I know that there are a series of letters specifically timed within the legal framework. I have saved the samples found on this forum for use in follow up. Now, my question is, "What's the endgame?". It's pretty clear that the creditors will either provide validation or not and after they've sent (or not sent) me their answer, it either has to pass muster for proper validation or it does not. On the chance that one does provide all the proper docs, I'm sure I just have to settle that one as best I can. In the likely event that I get improper validation, no response, etc. I know I have to send the follow up letters - but does it really come down to a lawsuit after that? Or, can I simply send my records to the CRAs and have them remove the unvalidated entries?
If you have to pay them to meet the terms of your mortgage, I would think that going straight to the "Pay for delete" option would be your first choice. Validation can work, if you're lucky, but if not, it can take anywhere from a month to over year if you end up in some ugly court battle. The "end game" is to go to court, or at least start the go-to-court process. The average time from the federal district court cases I reviewed seems to be about 3-6 months. Not something to take on if you're in a hurry. The problem, from a purely negotiating strategy, is that if, all-of-a-sudden, you're sending PFD letters, you must be in a hurry for something (e.g. you have some big deal going down) so the CA's will use that info (or perception) against you and try to drag out the process and not accept any terms but their own. So you'll end up playing chicken to see who caves first (proabably you, because you have a deal pending and they don't).
Well, I already got the loan and the checks arrived after the closing. So, I guess the loan's not in jeopardy, but if I wait too long the checks will be no good and I'll have to go back to the lender to either get my money back or get new checks. I figure that if I can get the items removed, I can have the lender cash back my checks, or if the CAs kick back on validation, I can propose a settlement in which I pay them the amount on the credit report in exchange for deletion. Have I 'figured' wrong in the past? Sure. I guess it's just another chance in life to take, eh? No risk, no reward and all that... I suppose that I only had a 50/50 chance for all the PFDs to work from the outset anyway. Perhaps this way I might get a couple dropped off w/o $, maybe a couple will take the PFD, and maybe one or two will try to play hardball. If they fail to provide proper validation, is there any recourse with the CRA directly? Really the only one I'm interested in fighting is a Fleet (now BoA) card in which they've not only tripled the amount originally in contention, they've also reported to EX that there was a late pay in 2003. The problem with that is the account was closed in 1999. I never made any payments or deals with CAs, so they're simply contriving 'evidence'. The account has dropped off of TU and EQ, but EX is holding it til 2010 because of the 'late pay' in 2003. I would have been fine to pay them the amount they wanted until they tried to be underhanded about it. I can't blame someone for wanting to be paid back, but even though I've had some troubles, I've always been honest about my situation. We had a genuine dispute regarding the original amount and couldn't come to an agreement. I didn't realize how acting on 'principle' would hurt my credit. The account in question had a limit of $1000 of which barely half was used. The amount they have reported for years now is $1676. Disputes with EX went nowhere because they apparently just asked Fleet if it was right, they said "yes", and EX left it on. EX won't let me re-dispute something that has already been 'verified'. So there's the background. I guess I'll see what happens in the validation process.
As I'm reading around the board, I suppose that some basic variation of the Validation process is 1) Letters 1,2,3; 2) other letters like Cease & Desist and threats of lawsuit; 3) File lawsuit in Small Claims Court. Has anyone used the Validation process successfully? And what process did you use?
Looks like you're going to have to take somone to court. You've verified with the CRA who has verified with the OC. But, you don't think the verification is accurate, correct? THen, my $.02 from the cheap seats, would be to seek the information from the OC that shows how they came up with that number. Also, look up some court cases/complaints where people have sued the CRA because they did exactly what you describe. You're definitely not the first person to have this happen to. You can get some more ideas of what to do next (the steps that were taken prior to filing the law suit are almost always laid out in the complaint). Also, expect this process to take 3-6 months to resolve. Some of the dates in the court cases I reviewed span several years (worst-case scenario). Fortunately most are "dismissed" in a few months (i.e. they worked something out and dropped the case).
Would the FTC be able to help any in a case like this? My goal in any action would be to pressure the CA to delete if from my credit file.
From everything I've read, in cases like yours, only a court summons gets their immediate attention. Everything else is just talk and the creditor always has more credibility than the consumer until you take 'em to court and even then it can be an uphill battle, depending on the judge.
I'd say, "especially" for Experian. But that's just me talkin' Just take a look at http://dockets.justia.com/search?qu...ear=2006&max-day=30&max-month=3&max-year=2007 and pick one to get an idea. Granted, these are probably examples of the worst-case scenario, but, you can still get an idea.
I got my first response today from a CA representing a cable company. Their response is that the cable co submitted the account to their office for collections and the account has an outstanding balance which includes unreturned equipment valued at $75 and the rest for service prior to the disconnect date. They further advise that if the account was opened fraudulently to contact the FTC. "Documentation is also required in the form of a police report and a lease and letter of service from a utility company prior to [the disconnect date]. Please forward a copy to our Account Resolution Department... This account will remaina valid debt and/or paid collection account until the requested information is received" So, it seems they have the shoe on the wrong foot. They want me to prove the debt's not mine. I've looked at sample follow-up validation letters and they all seem to address a situation in which their was no response from the CA. Does anyone have a good working follow up letter for a situation like this? I want to say, "Excuse me, but you mistunderstand FCRA and have not provided me with proper validation. Please do so at your earliest convenience or I will be compelled to pursue satisfaction in court!" (BTW, can't I file in my local state court, or do I have to go to their jurisdiction?)
Not necessarily. If the charges are the result of fraud, then they want you to provide them with such documentation that will demonstrate that. As I understand the "chain:" 1) you sign a contract for something (credit card, cable, dentist, whatever) 2) you don't abide by the terms of the contract (e.g. you don't pay them) 3) they assign the contract and debt to a collection agency to collect the money (there are a number of different ways to do this). 4) the collection agency gets an affidavit from the person or company requesting the money that says: "this person owes me this amount." The collection agency might ask for additional information (e.g. the last statement, or something) or they might already have an arrangement with the original company where all that info is assumed to be valid. 5) the collection agency takes that and does what they do best: go after the big ones first, the easy ones next and the squeaky, difficult, low-value ones, last. (Using the "best bang for the buck" calculus). 6) when you request validation from the collection agency, they'll send you what they have (the last bill) and that is sufficient to validate the debt in the eyes of the collection agency and the FDCPA. (this is where I start to get a little fuzzy because I've seen conflicting cases and analyses) 7) as I understand it (and I would love to hear some clarification, myself) the burden of a higher proof of obligation (e.g. contracts, statements, etc.) would only come if you are taken to court for the debt. At which time you can request this information during discovery to show the obligation (contract), account for payments made and services rendered (statements), and determine the actual amount that you may be liable for. My guess is that in most cases you would reach a settlement before anyone sent anything because in an old debt, these records are probably pretty hard to come by. Large and visible situations, notwithstanding. So, until you take 'em to court (or vice versa), the collection agency just has to show you the final bill from the OC and whatever collection and legal fees they've added on top and say "See! Now Pay up!" If it's not your account, then you have to prove that to the collection agency by proving it ot the OC first (after all, they were the ones defrauded, not the CA). Submitting a fraud report to the OC would be one way to do that or you could just explain the circumstances (depending on the situation). I did a similar thing. The CA couldn't care less, but the OC was very concerned that they had billed the wrong person (potentially commiting a fraudulent billing) and they corrected it very quickly (once presented with the evidence, of course). The CA pulled the trade line immediately once the OC told them "oops!" Like I said, I'd appreciate any corrections or clarifications from the veterans, but that's what I've been able to surmise in my brief period of researching these issues. The more you know the rules and the game, the better you can use them to your advantage (of course that applies to your opponent as well).
In this case, it's my account, but they continued to bill me after I had the service disconnected. I should have fought the battle back then, but I guess we learn as we go through life... In the letter I just received, the CA provided no validation nor verification other than just to say basically, "You owe it unless you can show it's fraud". Should I write back and press them to provide at least that last bill or something to validate the debt? It's only $500, but I'd rather not pay it if I don't have too. At the end of the day though, I'd pay it just to get it off my report.
See the FTC Wohlman letter. It addresses that validation in response to a request for validation under FDCPA must be obtained from the original creditor and forwarded to the consumer. Just parroting back what the CA already has in its own records in a new letter is not validation, and is continued collection without validation. ccbob: The process as you have outlined is not likely to be what actually occurs. For example, in this case step (2) may have involved a breach by the OC for failing to terminate the account when requested. Some or all of the alledged "debt" may be erroneous. The "error" may be accidental, but in some cases it is intentional, consumer fraud. Step (4), the OC providing some documents to validate the debt, probably does not occur unless the consumer requests validation, if then. CAs typically get "debts" in the form of computer files, which by no means contain all the information regarding the account. In particular, they would NOT contain copies of actual statements or contracts, or customer service logs that might show that a request to terminate an account was made. Nor would any information they might contain be a guarantee that the alledged balance is actually the current balance based on the OCs records, as the OC might have accepted payments, or made adjustments or corrections to even closed accounts based on consumer disputes and complaints that might have occurred after the file was generated. In addition, those computer records might not be obtained directly from the OC. They might have been bought from another CA, who might have made their own errors, including accepting payments, even partial payments to settle the account in full, and those payments, and any settled status, might not have been correctly updated to the files before they were sold to a new CA. Step (6), the CA just sending you what they have, is what many CAs do in response to a request for validation, but it does NOT meet the requirements implied by FDCPA, as is clarified by the FTC's own explanation in the Wohlman letter. Even the Chauhdry decision, which CAs like to quote out of context to claim that they only have to send what they already have, actually says they have to "confirm" the information on the account with the original creditor in order to provide validation. And the affidavits CAs who use this tactic usually send are generally only signed by their own employees, who have no direct knowledge of whether the business records of a different company, the original creditor, are accurate, or whether what they have even matches those original records. The swearing employee on the affidavit can't even be nailed for perjury if it turns out the account balance is inaccurate, since they are only swearing regarding the maintenance of the CAs own records, and not that those records accurately reflect the original creditor's records. In short, including them is an attempt to deceive unsophisticated consumers into believing that what is being sent is accurate, and qualifies as validation, and that the consumer has no right to demand anything else.
There was no unreturned equipment that I'm aware of. There was a cable box and remote, which I drove down and returned to their office. I now find myself in a 'strategic' situation regarding these debts. While these debts are negative marks, they provide one positive factor to my credit report - AGE. I'm in the middle of qualifying for investment loans, so maintaining an even keel on my scores is a very important thing for me. I'm going to request a PFD on the Cable company CA since it will continue on my report through 2010. On the others that are dropping off over the next 6-18 months, I'm simply going to pay them and let them show as paid collections until they drop. That will give my good accounts a little time to 'age' before my credit file takes an "average age" hit as these older accounts drop off. The only one I am still fighting is the Fleet/BoA account that should have dropped off in 6/2006 (it did drop from TU and EQ, but not EX). I have just filed complaints with the FTC against both Experian and Bank of America. Experian refuses to reinvestigate the account despite the docs I sent them because they investigated it once over a year ago and concluded it was ok. I've requested validation from BoA, but haven't heard a peep from them. I'm sending the second letter request today. We'll see what happens, but that one is a real case of Experian thinking they're always right. BoA hasn't made an update on the account since my dispute in January 2006. I gave Experian an old credit report from 1999 that showed Fleet (now BoA) was reporting the account adversely back then. Experian apparently didn't even read my letter or the accompanying docs and sent me a response 7 days later that they would only re-open the investigation if I provided new information. What??? That's what I had just done. What a bunch of morons - and they're holding my credit hostage!
You might want to look up BofA's corporate compliance director, and send your dispute there. Make clear that they are illegally reporting a negative account past the period permitted by law, they have erroneously verified that reporting in response to your dispute thru Experian, and that if they fail to promptly remove their erroneous reporting, you will hold them responsible for the damages resulting from their errors. Include redacted CR copy showing their erroneous reporting, and send CRRR, of course. If you may have to sue them anyway, you might as well let them know what is coming. You may have to just send it to the CEO's office.
CitiGroup has a Director of Compliance at the top level. I was assuming BofA might also. Send it to the CEO. I searched also, and couldn't find a more appropriate title. If his minions can't do their jobs, he can answer their mail.
