Newbie here! I've been stalking for a couple of days and getting educated on how to proceed with my credit file issues. Up until a few months ago I had a FICO of 725-740ish and a 15 year history of 100% on time payments. I have never paid a bill late, nor had any deragotory information reported on my credit file. A couple of months back I received an email that my CR had been updated, so I checked and there were 2 CA tradelines on there from a deliquent medical bill that I had no knowledge of. I immediately paid the collection accounts and disputed with the CRAs to no avail. I called the OC (the hospital), they stated they sent me statements but could not reproduce them. The original date of service was 8/06, and the CA is reporting the original delinquency date as 8/06 - could that be correct? Seems that it makes the debt seem older than it is. I've been reviewing the FCRA Sec 7(A) and it states that financial institutions are required to provide notice to consumer no later than 30 days after it reports negative information to the CRA. I received no such notice, no bills, no statements, nothing from either the CA or the OC. I have a printout from the OC with significant data entry errors ( phone, street address, everything was wrong) on my husband's (linked) account. Unfortunately, they had already updated mine with the correct information (that had been wrong as well I believe but I cannot prove). Just the other day I reviewed my credit report again and there is yet ANOTHER tradeline entry from an unpaid collection account from the same hospital, another date of service, and a different CA. I have never received notification or statements on this bill either from either the OC or the CA. Any suggestions on my course of action? Are CA required to furnish consumers with notification of negative reporting? Is the date of first delinquency generally the date of service? It seems the date of delinquency should be when the account actually fell into delinqency. Thanks for any help!
1. If the collection is not yours, DO NOT PAY IT. If you pay it, it will be on your CR for 7 years. It will show as paid, but it will still show as a collection. BTW, a paid collection costs as many FICO points as an unpaid collection so there's no FICO motivation for paying a collection account. 2. Once you pay it, your negotiating position disappears. They have their (your) money so they have no more reason to talk to you or do anything for you. More reasons to not pay them. By paying them, you give up your money AND your negotiating leverage. 3. Now that they know they can shake money out of you, it's no surprise (to me) that more are popping up. They've found an easy mark (you) and so you really need to nip this in the bud before they nickel and dime you to death. 4. Read up on the FDCPA and learn: a) your rights and b) their responsibilities. One of your rights is the right to get validation of the debt. One of their responsibilities is to inform you of that right. There's more, but you need to be informed. Once you're informed and they know that you're not a pushover, their attitude will change (dramatically). The bad news is that you'll have to work for this. The good news is that with a little effort, you can work things out. BUT NOT IF YOU SEND THEM MONEY! Once you send them money, the dialog is over. Good luck!
This therein is the problem -- I've paid 2/3 of them. I believe they probably are mine, and I don't dispute ownership of them - but WTF? They can just not send statements/bills/notifications and then report to the CRA? So I have no leverage with CA #1 whom I have paid. (DUMB! Now I know, I never paid a bill late in my life.. I was in hysterics.. just wanted to "clean it up" I guess. Doh.) CA #2 came out of the woodwork with this $156 collection account. So I send them the verification letter I suppose... but do I have any recourse with CA #1 to try and get them to remove the tradelines? I don't go with the nutcase letter right away, do I? I own a business and rely on my personal credit for growth - this is a very, very bad situation for me financially. Not to get totally "slippery slope argument" on you here, but inability to get capital for my business could potentially send me out of business. We are planning on selling the business for about $10M this year, but no credit could mean bankruptcy - which means a $10M loss and everything we've put our hearts and souls into for 10 years. Seriously - for a couple stupid little collection accounts that I was never made aware of. It's insane to think about. Sorry, I digress... That being said, do REAL attorneys handle this sort of thing? If so, what kind of attorneys specialize in this? Consumer protection attorneys? Reputable ones? I really just need this to go away, and fast. Any more suggestions would be great... and thanks ccbob... for your input!
(7) Negative Information (A) Notice to Consumer Required (i) In general. If any financial institution that extends credit and regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency described in section 603(p) furnishes negative information to such an agency regarding credit extended to a customer, the financial institution shall provide a notice of such furnishing of negative information, in writing, to the customer. (ii) Notice effective for subsequent submissions. After providing such notice, the financial institution may submit additional negative information to a consumer reporting agency described in section 603(p) with respect to the same transaction, extension of credit, account, or customer without providing additional notice to the customer. (B) Time of Notice (i) In general. The notice required under subparagraph (A) shall be provided to the customer prior to, or no later than 30 days after, furnishing the negative information to a consumer reporting agency described in section 603(p). July 30, 2004 71 (ii) Coordination with new account disclosures. If the notice is provided to the customer prior to furnishing the negative information to a consumer reporting agency, the notice may not be included in the initial disclosures provided under section 127(a) of the Truth in Lending Act. (C) Coordination with other disclosures- The notice required under subparagraph (A)-- (i) may be included on or with any notice of default, any billing statement, or any other materials provided to the customer; and (ii) must be clear and conspicuous. (D) Model Disclosure (i) Duty of board to prepare. The Board shall prescribe a brief model disclosure a financial institution may use to comply with subparagraph (A), which shall not exceed 30 words. (ii) Use of model not required. No provision of this paragraph shall be construed as requiring a financial institution to use any such model form prescribed by the Board. (iii) Compliance using model. A financial institution shall be deemed to be in compliance with subparagraph (A) if the financial institution uses any such model form prescribed by the Board, or the financial institution uses any such model form and rearranges its format. (E) Use of notice without submitting negative information. No provision of this paragraph shall be construed as requiring a financial institution that has provided a customer with a notice described in subparagraph (A) to furnish negative information about the customer to a consumer reporting agency.
In looking at the definitions, a medical facility is not defined as a "financial institution" and therefore would be exempt. But I need to further research the issue. Can you post a link to the entire statute please.
You might need to get aggressive on this and press them in court for negligence (incorrect billing name, address, etc.) and FDCPA violations (not providing the required notifications). Chances are if you get pushy (in court), they'll back down and go elsewhere.
I believe medical bills are usually due on receipt, so technically one day later they could be considered delinquent. But whether I'm right or wrong about that, just an FYI, the older a collection is, the less it affects your score, so I would leave that date alone. You want a negative on a credit report to appear as old as possible. Regardless of when the delinquency date did occur, a CA's date should match an OC's date so in that respect the reporting is correct.
Now that we have moseyed off into the land of the chips and the bits, we might want to go back to the question as to whether or not the medical bills are, in fact, the OP's. He thinks they may be is a lot different than they are. Those pesky little facts can have a strong bearing on any suggestions that may be offered. I would think the very first step would be to confirm that the bills are legitimately owed by the OP. As for paying now? I agree that the OP should hold on to his dollars until he has the facts in hand, all of the facts.
He's already paid them. As for the notification provision, their is no private cause of action thereunder so it's largely worthless. They only way to ground liability as to a furnisher under the FRCA is 1681s-2b which leads to a couple of questions: 1) You state you disputed it through the credit reporting agencies . . . is the tradeline marked as being in dispute? 2) Have you requested validation through the collection entity/furnisher? Have you sent a FACTA communication to the medical provider? If the account isn't marked as being in dispute, you have actionable claims under the FCRA and FDCPA. Leverage it. Yes, there are "real" attorney's who handle these matters. I am not sure what the term "real" implies but, they are out there.
First, thank you everyone for your comments. Though kind of disappointing to hear that the notification provisions are not of value.... 1. The newest one I have disputed and it is currently marked in dispute. I have not heard back from the CRA yet. The other two tradelines from teh first CA has one marked as in dispute by EXP and one that isn't - although I have disputed both twice. On the second dispute I included information (I did all of this before finding this site!) with a printout from the OC with all of the data entry errors. I have received notification back from the CRA on the one that is not marked in dispute any longer as "we have already investigated and it has been verified..." - even though I had included additional relevant information. 2. No, I have not requested validation from either CA. The 2nd/newest CA I have had no contact with either way - the ony way I know of it is through my CR tradeline... so that one is fresh. The older one was the one I paid right away (kill me), and never did request validation. Should I still do this? I also have not sent FACTA communication to the medical provider. Is there a letter for that? I searched but didn't find one? Thanks again everyone, for all of your help -- I realize that this issue isn't as severe as some others on here, but it's bad news for me!
I think the poster trying to distinguish between those who are licensed Attorneys from those who play one on the internet or those who may have slept at a Holiday Inn last night. But seriously, if you are interested in retaining legal counsel, try to look for a consumer affairs attorney in your area on the internet, in Martindale-Hubbell, or get a referral from for your State or local Bar Association. I would check references, though, because like in any other profession, not all can be at the top of the game.
I read it initially. The OP said he paid two accounts and another appeared thereafter. You stated "I would think the very first step would be to confirm that the bills are legitimately owed by the OP. As for paying now? I agree that the OP should hold on to his dollars until he has the facts in hand . . . " You're stating that he should hold off on paying something he already has. Why are you instructing me to re-read the OP's OP?
Since you'd rather not take the opportunity to see for yourself what the OP has said, I have taken the liberty of excerpting the key statements for your studied reconsideration. You may now see that the point made was well taken.
Hey, I've already stated that I read it. I mentioned everything that you referenced in my quesion to you. However, you've parse nipped a piece of language from a post that wasn't in the "OP's OP" as you put it. In any event, my point was that you incorrectly advised the OP to pay something that was already paid. Whether it was the two accounts or the new one, you're statement drew the inference that "all" were paid. I offered one sentence which corrected that so as to not throw off other readers.
Sorry! I NEVER advise people to pay until they: Know what they are paying for, and Decide that paying is what they REALLY want to do. or Are required to by Court Order. I object to your attempt(s) put words in anyone's mouth, especially mine. This is becoming a habit of yours.
What you advise or don't advise has nothing to do with anything said herein. I am referencing only what you stated. I simply corrected that so as not to confuse any further readers and then I moved on to my suggestion. As for my attempt to "put words in anyone's mouth, especially yours," I'm not attempting that. To the contrary, I'm using your own words to make a very simple point that it could have been confusing to readers.
