I'm trying to get an old Providian account deleted from my credit reports. It shows up twice on both my Experian and Equifax reports. The first listing shows the original account as being charged off in Sept. 2003 by the oc, Providan, with the amount at $1,927.00. The second listing shows it as an account that was bought by Portfolio Recovery. They are reporting it as "open" and dola as "N/A" . The amount is $2,942.00. (Now P. Recovery has sold it to Trauner, Cohen, et. al. - and they have been unable to validate yet keep harassing me about this.) I have contested the accounts twice over the past 18 months with the CRA's - to no avail. I sent validation letters to the OC and they have not been able to properly validate the debt. Yet, it continues to appear on my reports and continues to look like a current collection account debt. My ability to get credit has been adversely affected several times due to this. My question: how can I get Experian and the others to delete this? When I challenge it, they always come back and say that the debt has been "verified". Yet I'm never provided with written validation - they "verify" electronically...and this takes place when I pull up my reports and then list the debt as being challenged. I'm ready to sue the CRA's in magistrate court here in Atlanta. I just need to know if this is what I should resort to at this point. The cra's have out of state addresses - yet I know Equifax is HQ here in Atlanta. I don't want to sue for money, I just want my report cleaned up. As for Trauner and Cohen- they never validated per my cert. letter received by them a couple of months ago. I will sue them if they continue to harass me.
There can be two TL's for the same account. The OP indicates one is the OC and one is a collection agency. However, the OC account should be reporting as -0- balance transferred or sold. If it was charged off in 2003, while it may be past the SOL for suing (and winning), it is not past the SOL for reporting. OC's do not have to validate a debt to you (unless there is something in your state's laws). CRA's do not have to provide you with proof of the debt. If the collection agency is verifying debt, and never provided you proof, and/or they are reporting erroneous information then your beef is with them - not the CRAs.
Hello, i hope this helps you out. when they, the credit bureaus varify debt electronicly, means absolutely nothing. you have to send them a certified letter requesting to send you documentation that varifies the debt including contract created between the debtor and creditor with you signature and thairs. by law, they have have to sent to you suck docs within 30 days. if they fail, the item has to be removed.
if they dont respond to you within 30 days of alidation of the debt and continue to report it to you ur file, you then sue them. everything has to be in writing and demanding. if you do it electronicly, it wont work
Hi, not at all, the collection agency as well as credit bureaus hae to oey the law. and under FDCPA and section 609 under FCRA states that if consumer requests validation from the bureaus, they have to provide it within 30 days.
Actually jlynn is correct, be careful about the wording. "Validation" is requested from a Collection Agency, "verification" is requested from the Original Creditor. The Credit Reporting Agencies do not have to provide evidence and/or documentation of the alleged debt. Credit Reporting Agencies must "investigate" a dispute by a consumer, they MUST provide the results of that investigation within thirty days to the consumer. You also have to watch the wording in the FCRA, the law is a bit "backwards" to common sense, or normal activity. You can dispute directly with an Original Creditor, but the FCRA states that for the full legal process to hold, you must first dispute with the Credit Reporting Agencies. Again, this is somewhat "backwards" of what the average person would do, with a normal reaction to an incorrect tradeline. When it comes to tradelines that report Charge Offs and Collections Accounts, you need to look at the FDCPA as well.
That's not entirely correct. Under the FDCPA, the debtor must dispute the debt within 30 days of first contact with/by the CA. The CA has no obligation to respond to a dispute/verification request, however, the CA cannot continue collection activities until they do. The only "30-day" requirement is for the debtor to send their dispute letter. The CA's response, if you read the underlined portion of the FDCPA above, need only be the name and address of the OC, assuming they've met the requirements of paragraph (a). The intent is to allow the debtor to follow up with the OC and find out if they really owe the debt and, if so, that they should pay the CA. There is nothing in the FDCPA that says the CA must send original documents with signatures, payment histories, etc. Some do, and that might put them in a stronger position should you end up discussing this in front of a judge, but there's no requirement that this be included in the response to a request for validation. So, in the completely minimalist interpretation of this part of the FDCPA, assuming the requirements of (a) have been provided, all the debtor has to say is: "I dispute this debt in its entirety and demand verification pursuant to 15 USC 1692g(b)." All the CA has to do to continue collection activity is send (in an envelope, not a post card per 15 USC 1692f(7)) the name and address of the OC. And that's the end of that and they can go back to calling you, sending you letters, and pursuing any other collection activities not precluded by 15 USC 1692e or f.
Okay sorry all this talk makes me dizy. So over all I can send a validation letter to the CA, but they dont have to take it off? My story is that one company is showing that it is a CO, but says its sold to another lender, but this is only with EXP. So in that case what should I do?
Providian can report the account as a chargeoff. But if it is showing a balance due, you need to dispute with the CRAs that you do not owe Providian. (You do not owe them because it has been transferred/sold NOT because it was charged off). You need to send a DV to Portfolio, as well as dispute that account with the CRAs. You do NOT have an Open Type account with them.
I have always been able to remove a JDB's TL. Mass law states that Check it here: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&am...=Eoca#seventeen 18.17: Unfair Practices, Paragraph 11 " For a debt collector to report to a consumer reporting agency on its transactions or experiences with a consumer in the debt collector's name. However, a debt collector may, with the express written authorization of the creditor, report to a consumer reporting agency in the creditor's name." Woofer
Yes I think it is a valuable tidbit : ) I just checked and it worked for me, but now I have copied and pasted it so here it is. If it doesn't work I'm sorry, but it is correct. Made it tiny as well. http://tiny.cc/jjHv4 http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterm...nalcontent&f=dob_209cmr18&csid=Eoca#seventeen
What do you think?Oh and which one worked the tiny? AS the other one was exactly the same as in my first post. On another note, I just sued and won a CA for leaving a message on my answering machine stating that"This is X and I am a debt collector. You (my name) need to return my call. HOORAY FOR ME, me thinks : ) Woofer
They both worked. I like the statute, just wondering why I've never seen it talked about. Granted, I don't pay much attention to other states' laws, but I usually pick up on highlights like this. If I understand it correctly, a CA or JDB can only report via the OC in the OC's name? Or is this just assigned debts, and a JDB is a "creditor" in Mass?
If an OC is reporting a JDB cannot report. If however the OC is not reporting and now the JDB is listed as a creditor they can report, but only in an OC's name, as that is my take on it. When Palisades, W & A , and CACV put a TL on my cr's I disputed and it stayed on, UNTIL I sent the cra's another letter listing this statute. Then OFF in a flash. Woofer
