I really like this forum it's very helpful. Here's what has happened so far in my dealing with a CA: After the account went delinquent, I called OC and OC told me that they have sold the account to a CA (CA-1). They gave me name of the CA-1 and a phone no to call. I called that no but that CA-1 had no info of my account. I called OC again and told them the same. This time it was some other rep and the rep gave me a new no to try. I called the new no but the new no happened to be of a new CA (CA-2). After talking to this CA-2, they told me that they had my account and they work for CA-1. So, looks like, CA-1 bought it from OC and they again assigned/sold it to CA-2. Anyways, I sent a DVL to CA-2. They took 4 months to reply and sent me photo-copies of my account statement to a wrong street no but same zip code. Even though, they sent the reply to a wrong street no but somehow postal services managed to deliver it to my mailbox. I am really impressed and surprised as to how they did it. I sent a DVL again asking CA-2 as to how they're related to the OC. CA-2 replied that they have already provided enough info and won't be investigating further. Now, here's what I am not able to figure out: a) I want to resolve this matter, but, how can I make sure that if I pay CA-2, then the account will be cleared with CA-1 and OC as well. What could be a good strategy if I would have to sent another DVL to CA-2 ? b) CA-2 just recently opened a collection account on my credit report. They have already put in notes saying that the account is disputed. Can I dispute this account through CRA? If they'll reply back to CRA with latest account balance, would that be considered as continued collection activity? c) I am requesting validation from CA-2 to make sure that if I pay them then it gets cleared with CA-1 and OC too. However, at the same time I want to offer settlement as well to resolve this matter asap. So, after sending them another DVL, if I would also send them a PDL, then is that considered acknowledgement of liability for the debt? Can that do any harm to me later if CA-2 takes this matter to the court? Thanks
OC and CA-1 should be reporting that the debt was sold/transferred. If they are not, you can ask for proof. There is a good sample letter on this board that addresses that issue in the sample letters section of this board. It is titled Payment by Deletion Letter
Nunna, only OC has to report TRANSFERRED/SOLD, CA-1 still owns the account even though they assigned tge account to CA-2. OP, by being able to get the photocopies, they've proven the ability to handle the account. AS LONG AS THE STATEMENTS PROVIDED VERIFIES THE AMOUNT THEY ARE ASKING, the photocopies verify the account. If it verifies a different amount, what you would want to demand is an accou.ting of any fees, interest and charges, and their legality under the contract and law.
Jam, I think we both were wrong. It looks like OC referred the account to CA-1 for collection, then pulled it back, and sold it to CA-2 in the end.
IF the OC recalled the account, then CA-1 must delete the account from the credit report. IF CA-1 just assigned CA-2 to service the collection, then it can appear along side the OC, and CA-2's trade line.
Ash77, keep us posted as to how this turns out. I hope a PFD works well for you if you choose that route.
Thanks for the replies. On my credit report, it's only CA-2 that's reporting it as collection and OC is reporting it as charge-off. Ca-1 never reported it on my credit report and I don't know what happened to them. So, looks like the only option I have now is to start with a PFD or wait for CA-2 to take it to court. I am just surprised to see that just because CA-2 got hold of my account statements, the DV process really ends here. They haven't sent me any document to prove their legality under the contract and law. Is that all with the DV process?
From a technical perspective, just because someone has copies of your account statements does not mean that they are the new creditor because anyone can get access to your records by pretending to be you or by pretending that they have your consent to access your records. Therefore, a document between the OC and CA showing the transfer of the debt would be necessary to prove that the CA is the new creditor. From a logical perspective, if the CA did not have rights or privileges to access your account statements, the OC would not have shared them with the CA, making themselves liable for enabling fraud. Unfortunately, a judge may agree with this perspective.
Validation serves only two purposes, (a) proving that they identified the correct debtor, and (b) that the amount of the debt is correct. Unless you can show that there is some mud in the chain of possession, proving the authority to collect isn't a part of the process, despite what the one form letter says... P.S. I've only EVER had ONE account where the chain of possession was ever muddy. (i.e. CA-1 begins reporting the account, after they sold the account to CA-2, who.sold the account to CA-3, who sent a dunning letter) With CA-1 reporting after CA-3 sent the dunning letter the possession chain wouldn't be clear.
