Okay, so I have another one... Received a letter from a DC on a CC acct. that I had somewhere around 10 years ago....honestly IDK when the actual first late pay occurred where the 7.5 year clock would begin, but I am 99% sure it's past the legal reporting time and SOL ran out long ago. (4 years in my state). It lists the OC, original amount due, and what they are offered to give as a settlement. I've checked my CR reports, and this is not reporting nor do I believe it has in a very long time. So, my question is, what do I do? Do I send a letter requesting validation, or do I go straight for "this debt is long past SOL and allowed time under FCRA to report and therefore its in your best interest to take a walk" type letter. Thanks!
Let me tell you what I did when this happened to me: I phoned them for clarification, but the guy was insanely RUDE ! I disputed with the credit bureau & they kept "verifying" it. But I have all the copies of statements anyone has EVER sent me with documentation of payments made. There was no way this debt was valid because I've had AT&T DSL for over 10 years with no interruption of service whatsoever. I wrote across the top of the collection letter to "PROVE or REMOVE"....sent it back Certified w/Return Reciept....and they PROMPTLY deleted it because what they sent me had NOTHING to do with what they entered on my credit report (they tried to convince me it was from an old AT&T DSL account (and even sent me statements that had NO connection to the account they were trying to collect on at all, but the matter was for a paid cell phone bill that I paid directly to AT&T after I bundled to a family plan). SisterGirl
I agree w/ SisterGirl and would skip the DV and go straight for the "kill" - no reason to make this dispute last longer than it needs to by validating a decade-old debt (especially given SOL).
My strategy is slightly different. I prefer that they provide the proof that the account is time-barred, before I go for the juggular. First, it gives me propf that it's time-barred; secondly, unless they disclaimed that the account may be over the SOL and reporting limits, their attempt to collect was a false representation of the legal status of the debt... I like anything that can potentially put their money into my pocket.
Sister, Jason and Jam -- Thank you all for your input. In this case I went straight for the kill. Sent a DV LTR on steroids....there is zero chance they can do anything with this whatever and they likely already knew that....yes I'd like to take them for a ride for a grand or two (or 12 as it is in my state) but I've got enough going on that if I can just keep my CR clean, I'm happy.
Will do -- signed for on 11/21....I gave them the usual 30 days to respond. I have a feeling I might never hear from them again. If they disappear, i.e. never send a letter saying they have closed account and will not pursue, and never touch my CR is there anything I have them on to still go after them in court? They're not reporting and haven't made any inquiries on my report as far as I can tell.
Let us know if you receive a letter w/in the next 30 days and we''ll see the next move is (if there's another).
We're 13 days into 30 from date they signed so I'll keep you posted. ....but.....Yikes....okay, little bit of an issue, and perhaps this is what I get when I bite off more than I can chew as it's been a number of years since I've gone through this process, I'm seeing now that I overlooked something ---- The OC of the debt this DC sent me a letter on last month is reporting to EQ (only). I didn't make connection at first because the DC lists the OC name spelled out while on CR it's abbreviated. Reports on CR as follows: Date Opened 10/02 Date of first delinquency 03/06 81-month payment history reports Pays as Agreed until 12/08, then instantly goes to CA status starting 1/09 except for on 5/09 where it reports again Pays as Agreed only to go to back to CA status the next month and all others past that. This doesn't make sense how date of first delinquency can be 3/06 but monthly payment history reports like that. One thing I am sure on is SOL has long run out.....but reporting time has me wondering (seeing an actual date has me thinking, but frankly this can just be a bogus/re-aged first date of delinquency that led to charge-off). I honestly don't remember still paying on this account in early 2006, feel like first date of delinquency was much earlier. Would it be beneficial to go to my bank and get old bank statements from around that timeframe and see if I was still paying (prob will cost me some money)? I realize they can't come after me for this debt any more (legally) but if I'm only 6 yrs 8 months into the 7 yr 6 month reporting period, should I even bother disputing OC through only CRA that is reporting it (EQ) or just let it go till I can prove with printed CR copies from now that legal reporting time has passed.
Personally I would get the hard copies first (assuming you can), then dispute. It's like Jam says - the written letter is your weapon, as is printed evidence in general. Always useful to have backup when you get into a dispute, which (it sounds like) is what these bank reports could provide.
Update -- The CA never responded from my mid-Nov val request LTR. So I sent a follow-up validation request LTR (late Dec, also CRRR) thanking them for not responding as they now know they're dealing with someone who is versed in the FCRA, FDCPA, and state laws, and that they're violating 15 USC 1692e (2)(A) [thank you jam!] and asked them for some money otherwise we could always go in front of a judge. So tonight, I was bored and I was going through the soft inquiries section on my TU report, and noticed that a month BEFORE this same CA sent me their first contact LTR, they pulled my CR. What permissible purpose do they have in doing so?? The debt is long past SOL (4 years in my state and account went south somewhere between 7 and 8 years ago), they HAD to of known that (they and OC are required to maintain safeguards to report and maintain 100% accurate data, right?) .... so, in browsing the FCRA, I notice section 619: Obtaining Information Under False Pretenses Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under Title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both. Perhaps a long shot...but.... pulling my credit report with no permissible purpose -- debt is past SOL, has no legal status -- CA would know this....therefore they knowingly obtained information on me from the CRA under false pretenses (pretense being they are attempting to locate me because of a debt owed, perhaps?) IDK, this may be a long shot, and the 'pretense' can be one of many, but (at least in my eyes) regardless of what they were looking for in my CR, they had no legal right/ability to be looking at it and were falsifying their legal right to do so.
Having the account does provide them with a permissible purpose, my argument would be, if they had the account on the day they pulled the report, why did it take them a month for them to make that initial contact to you. Did the OC provide them false contact information when they obtained the account (which then makes the remainder of the information obtained from the OC questionable as well)? Did they incorrectly update your contact information as the result of inaccurate skip tracing (which then calls into question what other information they may have contaminated by muddying the waters)? SOL doesn't extinguish the account, just makes it of a non-enforceable legal status. There have been many threads here where people have spoke as to the nuances of legality, and ethically. (i.e. while the debt no longer legally exists, ethically, its good to pay the non-disputed portions of our debts.) The nuance of 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) is that unless they explicitly state that there is the possibility that the debt has no legal status, their dunning implies, falsely in the case of a time-barred debt, that the debt does in fact have a valid legal status, hopefully to elicit someone to pick up their pen and checkbook and remits the amount of the debt without questioning it.
Love the way your mind works. Good thought process to use.... Discussions of such used to spark mini-wars back in the old days around here. None whatsoever. The debt, according to their LTR is valid, due & payable, and as a 'one time offer', they'll even let me pay it in two lump sums. How generous. Well, in the very least, I have a nice case against them on 15 USC 1692e(2)(A).
