Good morning all, I'm a bit panicked right now so please forgive me jumping right into the issue: I just got an alert from Creditkarma that a new account has been added to my credit report. So I pull my TU report (which should have alerted me as well since I have the $14.95/mo membership, but whatever) and sure enough.. an old account from Springleaf Financial that was going to fall off this December (opened 12/22/2005) suddenly went from $654 past due to $0 and now I have a NEW account reporting from a company I've never dealt with (or heard of before now) sprang up. I have NOT opened ANY new lines of credit in a few YEARS. Here is the detail on this new account: Company: LVNV Funding Condition: Derogatory Balance: $1,424 (over double the original debt) Type: Factoring company account Pay Status: Collection/Chargeoff Past Due: $1,424 High Balance: $1,400 Responsibility: Individual Opened: 06/07/2013 Reported: 08/12/2013 Remarks: Collection Account, Placed for collection I looked up this company and found they are known scammers (I dont' have the post count to post links, but it is easy to find). I am 120% sure I have not received any mail or communication from this company. I am betting what happened is this company trolls around looking for accounts that are getting ready to fall off and tells the original collector: "Hey, this is about to drop off... you're never going to see any money from this... let us buy it from you for like $10." Then they open a new account and try to manhandle people into paying debt they don't owe. This seems highly illegal! It almost seems like I could sue them. What do I do?! Contest it? Sue them? If so, how? Thank you very very much for any assistance/guidance/insight in this matter!
First and foremost I would call TU and explain that you want a refund if they're not going to do the one thing you're paying for. Next, have you received a letter from this company yet? And do you know when the DOFD is? That will determine the SOL, as well as when you can expect this debt to fall off your report. I would get that info ASAP and give us an update.
Jason, Thank you for the reply! Calling TU is a good idea - I'll do that post-haste. Next - no, I have not received any mail (or communication of any kind) from this new company, or any of its affiliates such as Resurgent Capital Services, LVNV Funding Capital Management Services, Astra, or Venta (some sleuthing shows that all these companies are one-in-the-same). The DOFD (date of first debt?) for this new debt looks to be 06/07/2013. The ORIGINAL debt I believe they purchased this from had a DOFD of 12/22/2005. A TU Investigative report I ran back in April showed the 'Estimated month and year this item will be removed: 03/2014.' Also in looking closer at the original debt I believe they purchased, there is a new remark saying "Charged off as bad debt. Purchased by another lender." so that lends credence that this is very old debt they purchased and are trying to play off as new. Even with KNOWING that, though, I'm not sure what the best course of action is to proceed... Thank you again for your help - I feel better just knowing someone knowledgeable about these shenanigans has my back!
Quick update on TU: I called them as suggested and it turns out that my alerts were going to Spam! (stupid Gmail). So they actually alerted me 1 day earlier than Creditkarma. Even so, because I was calling to cancel service (even though I didn't really want to, because I want to be able to pull reports as needed), they offered to lower my monthly charge to $9.99! So if nothing else you just saved me $5/mo! Thanks Jason
New development: My wife (who is in charge of the mail as she is stay-at-home) just found a letter from Northland Group Inc saying current account holder LVNV for $1415.27 with original account as Springleaf (as I thought above). So, apparently I HAVE received a letter from them. The postage date on this letter is July 26th, so it is still within 30 days (though barely). How does this change things? They can't just bring an old debt back from the dead like this and restart the SOL, can they? This is a nightmare!
If the DOFD is 12/2005, this does NOT belong on your reports. 12/2012 was the 7YR mark for when it had to fall off UNLESS you made a payment subsequent to that 12/2005 date and defaulted once again. I would immediately send a DVL to LVNV for violating 15 USC 1692e (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; ...and yes, get this letter to them CERTIFIED ASAP. The FTC says it is collection activity to report this debt if they receive a DV request within the 30-day validation period. FDCPA Staff Opinion: LeFevre-Cass As soon as you know they received your letter, DISPUTE the debt with the CRA. In your case, disputing it as "too old" is fine as your claim isn't that the account is not yours, but rather LVNV is illegally re-aging this account and you can prove it.
Mindcrime, that is terribly helpful information. Thank you very much. I am searching for a DVL to send (I've never actually sent one) and will get that sent out certified TODAY. I'll update when I get more info!
First off - I want to thank both Jason and Mindcrime for their generous help thus far! Now in thinking more about this, I think I misunderstood what DOFD meant. The original Springleaf debt was OPENED 12/22/2005. However, it didn't go into collections until 03/19/2007. Which would make sense as to why TU reports the 'estimated month and year that this item will be removed' as 03/2014. So, technically, it is still within SOL for another 6 months. With that new information in mind, I'm worried. If I send a DVL to this new company that bought the debt and then dispute through the CRAs, is there any way that will legitimatize and re-age the debt? I mean, I've never signed anything with this new company, and they are definitely reporting inaccurate timing on the debt - trying to pass it off as brand new. However, if I sent a basic DVL like Sparq's, they could come back with the original Springleaf debt.. and then would their new date be legit? So for the DVL, since it IS a valid debt (for 6 months), but they are reporting inaccurate information (DOFD)... in the DVL, instead of simply saying 'I am disputing the alleged debt referenced above' maybe should use wording similar to pbm's saying 'I am disputing the accuracy and completeness of the credit information reported'? Sorry for all the questions, but I just want to make sure the new information doesn't change anything. The LAST thing I want to do is be stuck with this thing for ANOTHER 7 years! Thank you so much!
credwoes: Actually, you didn't hear from LVNV (but Northland Group) if Northland Group is not reporting, LVNV is violating the FCRA and FDCPA because they didn't notify YOU within 5 days of YOUR rights under the FDCPA, and within 30 days of the posting of the credit report item, of your rights under the FCRA. (Credit Reporting is a communication; since as you noted, they are reporting inaccurate information - Sullivan v. Equifax) I would send a validation letter to Northland Group (remember the 30 days is from receipt not the post-mark). I would send an intent to sue to LVNV & their 2000 names, naming each one as a co-defendant. In my letter to Northland Group, I would include how you will be more than happy to include them as a party to your suit of LVNV, because after all, if you have listed all of the heads of LVNV, what's one more party to the suit. Reporting is still limited to the exact same 7 year reporting deadline, the sale doesn't change that, it needed to still be deleted in December.
I believe you're confusing the SOL (Statute of Limitations) Statute of Limitations on Debt Collection Sorted by State with the reporting period. The reporting period is 7 years from the DOFD (Date of First Delinquency). This (more or less) is for any of us around the country. SOL varies depending on your state. Check out the link above to determine yours. Chances are that you are past the SOL and can't successfully be sued for this debt. This puts you at a huge advantage. The 6 remaining months you have left for this account to report has nothing to do with the SOL. If there was no re-aging involved, this would simply fall off in 6 months. There is no way to legitimately re-age a debt from the date it first went delinquent and never became current again. You simply want them to validate the debt. There's no way that's happening with a claimed DOFD of 6/2013. All the documentation in the world from Springleaf won't back this up. They're violating the FCRA and the FDCPA and as Jam pointed out -- something I totally missed -- CA X reported while CA Y contacted you and those 5 days are longggggg gone. I realize at the moment it may not feel this way, but you're on solid ground here.
I am not sure that the alleged debt is really reporting with a DOFD of 06/07/2013--that appears to be the date on which LVNV Funding (a junk debt buyer) purchased the debt from whoever owned it before. It is actually very common for junk debt buyers to report their own tradeline with an "account opened" date of whenever they bought the account. As long as the DOFD for credit reporting purposes is not changed, the tradeline will still "fall off" your credit reports within 7 years and 30 days from when you went delinquent with the original creditor. If it does not, THAT is when you need to dispute, and if necessary resort to legal action.
Correct, the Date Opened and the DOFD are separate. The 'Date this item is expected to be removed' notation should be the same as it is under the OC's reporting. Agreed, however as jam pointed out, the reporting CA is still, in violation of: § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- ....and I would still be getting that DVL out ASAP.
mindcrime: It's something that most people wouldn't differentiate. But the FCRA requires that the DATA FURNISHER send within 30 days a notice of adverse reporting... That is something that LVNV won't do, because they re-farm the debts to other vultures without direct communications... That is their choice... It's also our choice whether we sue their a$$ for $1,000.00 for every account they have their hands on...
Wow! Thank you all for the informative posts! I sent the Certified DVL out earlier this week (within the 30 day period). The suing portion, while most certainly tempting in a few ways (it would be nice to see the vultures served a bit of justice, plus I could definitely use the cash), seems a bit out of my depth - and I *certainly* don't have the money to hire a lawyer for it. I am sure that is something they bank on. I seriously can't thank you all enough for the information, clarification, and support. I will update about this as soon as progress is made.
Good morning all. I have an update on this issue and some new questions. After sending the DVL to Northland Group (and receiving a read receipt from Aug 31), I received a new letter now from Resurgent Capital Services L.P. This letter states: "Resurgent Capital Services L.P. manages the above referenced account for LVNV Funding LLC and has initiated a review of the inquiry we recently received. Should you desire to pay off the account in full, you should contact us at bla bla (yeah right)... If we can be of further assistance, please contact bla bla..( yeah right).." But then it says at the bottom: INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS Unless you notify us within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion of it, we will assume this debt is valid. If you notify us in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt we will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such.. blah blah. So my 1st question is... I already sent Northland Group a DVL, so why is this company who apparently manages LVNV - who apparently manages Northland Group - saying I need to dispute again? And more importantly - can this tactic actually work for them and validate this debt if I don't send another letter (and spend another $10 on certified postage)? 2nd... does them sending this 'we received your inquiry and are looking into it' letter give them more time to fulfill the request, or is it still 30 days from August 31st (when they received it)? I'm still not sure what to do if they actually don't come back with a validation, but I'll cross that bridge if I come to it. Thank you again!!
Sounds like continued collection activity to me. And no, their 'tactic' won't work, in fact they are acknowledging your DVL. They're not locked down to 30 days just because of your letter...what you want to do is DISPUTE the account through the CRAs. THERE is your 30 day lock-down. They will have to respond to the CRA within that time period and if they don't, the CRA has to delete. If they do respond and verify, and do NOT respond to you, that's a FDCPA violation.
This is an interesting thread and somewhat similar to mine. So let me ask a question. Since the entry was not showing on my CCR and now it is, even though it has before and was removed (without any intervention from me) - does the CA have to notify me again within 30 days? Or do they get a pass? And can I still DVL even though I was probably notified - I just don't know at this point. From my standpoint, this is new to my CCR - it wasn't there a year ago!
Ah shoot, I forgot the dispute part. I will look into getting those out with each CRA ASAP (can I just do it on website or do I need to send out more letters?). Also, interesting about the continued collection activity - I didn't even think about that. Since I sent a DVL within the 30-day validation period AND the original debt from this is far past SOL anyway, is that an FDCPA violation? I appreciate all of your help - I would have been lost on this issue!
We all have our preferences (mail/fax/web). I prefer web, it's trackable just like a fax or mail, but costs a lot less than the post office and you don't need a signature for this. Yes, they're violating the FDCPA: § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. What the FTC has to say about this: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm ...And I believe Jam can point you to some good caselaw on it as well. § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof. (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt
Well, that certainly does seem like they are violating it then. However, I haven't actually disputed with them - is the fact that they continued to attempt collection after sending just a DVL enough? If so, I would really like to do something about it as if enough people do that, maybe they will change their nasty business practices. I will have to hope Jam sees this! Also, an update: When I went to initiate a dispute through TU, I found that this debt is actually reporting to fall off 05/2014 (it doesn't show removal date on the regular report)! So, that's good news. The only bad part of it is that the Original Debt from this was set to fall off in March of next year instead of May. Should I still dispute as ownership as too old, or should I only dispute accuracy and state that the 'removal date' is incorrect? I'm afraid that if I dispute the first, I wont be able to dispute the second if they come back and validate. You are awesome, mindcrime. I may understand computers, but this stuff gives me a headache to even think about. I really appreciate your continued assistance (and everyone's who has contributed!!)
