There are two negative tradelines in TU and Equifax from two different collection agencies (Inovision in TU and Marlin Integrated Capital) for the same debt from 1995 in New York. I checked the agencies on the web and they are associated (says so on their web pages which look exactly the same too). The original creditor is Con Edison. I remember paying them before I moved. I remember going to their office and paying. I don't have any receipts with me after nearly 7 years. The amount is a paltry $147. I am in the process of buying home soon and this is total shock. My TU credit score is 647. I spoke to Con Edison and asked them about the debt. They said it was a final bill before I moved and it wasn't paid. I said that my recollection is I paid it in your office before I left New York. I asked them if they would take the account back from the collection agencies and deal with me directly. The rep said they can't do that. Further they told me the following about the account: Last payment was made on September 18, 1995. Account was CLOSED in November 1995. Account went into collection in April 1996. Now the collection agency is reporting it as OPEN and 120+ past due. I thought I have to be getting service from Con Edison for this account to be classified as open. Am I wrong? The agency is really trying to screw me over. The tradeline says LAST ACTIVITY 11/95 and date reported 01/2002. I got my reports regularly since 1998 and this is the first time this appeared. I have no delinquent notices from anyone regarding this. They waited almost 7 years to report!! Inovision's entry in TU says Placed for Collection. Placed 11/1999. Updated 01/2002. Past Due: $147. Today I sent in a dispute to Trans Union and Equifax and below is what I sent. I am also planning to send letters to Attorney Generals of New York and Virginia complaining about Inovision and Marlin Integrated Capital. Also, I think the Statute of Limitations expired already as they are 6 years in New York. I believe SOL is calculated starting the time of last payment and in this case September 1995. And the 7-year period for the credit line should start then as well, right. If so, the tradeline should fall off in September 2002. Am I right or wrong? Trans Union P.O.Box 2000 Chester, PA 19022 February 14, 2002 Ref: File Number XXXXXXXXX Dear Sir/Madam, This letter is a formal complaint that you are reporting inaccurate and incomplete credit information. I am distressed that you have included the below information in my credit profile and have failed to maintain reasonable procedures in your operations to assure maximum possible accuracy in the credit reports you publish. Credit reporting laws ensure that bureaus report only 100% accurate credit information. Every step must be taken to assure the information reported is completely accurate and correct. The following information therefore needs to be reinvestigated. I respectfully request to be provided proof of this alleged item, specifically the contract, note or other instrument bearing my signature. Failing that, the item must be deleted from the report as soon as possible: Inovision Account#: xxxxxxx Open Account Collection Account The listed item is completely inaccurate and incomplete, and is a very serious error in reporting. Please delete this misleading information. I had never been contacted by anyone regarding this account. Further more, the original creditor is a utility company and the account was CLOSED in November 1995. To report it as OPEN account now is blatant, deliberate and unlawful attempt to injure my credit rating. Additionally, please provide the name, address, and telephone number of each credit grantor or other subscriber. Under federal law, you have 30 days to complete your reinvestigation. Be advised that the description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information is hereby requested as well, to be provided within 15 days of the completion of your reinvestigation. Sincerely, Name SSN#
Did you and do you now live in NY? If so, negs are supposed to fall off after 5 years. If you are living there, I would send a dispute to the cra's demanding they remove the listings which should have been deleted 2 years ago.
I used to live in NY. I left in November of 1995. (last activity date on this account) I thought the time period for deragatory information to age out is 7 years regardless of the state.
I really don't know much about it. The only reason I know anything is because I think it was Erica that posted this last year. It may have been Breeze also. Why don't you post something about this and see if one of them will answer.
I think the New York 5 year rule is on PAID collections. I always wondered if Con Ed reports, evidently only for charged off accounts and not for late pays. Maybe you should pay it since it's only $147. I doubt very much you paid it without getting credit that is very unlikely.
Please someone explain this...does this mean if you lived in NY at the time of the collection, or if you live in NY at the time the 5 years is up or what...lol. Thanks! L
Yep, it's gotta be paid to get deleted in 5 years. Here's what the NY law says: "ii) judgements which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period; or judgments which, from date of entry, having been satisfied within a five year period from such entry date, shall be removed from the report five years after such entry date"
I will pay that IF I can get the tradeline deleted completely in return for the payment. The SOL for New York is 6 years and it has already passed. I can't have this in my credit report for another 7 years after paying. Is there a way to accomplish this?
The debt is being double reported. Con Ed is trying to strong arm you... How picky is your mortgage broker being on this? If you tell them you don't think you owe the bill... and it's so little, it may not even be an issue. slow down. if you haven't mailed anything yet... then do this: Mail a validation request to the both cas. you can find one here. do not dispute with the cras yet... Send the ca validation request certified rr. Once you get that back and you know the ca has gotten the request, repull any affected bureau reports. the ca is required to note the accounts as being "in dispute"... or they can temporarily remove them. regardless, if there's no notation then the ca is in violation of the law. also, see if they can validate the account. Normally utilities don't have signatures on file... so you'll have more leverage. Now: if the ca can't validate properly, (and I would say that means a signature) and they've violated the fdcpa and fcra... you have a lot of leverage. You can then force Con Ed to remove the trade line or pay you for the violations. The violations are worth more than the bill... You can take a full deletion and a letter from Con Ed that there's no bill anymore... or you can sue them. Con Ed will be responsible for any ca violations. Now: if after you've send the ca validation letter 1 and 2 they haven't either removed or noted your reports... then dispute with the bureaus. If the ca verifies the account without properly validating the debt it's considered continued collection efforts and is another fdcpa violation... In the dispute, tone it down. You're using a form letter. that's fine... but you don't need so much. Just list the item, the dispute, and request the procedural description. you likely won't get it. that's a cra fcra violation. as for the rest you're upset about... why? there's no complaint yet to the ftc or anyone else. what at this point have they done wrong except maybe for double reporting the debt... but if you stack evidence, then you can get them and file an ftc complaint. but you want to keep a contact log, letters, and send it all certified rr. Really after 30 days from the first validation letter to both cas you can write Con Ed and demand removal... state you're applying for a mortgage and will hold them liable for either it falling through or for a higher interest rate... times 30 years... now that's real damages. Likely both the ca's will back down after gettting a validation letter and send the account back to Con Ed. For the mortgage, if you give your broker copies of both letters to both the collection agencies asking for debt validation that may satisfy your broker... after all, nobody would expect someone to pay a debt that isn't owed just to get a mortgage. I did this with Atlanta Gas Light. On the second validation letter they sent me 3 removal notices from 3 different supervisors...
When you apply for a mortgage, it brings these predators out of the woodwork. They know they can get the money, whether you owe it or not, even if the SOL is up - if the debt is on your reports, because you can't close on your mortgage. It amounts to extortion, IMO. Many times people pay debts they don't owe, just to get their house. In VA, this debt is considered "sale of goods or services" (UCC), and the SOL is 4 years, so they can't collect it even if they take you to court. My suggestion, just to foil these predators, have your loan officer hold the $147 in escrow, to protect the lender's interests, while you close, and then, after you have your house, fight these bozos. Your closing is their weapon. This neutralizes it. Experienced loan officers know what is going on and will work with you.
by the way, this account has no teeth in it. it's past the sol for suing you... and it'll drop off in Nov 2002... 7 years past the last date of activity... DO NOT pay this... there's no point. I wouldn't. It's a dead account. If you do decide to pay it, get in writing from Con Ed that all accounts will be removed from your reports... otherwise, the payment will reage the account for scoring purposes and your score will nose dive because the date of last activity will now be this month due to payment... now it'll count as a recent collection (or 2) and your score can tank up to 100 points... just paying the account to anyone will only hurt you. from an "odds" perspective of collection, you're in the "snowball in Haites" category anyway. Really, it shouldn't be a mortgage issue. it's under 200, you can't be sued so it can't attach a judgment to the property... and you really think it's not a valid debt... the validation letters should work with your broker. and without a signature Con Ed will have a lot of trouble proving you even owe it... If they send you no signature use the Wollman FTC opinion letter quotes and send Con Ed a nasty letter....and they'll likely take it off... and it'll happen all about the time it'll drop on its own off the reports... do make sure to watch the reports. if they stay on 1 second past 7 years, sue the bureau.
