Well, I was just about to draft my lawsuit against this company when I got my mail today and they said that they are going to request verification from the original creditor and in the meantime they are putting the account on hold in their office. They are also telling the credit bureaus to delete the entry from them. I am so excited!!! I want to make sure that this doesn't come back. I want to call and tell them to submit a UDF to all 3 plus innovis and put on there for it not to be re-entered on the credit report. Am I saying this right? Anyway, 1 down, 5 more to go!!!
Thanks Andrew. All I did was sent the validation request CRRR. They were over the 30 days when I received their letter but I think they knew that I meant business. Good luck with your requests!!
I got a letter from NCO yesterday as well, said exactly the same thing that yours did, milkmom. Let's see if the original creditor can come up with the necessary documents...
As far as I understand, the original creditor is held to the same requirements as the CA when you request validation from them so if the CA didn't validate, they can't just pass the buck after the 30 days has expired to avoid getting into trouble. I hope I am right. Please anyone with some knowledge on this let me know if I am right or not because I want to call them today to request that they settle this crap once and for all.
The original creditor must validate within 30 days of your request. I send a validation letter to NCO yesterday, but I only gave them 15 days to validate. Either they have the information or they don't!!
I don't think the 15 days will work because under law they have 30. Also, in my case, I believe that the original creditor is bound by the same period as the CA. They don't get extra time just because the CA couldn't do their job. (Hope i'm right about that.)
Update: Called and they said they don't report to innovis and they sent the UDF on the 8th. So, that means that they could probably get it back on my report. Of course the woman was telling me that they have more than 30 days to validate which is pure BS and I became a little miffed but I guess I can consider this a complete triumph. I feel ready to do an infomercial about how creditnet has changed my life!!!
If I'm not mistaken, if the CA doesn't validate wihin 30 days, it must cease collection attempts, which, by NCO's letter, is what they're doing. However, if the CA gets the validation materials at a later date, I think they can start collecting again and re-insert the listing.
No, it's not. The FDCPA does not specify a time frame for validation. The 30-day period is a myth. Saar
I don't think people use just 30 days and then start a lawsuit--the way I see it, you give 30 days, then another 30 days, then another 15 days and then you have ample evidence (a paper trail ) to present o the CRA (or perhaps a judge) that a CA hasn't been able to prove that you owe a debt to them even though you've given them more than enough time to do it.
Thanks, bc for the info. Here is where I am confused. I thought that people were trying a new approach to the extensive waiting period which was give 30 days then hit them with intent to sue papers or copy of lawsuits papers. Maybe I am missing the point of at that point, there are many violations so threatening to sue supercedes the time allotment of 60 plus days to build your case. Instead of dragging it out, people choose to go ahead and play hardball because they already have a papertrail of continued violations. There was a discussion on this matter a while ago but when I searched, I couldn't find it. My gameplan was to threaten to sue once I had them on numerous violations which in my case, happens to be no problem. I spoke with a lawyer and he said that the violations are per credit report so it's not hard to sue and get a nice chunk of change. It's always hard for me to read about other people's methods and then put them into. When I read them, it's perfectly logical but when I enter into that territory, new questions arise and confusion sets in. Please could someone clear this up for me?
Milkmom, I understand your problem. There appears to be a general methodology, but because everyone's situation differs just slightly, sometimes the methodology must be tweaked to fit the situation. For instance, I was unaware that you already had multiple violations against NCO. You therefore seem to be in a position to go right after them. In my case, I'm just starting with them - they are not even listed on any of my credit reports. I just want to be better positioned when it comes time to negotiate payment. And, because they suck, I want them to jump through some hoops! If you are already "well armed", perhaps it is best that you stick with your original plan.
Sorry I forgot to mention that I had them on violations already, bc. I just wanted to make sure that I was getting my facts straight. Thanks again.
I also sent a validation letter to NCO referencing an account that was either re-aged or just plain ain't mine. Anyway, they sent the same letter to me stating that they were pulling the collection, and that they would notify all of the CRAs. I assumed that they were full of it, so I forwarded copies of the letter to all CRAs. Since your episode seems to predate mine by 3 months, I hope you'll share any lessons learned. So far, I have yet to see the item dissappear from my reports.
I used the 30 day mark, because it is the amount of time I am given to request validation, however just because a consumer doesn't dispute within the 30 days, doesn't mean the consumer loses their rights under the FDCPA. We give 30 days and then another 15-30 under the estoppel. If they are so sure when they send out the "bill" that this bill is yours, then they should not take longer than 30 days to validate.
Same for me. I have been checking the credit reports frantically adn no deletions as of today. so, I will wait until monday and then call the CRAs to see what is going on. I will keep you updated.
I received this letter on the 16th of March also. Has anyone checked their reports lately to see if NCO followed through with the removal or could it be just a standard letter sent out if you request validation?
They have to validate before then can try to collect no matter when they get your letter.If they are collecting with out validating you have them on violation(s)!
