Question for those experts out there.... If one sends validation, the CA must place the acct. in dispute. I.C. System did this, but the status says...NO STATUS. It still shows as a collection. Isn't merely reporting this a violation?
good question, because I actually have an IC systems account that is being reported the same way. they responded to the validation with my signature, but w/o anything that states their authorization to collect the debt.
They have not responded to anything with me. I sent validation letter, then estoppel. Now what do I do? I disputed with CRA's in the meantime. Each time it came back verified. Do I request procedure letters from CRA's? Do I send documentation to CRA's and request deletion? Do I send an Intent to Sue Letter to IC Systems? Thanks for your help.
Ok, this is my second attempt to post this reply - hope you don't get a duplicate! You need to report them to the Minnesota AG's office and the Department of Commerce. That was the only way I could get them to abide by the law. This company is probably one of the worst out there except for RSI (just my opinion and based on their behavior). Just mention their name to your co-workers and witness "IC Systems" bashing in progress! If you have a health insurance company that pays a litte slow - you probably have a collections account with IC Systems. They could care less about truth and rights!
I'll do you one better.... I sent a validation ltr, waited out 30 days, nothing. Sent estoppel ltr, waited out my 30 days, nothing. They have not placed the account as "in dispute" and don't seem to want to validate. Gosh. Now I have to take a trip down to small claims. Why do they waste our time by forcing us to sue them to correct their INCORRECT reportings. I don't even want damages. I just want it gone.
i also have a collection with ic system... sent validation and 30 days gone by and nothing... today pulled report and they updated my accounts with all the cra's..... whats my next move???
You say "they updated my accounts with all the cra's". What exactly do you mean? Did the place the account "in dispute"? If so, and it's been over 30 days since they received your validation ltr, go ahead and send the estoppel. I don't believe you can point to any violations yet (if in fact they've noted the account as being in dispute), however by sending them a follow-up letter (estoppel) you might just light a fire under them and hopefully, HOPEFULLY they'll just delete for you. Of course, if they did not note the account as being in dispute, and just updated it with the CRA's, then you could include violations in your next letter.
ive sent validations to 5 different CA's, One CA has four accounts and none have shown in dispute on any reports... IC systems updated with cra stating colleciton 3/2002 and the other four came back verified after disputing with cra
The Minnesota AG's office was VERY helpful. They sent a letter to IC Systems outlining my complaints and demanding a reply. IC Systems "LIED" in their reply but did agree to remove the account instead of deal with me further. The AG's office told me that they thought the MN Dept of Commerce would be very interested in my info and I am still sending it, even though the account is to be removed. I think if several of us send our facts to the MN Dept of Commerce and AG's office at the same time, it might just get IC Systems to take notice! by the way, IC Systems did react to my request for validation by adding more negative info to my reports and did not list the account as "disputed" for over a year. Thank goodness I kept copies of all the reports!
Office of the Attorney General Consumer Services Division 445 Minnesota St. Suite 1400 St. Paul, MN 55101-2131 Fax numbers for IC Sytems CEO and Corporate Paralegal dept: 651-481-6556 651-481-6588 CEO is Barbara Erickson Corporate Paralegal is Sue Johnson I'll get you the MN Dept of Commerce address when I find it - I may have that at work as I am still working on putting all the facts and documenation together. Good luck!
I sent a simple letter outlining the chronological facts. I tried to not get into more detail than they needed. I had several letters and medical statements that I attached in the same order as detailed in the letter. I listed each violation and corresponding code. I then wrote a quick synopsis of the problems and what I wanted IC Systems to do. Not much more than that!
