Midland Credit - Possible Violations. Advice Needed. How To Proceed?

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Oshun, Nov 23, 2015.

  1. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    Hello All,

    I have an old debt well past my state's SOL and it was scheduled to fall off my credit report next year in 2016.

    At the end of August Midland contacted me about the debt. In early September I sent a validation request via certified mail. More than 30 days went by so I sent a follow up letter in October via certified mail stating my FCRA rights concerning an unvalidated debt. I mean I was kind of in limbo and that bothered me.

    This Saturday November 21st, three weeks after the last letter I receive a letter from them stating that they are collecting the info for validation, but will still continue to report it on my credit report.

    I feel like there are some violations here. It has pretty much been three months and they have not validated. I would have to pull my credit report to see if they are still reporting it, but if they were- isn't that a violation as well?

    Regarding the debt- I was making payments, then the recession happened and I lost everything. So I had to let some things go. I am just now getting better, but I am still not pre-recession ok when it comes to finances. The amount owed was a little over a grand, but a lot of fees were piled on so they want 1900.

    The bottom line is that I couldn't and still can't pay it. Even sending these certified letters is getting to be a stretch.

    Any advice on how to make this go away?
     
  2. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    There may be violations, there may not be.

    Are you CERTAIN that the alleged account is past the SOL?

    The FTC has recently held that sending a collection notice on a past-SOL debt, without explaining that the debt is past-SOL (i.e. they can't sue you for it) is a false and misleading representation of the amount, character, and LEGAL STATUS of the debt.

    I was trying to go through the forum, and FTC news releases to find the specific cases, but they are there, it's just like looking for a needle in a haystack. :)

    Here's the rub, they can continue to report, UNLESS you dispute the tradelines through the CRAs.

    Updating the information (and putting the notice of dispute on it) is REQUIRED and automated. Responding to a VERIFICATION is manual COLLECTION ACTIVITY.

    (Any method of communication which you can prove receipt is valid; faxing a 1 page letter from Staples may run a few bucks, but less than a certified letter, but you receive the confirmation that they've received the letter. Online faxing may run $10-$20 / month, but you would be able to send at least 100 pages combined depending on the service, and most services not only send a confirmation e-mail, but archive the fax online so you can pull the original fax down, if needed.)
     
  3. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    Hello Jam!

    Thank you so much for your response! I greatly appreciate your input and feedback!

    According to the sources that I have looked at online the SOL in the state of Alabama on a credit card is 3 years. So according to that - it is past the SOL.

    Ok, so my next step is to contact the CRAs. I will draft those letters today and get those off.

    Thanks for the tip on faxing. I think faxing with a confirmation sounds on par with a certified letter.

    After I get the CRA letter off I will try to search on the board for the FTC threads.
     
  4. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    I sent my letters off to the credit bureaus last week. I am waiting on my credit report.
     
  5. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

  6. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    The suits that I were looking for, and I will have to look more; I am hoping it didn't get moved to the 'new' agency handling consumer credit laws.

    The first document is geared mainly for consumers with basic information about SOL; it does tell a little bit more than if you are being sued, and ways to discern whether the debt is past the SOL.

    Think of the second as a commercial for a lawyer in FL. They want it to seem hard to decipher, so that you will think that you need an attorney, and hey, if you are in FL, let me be the attorney.

    Short answer.

    Previous thought was that a debt collector, as long as they didn't specifically say "I'm going to sue you" was golden for a post-SOL account; it was the false threat of legal action that couldn't legally be conducted that was the violation; recent thought has changed and the wave is going towards; unless I tell you that making a payment could restart the SOL (in some jurisdictions), trying to collect the debt without specifically explaining that the debt is post-SOL and could (from the FTC page that you linked to)
    It's that last part that changed the FTC's logic process; if the request for payment could cause HARM, such as restarting the SOL; then NOT advising the consumer of the post SOL status is a false and misleading representation and an unfair collection practice.
     
  7. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    Thank you so much Jam. I am so grateful and appreciative for your answer! :)

    I haven't heard from them in a while. This has been going on for some months now. I will wait and see if they respond. If they do then I will use the law that you laid out because they have never stated that it was past the SOL.

    Do you think that I could use the legal part that you quoted in small claims, if necessary?

    Thanks so much again. :)
     
  8. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    I got my Innovis report yesterday. This debt is not listed on that one. I am waiting on the other three.
     
  9. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    Its not on Equifax either - thank goodness. Waiting on the other two.
     
  10. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    I received my TransUnion report. It looks like there is something on there that may be this account. It is kind of confusing to understand. The dates look off- it is scheduled to fall off my report in May of 2017. I can't tell which company is reporting. It is saying it is a collection company, but no name. The high amount also looks odd.
     
  11. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    So I received Equifax today. It is reporting on both TransUnion and Equifax, but it is reported differently on each one. I think this is the original creditor, which is listed as a business, but Midland Credit named a bank in the letter they sent me.

    TransUnion has January 2010 as the last payment date with the account closed on 4/2010. It states that it has been purchased by another lender and is scheduled to fall off Jan 2017.

    Equifax has Date of status as 2011. The high balance reported is $535 dollars higher than the one reported to TransUnion. And there is no fall off date listed.
     
  12. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    The balance gives you a dispute; date of status is simply a date which it had the status that they are reporting, on EQ it should read something like, this entry will be reported until; backtrack 7 years from that date to get the approximate Date of First Delinquency date.

    If it was me, I would dispute the amount on both reports as invalid. This gives you a SPECIFIC dispute, which if they verify conflicting information would be verifying incorrect information.
     
  13. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    Thanks Jam.

    I am sorry. It was Experian not Equifax.

    Experian doesn't have a fall off date on it at all. I have looked and looked. There is one on a debt listed above it, but not for this entry.

    Experian has the date the account was opened, when it was first reported, date of status, and then recent payment. Date of status is Aug 2011 and Recent Payment is listed as 'not reported Aug 2011'.

    How do I dispute the amounts without incriminating myself? Also could they 'update' the information in such a way as to work against me? For example, they see that it is incorrect and then they decide to report the same info to both agencies? Then again, they do report the debt as being sold to collections. I guess I want to know the safe way to handle this.

    I still haven't heard from Midland. This is now going on four months for validation.
     
  14. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    The reason you want to make a specific dispute (not just a NOT MINE) is that to survive a NOT MINE dispute, they only need to have 2 of 4 pieces of information, if they've every sent you a letter, they have more than enough to survive the NOT MINE dispute. By making the dispute of multiple specific items, you are upping the odds that, they verify some but not all of the information correctly, and possibly even contradict themselves on how they verify other disputes. (Imagine them trying to explain to a Federal Court Judge why they told TU one thing, but EX another at the same time.)

    The catch is that verifying anything once you've written a request for VALIDATION is continued collection activity, prohibited by the FDCPA. The manual reporting can be updated automatically, because it's an automatic process that regularly reports out to the credit bureaus; responding to a dispute however is a MANUAL process which requires them to perform some activity to continue collecting the debt.

    They could verify the account, and they could even verify the account at the higher amount; but as you're sure that the account is past the SOL, if they do, you are in the position where they would owe you $1,000 for violating the FDCPA, and they stand to collect $0.00 on the debt because it is past the SOL. (Even if you'd be generous and willing to negotiate a settlement of their debt to you for violating the FDCPA, you are still in the lead. Would you rather the cash or them to be gone?)

    If there is no date information on EX, then I would dispute both the amount, payment history, and all of the dates on both accounts; by all the dates, I mean "OPEN DATE, CLOSED DATE, DATE OF LAST ACTIVITY, DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY, LAST PAYMENT DATE"; and I would dispute all of that information on both CRAs.

    If they're not reporting a removal date, then it appears that they didn't report a DoFD, which would keep the entry on continuously.

    You don't incriminate yourself, because you aren't saying that you know what data would be accurate, complete, and verifiable; you are just pointing out what items are potentially inaccurate, incomplete and unverifiable. It's when you say what the data should be, or worse yet, provide documentation to prove it, that you are risking incriminating yourself, because there is a chance that they will use the evidence that you sent if the data furnisher doesn't respond.
     
  15. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Here is the information that I was trying to find, it was moved to CFPB. :)
    http://www.consumerfinance.gov/news...using-deceptive-tactics-to-collect-bad-debts/
     
  16. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    Hello Jam!

    I really appreciate this. I crafted the dispute letters and disputed everything that you listed. I am going to mail them in the morning.
     
  17. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    Hello Jam.

    I haven't heard from Midland or the credit bureaus yet. It has been a month.
     
  18. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    If an account is reporting without a NAME and CONTACT INFORMATION for the alleged data furnisher, that is a violation.

    They are required to provide the NAME and CONTACT INFORMATION for everyone who provided them information, and that information needs to be valid (hence, why if you send to an address CMRRR and it comes back unsigned for, or undeliverable, that can be used to dispute that the account is valid.)
     
  19. Oshun

    Oshun Active Member

    Hello Jam,

    I need to go over the information, but I just got my Experian report back. It was updated by someone. The original account is listed as Chevron. It states that it was sold to Asset Acceptance and charged off.

    Midland Credit were the ones who contacted me. So is Chevron or the bank Chevron used to issue the account updating it because Midland is not on there.

    My mom has been in the hospital and she just got home so I am a bit hurried.
     
  20. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    It could be that AA/Encore sold the account to Midland; or vice versa...

    Accounts can be sold or transferred a number of times, I had one account that had 4 owners in a week... :) That was the only case where I would have been able to make a viable demand for proof that they were the lawful current owner of the account, because the various CAs reported the account overlapping when they supposedly owned the accounts. It was a fun day on the phone calling from one CA to the other and being told one by one that they didn't have the account any longer.

    (hugs) Hope your mother improves soon, the hospital isn't fun for ANYONE!!!
     

Share This Page