It has taken me a long time to clear up some bad debts and I'm preparing to apply for a home loan...that said, I just received a collection notice in the mail today that came from a agency representing SPRINT. I called the number, since I don't ever recall having an account with this phone company. I called and they said it was from 1993. That was 10 years ago and I still don't recall ever having done business with them. I asked that they send me proof that i had an account and they said that it will be 4-6 weeks before i get anything. Can someone tell me what my rights are regarding this debt...if infact it IS mine? I know they can't sue me because it so old..and it's only an "attempt to collect" but can this still go on my credit report?? Thanks for any info you give me!
putting it on your credit report is "attempting to collect" and is past the statute of limitations for both reporting and collecting. tell them to get bent.
Probably you let a mortgage company pull credit on you without having "opted out" from promotional offers. This bottomfeeder was automatically notified, and now they'll try to put the item on your credit report and assure they get paid or ... no mortgage. Use the 1-2 punch. DV 'em by CMRRR, then if it shows up on your reports, dispute as "not mine".
i wouldn't even to that. i would call them and inform them that if their is even a remote trace of it on your report you will sue the crap out of them. THEY CANNOT REPORT IT OR COLLECT ON IT - END OF STORY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO ASK FOR VALIDATION WHATSOEVER BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THEM TO EVEN "ATTEMPT" COLLECTION.
I'm no expert, but I don't think it's against the law for them to "attempt" to collect. It is past SOL (for most states, so you'll have to check up on that), so if they did sue, you could just point out this fact and the judge would throw the case out. But they did not break any laws by trying. At any rate, I think it very unlikely that they would bring this to trial. The "4-6 weeks" response seems like stalling. I doubt they will ever send you anything. They probably don't have any official records for this alleged debt anymore. Such documents are now worthless, so why waste the space? They're hoping that you will pay them off so you can get your mortgage. They can't legally put an account over 7 years old on your CR, but they might anyway (with a more recent date, say, maybe this year?). If this happens, I would first dispute the account with the CRAs. If it stays on there, you might have to threaten to sue. Reporting the wrong date just so it stays on your CR is definately illegal. Maybe a strongly worded letter letting them know that you know your rights would prevent them from trying this?
Actually, I know Jodi well enough to know that she didn't mean that attempted collection of a Post SOL debt was "actionable". She's just feelin a little grumpy tonight. .
Re: 10yearolddebt - You folks ROCK My favorite piece of advice is telling them do "get bent" thanks jenz.. ;0 I even told the chick on the phone that IF it was my debt, it was past the SOL...and she quickly came back and said they can't sue but can "attempt" to collect...they better hope I don't see it on my CR... Thanks a million for putting my mind at ease... Lynn
Re: 10yearolddebt - You folks ROCK I'd just like to add that this is *exactly* what my husband went through a year or so ago. He received a collection letter from a CA on behalf of Sprint for a past due amount supposedly from 1992 or somewhere around that time. My husband was in the military at that time and never had an account with Sprint. He called and stated this - they gave him the same line saying they would send him some documentation. It never came and we never got another letter. It also never appeared on his credit reports. I wouldn't worry about it although it is curious that Sprint is trying to collect on "phantom" accounts...
Re: 10yearolddebt - You folks ROCK Wow, that is weird..and what a total waste of money on this CA's and/or SPRINT's part...
Re: Re: 10yearolddebt - You folks R I'm beginning to paint a picutre about this. This particular skumbag collection agency has a list of names, account numbers, and amounts. They probably paid $500 for about $100,000 worth of accounts, all way past SOL for collection and reporting. They then seek out current addresses of anyone who's name matches the names on the accounts and spend about $.10 (including postage) mailing out requests for payment. If they get payments from 30-40 of the 10,000 or so accounts they make good money. If someone demands validation, they delete the account name from the file. I would say it is a pretty good system. But to put the original poster's mind at ease, keep the initial communication, and notes on when the account allegedly is from, but you shouldn't worry. It won't appear on your credit report. This skumbag agency is out to scam innocent people who have the same name as people who went delinquant. They're looking for a quick buck, and they won't spend any extra time on an account if they don't think it will give them a payday. IT WILL NOT BE PUT ON YOUR CREDIT REPORT! If it is, I say don't dispute, just send an ITS to the CA demanding deletion and $500 or you will take them to court. Don't worry, be happy. ChrisB
Re: Re: 10yearolddebt - You folks R You know, that makes sense. My husband has a fairly common first and last name.
Re: Re: 10yearolddebt - You folks R Yep, that makes total sense. I have the CAs letter with the date of the conversation on it and my note's about what she said. Once again...thanks for everyone's advise...it's so nice to know there are decent people out there who are willing to take a few moments to help a person out
Re: Re: Re: 10yearolddebt - You folks R 1*putting it on your credit report is "attempting to collect" and is past the statute of limitations for both reporting and collecting.jenz 2*THEY CANNOT REPORT IT OR COLLECT ON IT 3*IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THEM TO EVEN "ATTEMPT" COLLECTION.jenz +++++++++++++++++++++++==================************************ 1* & 2* But they can put inquires on your report. No it hain't in most states.
