Asset bought a debt about a year ago and has been listing it on my Equifax report as $0 past due, N/A, etc. However, a different CA just began listing this debt on Equifax claiming they were assigned the debt in 2000. Obviously, they can't be attempting to collect a debt that they no longer have the rights to. What is the best way to pursue this? I was thinking about just disputing it with Equifax online and sending them a letter asking to see the contract they have with Value City to collect on this debt. I would prefer not to ask for validation since Asset has none and I don't want to wake anything up with the OC. Should I mention that Asset purchased the debt, should I just say another CA bought the debt, or should I be very general and say I have knowledge to believe you have no rights to this alleged debt. Forward me your proof justifying your recently added credit report listing or delete within 5 days. I was also going to reference the fact that they added a new listing without contacting me within 5 days of doing so thereby violating FDCPA 809.
If Asset purchased the debt why would it matter if you woke up the OC? They're out of the picture aren't they? Also, I thought I read a thread about the CRA's holding back for a while before listing a TL. If that's the case for whatever reason you might want to dispute it with the CRA first or at the same time even. Jumpstart the paper trail. I had similar questions and didn't get any opinions so after both CA' reported/verified/updated I finally just decided to DV both of them so that either one will see their error or if both provide validation I figure I'll ITS the older one because it's just not logical that the same $ can be claimed by 2 people. I'm looking for law that backs that up but until then I"m just leading them into giving me all the proof to sue them! So far one has only sent half validation but it was the important part the assignment letter Give them enough rope... Good Luck!
Re: Re: 2 CA and 1 debt. HUH? Very true but Asset has no original account records. Maybe this CA does? While that shouldn't matter, the CA may write the OC and say, we have these records showing that this person owes the debt and that we can collect on this debt. Now, he is saying someone else bought it. What is going on? The OC may say we sold it but now they may then forward those records to Asset since Asset previously requested them and the OC claims they don't have them. I know, it is very far stretched but it is no less a possibility. In my opinion, since I know for sure this CA doesn't own the debt, there is no need to request validation from them. They just need to be told, I think, that look, if this debt existed, which it doesn't, you don't have any right to collect. Delete it or I will sue you! Equifax seems hold out the longest while TU seems to move the quickest. When a company asks TU to delete a TL, it seems to be done the next day. When Equifax is asked the same, it seems to take weeks. I have seen this trend over and over. In fact, the CA that just started listing on my Equifax (the one that has no right to the debt) previously listed on TU. However, it only appeared for one day and was gone the next. They very well may have listed the debt with EQ at the same time (which was about three weeks ago) but it is just now showing. Although they may have told EQ to delete, it may take weeks before it falls off. My suggestion would be to ask both of them for records between them and the OC giving them the right to collect. Whichever one shows a later date of assignment or purchase has got to be the "real" collector. If you know for sure one isn't a valid collector (as I do in this case), simply contacting the fake and telling them show me proof you actively have the right to collect should be sufficient because as soon as they contact the OC, the OC will say we sold that debt...fix your old outdated records. In every sense of the word, a CA that no longer has rights but continues to try to collect is definately violating FDCPA 809 as the debt is invalid. It sounds like you are on the right track!
Re: Re: 2 CA and 1 debt. HUH? Asset bought a debt about a year ago and has been listing it on my Equifax report as $0 past due, N/A, etc. However, a different CA just began listing this debt on Equifax claiming they were assigned the debt in 2000. SUNHAWK ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- BUMP
1*Asset bought a debt about a year ago and has been listing it on my Equifax report as $0 past due, N/A, etc. 2**However, a different CA just began listing this debt on Equifax claiming they were assigned the debt in 2000. SUNHAWK ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> 1* How can assett have a debt with a 0 balance ? With no balance there is no debt. 2*How can this CA now list a collection from 2000 that has been with another CA since 2003?
SUNHAWK: Don't look at the age of the trade line, but when it was UPDATED... If the CA hasn't updated the trade line, then it is more than likely that this CA does not delete when an account is recalled. I would personally still request VD from this CA as a CYA before you request the dispute with the CRA, because then you have a sure violation if they do verify the account. How agressive I would get would depend on the amount, and age of the account, if the SOL has tolled (or is close to tolling), there is nothing to lose, and possibly a few points to be gained.
Has any contact or personal information changed on your credit report? In cases where old accounts just started to report, that I have personally seen; the scenereo is something like, Company A provides the trade line with address xyz; which doesn't match what the CRA is showing close enough for them to be certain that the trade line is yours, so it is 'reported' but 'supressed'... If your contact information or whatever the CRA supressed because of later matches, they remove the supression flag, and it appears. It's not truely new, but it looks new.
Exactly....I brought this up in another post. If they are a debt buyer and no debt exists, how can they report anything? Apparently though they feel listing $0 past due and $0 balance is okay. Exactly...my question too I already sent them an ITS and they have another 5 days to respond.
On Equifax, it has the date assigned and this is what I have been paying attention to. The CA that just started listing says they were assigned the debt in 2000. However, Asset bought it in 2003 so they are obviously at fault here. However, for some reason, it didn't show up on my Equifax report until March of 2004 even though it was added in November of 2003. At that time, the status and balance dates were also updated. But, I have never had any contact with them nor have they ever contacted me which definately means they are reporting false information. There was no reason for them to update the status to 11/03 since the debt was sold before that and they had no right to it. The SOL expires in 3 months but they have no right to be reporting anything. I definately will be following through with my ITS on this one. They are clearly violating FDCPA Section 812(a) (along with other things). In my ITS, I noted that I disputed the debt and the account. I have also subsequently disputed with Equifax but I have initiated so many disputes with Equifax, they pretty much ignore one out of every two. This is why I thinking of suing them if Asset and this new CA won't delete. However, I just learned, in another one of my threads, that Equifax likes to play hardball and will definately lock me out of my report if I initiate suit.
No contact / personal info has changed in 1 year. What is funny however is Asset claims they were given, from the OC, an address that I have never lived at. In fact, it is my parent's address. The OC would have never had this address. Asset has the incorrect spelling of my name and address. All they basically have is my SSN. No contract, account history, or accurate personal info but yet continue to list $0 past due and $0 balance. I know if I sue in small claims, they will just bump it up to general and drag it out forever. This address appears no where on my reports yet Equifax, when responding to my dispute, states that Asset compared my address on my report with the address in their files. That is impossible since the address they have doesn't appear on my file. But you are correct, it is not new as my Equifax shows it was reporting in 11/03 (but just appeared this month) so it was definately suppressed. However, it makes me believe that Equifax is already starting to try to play hardball because they have already received the ITS regarding this tradeline. They probably feel, well, if he is going to sue us, let's unsuppress the other one then.
lol I don't know why, but you guy's have me so confused I can't even see straight. Maybe I'm more tired than I think. Is it just me? lol .
