I've been fighting with CA #1 on an account since July, they spit out a 'verification' fax allegedly from the OC dated from 1998 to allow them to 'verify' with TU and EX in July. (They still verified with Ex a day earlier than they sent out the verification anyhow, so they still have 1 violation on that.) I sent a letter saying that this isn't good enough, they spit out another letter demanding payment. I wait for a 'validation' response. The end of Oct, I get a letter from CA #2 stating "The above named creditor, OC, has assigned this account to our offices for collection." Now, I sent out a this is already under a validation request, validation request; and surprise, surprise, surprise guess what CA #2 did... Their 'verification' was a letter from CA #1, on CA #1's letter head, the same 'verification' fax that CA #1 had sent in July. CA #2 said they would only 'pend' the account for 10 days for my payment (undercutting the 30 day limit, by a few days, and they still didn't validate.) Sent CA #2, the same letter edited for them that I sent CA #1, and emphasized that the same documents that CA #1 had sent and were notified that were insufficient is not validation, and that there are numerous discrepencies that only the original statements from the original creditor will resolve. Am I correct that if CA #2 was in fact assigned by the Original Creditor as CA #2 claimed in their letter, that they would have obtained their validation from the OC as Wollman requires anyhow. So the claim that they were assigned by the OC would be an additional violation for making a False & Misleading Representation. Anyhow, as a CYA, I sent a complaint to the FTC, 2 State AGs Offices, and 2 BBBs Offices; outlining a discrepency of over $600 of the approx $640 that they're 'claiming' that is owed; to ensure that both CAs and the OC are put on notice that if CA #2 attempts any activity when the 10 days that CA #2 'pend'ed the account for that I'ld have a little bit of coverage. Luckily, if either CA #1, or CA #2 tries anything the account is past SOL anyhow, but...
CA #1 can't "validate", since they are not OC. Only OC can validate, since they are original creditor.
That sounds like a sherman trick.. Anyways, CA#2 is misrepresenting the fact that OC#1 is the OC. And sending false validation. Check to make sure they are not both on your reports.
re: ca #1 'validate'; i know that, you know that, they know that, but they think that we're dumb enough to not know that... re: ca #2 isn't showing up on the credit report, i've been watching them like a hawk... i am hoping that ca #2 likes to keep their squeaky clean BBB report, and hopefully they should have been contacted by either the bbb or the pa ags office by now... ca #1, has such a bad bbb profile that i am not expecting anything favorable from them, but hopefully between the pa ag, and the utah ag, they can make some headway through their head...
1*Their 'verification' was a letter from CA #1, on CA #1's letter head, the same 'verification' fax that CA #1 had sent in July. 2*CA #2 said they would only 'pend' the account for 10 days for my payment (undercutting the 30 day limit, by a few days, and they still didn't validate.) jam237 ================ 1*This won't work-Has to come from CO. 2*1000 violation. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
