Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val Good point. I will reword it to 'Until you are able to validate this debt for me...'. I worded it the way I did to give an image of passiveness to see if they would create more violations, as I will explain in my next post... -WC-
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val Yes, it says walk over me, but I was trying to keep the violations coming but get them in writing. To date, they have done the following: 1) I asked for verification of the debt, to which the collector said that he refused to do that, that he would just sue me instead for the full amount vs settlement. 2) I asked to not be called and get things in writing - to which he said I was playing games and that he would just sue me since I was toying with him by troubling him. 3) I beleive threatening suit and not suing is a violation. 4) He stated that delay in settling will make the damage on the credit report worse. He even went so far as to threaten that this will restrict ability to get mortgage and car, etc. Threats are violations, no? 5) The new collection TL he's got in my TU has a starting date of 2 months ago, so I guess that TL has the ability to stay in my CR for 7 years if not checked. 6) My state (WI) has a 6 year SOL, which would make this debt past the SOL, but I have no idea when the debt went bad so I don't know when it was written off. 7) Contact to date has only been via phone, never was a mini-miranda mailed to me. I only recently got something in writing (fax) when I requested a fax settlement offer be sent to me. It was the only way to get the address to send my VL CRRR to them. As for this smelling fishy, yes, I told him that this smells of a scam and that I need more info than his word. His reply was, 'check out your TU, you'll see the TL reference on there'. I told him anyone can get my CR and try to claim a settlement on a debt. His reply was 'see you in court' and he hung up. (He's hung up on me and my wife a lot). The CA in question is NCO. -WC-
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val Since your CR shows both the CC TL, and the CA TL, both should report the date account went delinquent. The 2 dates should also agree. Errors in chargeoff date were what NCO just got fined for by FTC. New FCRA apparently lets CA off the hook for errors in this date, as long as it agrees with previously reported OC date. (OC would presumably be liable for its own errors.) What does CRA tell you about both dates?
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val I am new to this as you can tell - but no where on the TU CR is there a listing of the date the debt was written off. OC: Date opened, 09/1997 Date reported: 01/2003 No two year payment history Profit and loss writeoff. Limit $500 Balance $1659 CA: Date opened, 03/2004 Date reported: 04/2004 Collection account Orig Balance: $1659 Balance: $3178 No where is there a writeoff date on transunion... Any suggestions? -WC-
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val btw: This copy of the credit report is one that I got online from Transunion, and it's the pretty version as opposed to the raw data format that I've seen in years past. Might there be more relevant data on the raw report - or do they not offer the raw, less consumer friendly version? -WC-
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val This is an interesting question: Is there a difference between the "credit report" that the CRAs sell to dumb consumers, the credit reports they sell to their user customers, and reports provided under requests for "all information in your files", under �§ 609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. �§ 1681g] (a) Information on file; sources; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to 610(a)(1) [�§ 1681h], clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer: (1) All information in the consumer's file at the time of the request, ... What experience have people had comparing credit reports bought by consumers directly from CRAs with credit reports bought by creditors or CAs?
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val The following is a link to the FTC-NCO Consent Decree. They are required to track "disputes", particularly regarding original delinquency dates. Perhaps your caller is trying to coerce payment while discouraging your dispute, without leaving any written trail of a dispute, or even disclosing to you that you have a right to dispute. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/9923012/040513ncoco9923012.pdf If you send a written dispute, be sure to CRRR, and raise all possible identity, legitimacy, and accuracy issues. Summarize your phone conversations with their caller, and their threats and refusal to validate, or even provide their address. If they respond with inadequate information, or don't respond, don't drop the issue. Send an additional request pointing out what they failed to provide, including your first request and their response. Then send this along with a complaint to the FTC to complete your paper trail. At some point bluffs deserve to be called.
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val I know, I believe it is an attempt to try to collect on a debt that isn't verifiable, bought for almost nothing. I suspect that it will all go away quickly once this letter gets to them. If not, let the violations keep coming. I'll keep reading this site and cleaning up my credit (which I've been wanting to do for a long time..). I guess I have to thank NCO for getting the ball rolling for me. Here's the new letter, sending out later today: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- NCO Financial Systems, INC Collection Division 507 Prudential Road Horsham, PA 19044 File#: <myfile#> Creditor, Acct#, Bal Due: NCO/Bank One / <acct#> / $<3.2k> Certified Mail #: #### #### #### #### #### To whom it may concern- I just wanted to state that I received your fax offer of settlement (attached). I have also received a copy of my Trans Union credit report. I have found both the First Bank USA entry as well as the entry NCO has placed on my account for this debt. I am formally requesting a few things from NCO before I am able to consider your settlement offer because I do not recognize the account in question and require the following items in order to ensure the validity of your claim. Note that this is not a refusal to pay. 1. The original signed contract between myself and the creditor of the alleged account. 2. Complete payment history from beginning to end of the account in question. 3. The address that this credit card was registered to and bills being sent to. 4. Name and address of the original creditor. 5. Explanation as to whether you own this debt or are acting as a collector for creditor. If you own this debt, I would like to know what company sold it to you. If you are acting as a collector, I want to know which company has hired you to do so. I have asked you in phone communications (between <ca jerk> and I) for the above items to verify and validate that the account in question is truly mine, to which you refused with the reply that you are in the collection business and not the verification business. I politely request that you reconsider that stance immediately. I also am going to formally request that you immediately cease and desist from calling my home, work, cell, and not fax me anymore. I want any and all communications from your company for now on to be written and sent to me via United States postal mail. Until you verify this debt is mine, I would like for you to immediately remove from my credit report the following: 1. The NCO collections account line 2. The inquiry you made on my credit report. Thank you- <me> May 20, 2004
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val The open date is not the date that is supposed to be used to calculate the reporting period, but what you want to do is print out all of the documentation regarding the NCO settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, and dispute their trade line because of their settlement for providing false information to the credit reporting agencies. Once they receive the validation letter, they can't verify until after they've validated.
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val The key things you want from them to determine the validity, amount, and collectability of the debt are: Names on the account Date account opened Address and other identifying information from opening account, such as SSN, DOB, etc. Address to which last statement was sent Amount and date of last payment Balance after last payment Current claimed balance due The above would help establish whether it is even your account or someone elses. If they are jerking you around, either regarding the identity on the account, the SOL, or the legally collectible fees, and they provide the above falsely, say, based on YOUR current credit report information, they are using deception to collect a debt, whether it is due from you or someone else. FDCPA violation. You are still too polite. "I also am going to formally request " and "I am formally requesting a few things from NCO before I am able to consider your settlement offer" still imply begging. Nor do you even need to say "Note that this is not a refusal to pay." This is not a grant proposal they have sent you. Be direct, but not rude. This letter should make clear that they are avoiding any reasonable validation of the debt. What written communication have you received from them? Did you ask for a settlement offer from them, and did their settlement offer, or any written communication from them, include a "mini-Miranda" notice that you can dispute the debt?
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val I know it sounds like begging, but I haven't done this enough to take that hard stance yet. In 30 days I'll be much more confident and give the more agressive stance when they don't have things validated quick enough, which is what I am sure will happen... As for anything in writing, they would not give anything in writing until I told them that I wouldn't consider a settlement until I got it in writing from them. Then they were all too happy to fax me their quick settlement offer. I then used that offer to take the address off it to send them the VL. I just sent it today CRRR. As for the mini-miranda, there was nothing about how to dispute the debt. It was solely an offer amount by XX date. It closed with: "This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. this is a communication from a debt collector." -WC-
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val As soon as you know they received the validation letter, start disputing their entries, if you want to catch them in a violation (especially now that they are vulnerable on the date innacuracies, and compliance monitoring provisions of the settlement.)
Re: Re: Re: CA (a major one) refuses to val You have sent your validation request. Did they at any time provide you the following, in writing: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 �§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
: CA (a major one) refuses to val 1) I asked for verification of the debt, to which the collector said that he refused to do that, that he would just sue me instead for the full amount vs settlement. 5) The new collection TL he's got in my TU has a starting date of 2 months ago, so I guess that TL has the ability to stay in my CR for 7 years if not checked. 6) My State (WI) has a 6 year SOL, which would make this debt past the SOL, but I have no idea when the debt went bad so I don't know when it was written off. 7) The CA in question is NCO. -WC-''''''' ::::::: """"""""""""" 1*1000 violation if they do Refusal to provide validation is a good indication they can't prove the debt. How are they going to get either amount if they don't validate wither they sue or not? 5*1000 for reaging 6*so what would they gain if they sued you? 7*Have you heard about their recent run in with the FTC? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Pulled TU CR, here's details of this debt: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= OC: <major CC company> Opened Sept 1997 Date Reported: 01/01/2003 Limit $500 Balance $1659 Status: Chargeoff as bad debt, profit and loss writeoff =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CA: <major collection agency> Date opened 3/2004 Date reported: 04/2004 Original Balance: $1659 Balance: $3178 ==================================== REAGING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to check with TU to see what date is on file as the date charged off, and what date the TL is due to come off. None of the dates you have appear to be this. It seems to be an increasing problem that the CRAs do not clearly report this date, resulting in problems just like yours.
Success! NCO sent me a snail mail letter (2004-06-22) saying they have closed the above account and removed it from my credit report. Not sure who the compliance department is, or what it means to be a 'successor in interest to', but it all worked out and posting this to benefit others. Here's the letter they sent me: <date> <my info> re: NCO Portfolio Management, Inc as successor in interest to Bank One <acct #> <reference #> Dear me: Thank you for your letter regarding the above referenced account. Please be advised that the above referenced account is closed in our office. In addition, please be advised that we have contacted the credit bureaus with which we do business with our reqquest to delete our listing of the above referenced acount from your credit profile for SS# <my SS#>. Please be advised that NCO Fin Systems, Inc cannot affect a change to how any other company may have listed the above account on your credit profile. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your inquiry. Very truly yours- <name> Compliance Department Thanks so much Creditnet!! -WC-
If you still believe this was never your account, you still have the original CC company TL on your report, as well as the inquiry from NCO. Since NCO has provided no validation on the account, are you intending to work on removing the original TL, or asking NCO to notify the CRA that the report was pulled in error, and remove their inquiry? Did you ever determine the date of original delinquency?
From NCO's letter, although they may remove their TL, they may also be selling the "account" to another CA. If you believe this is not your account, how will you prevent an account with your contact information (SSN, etc.) from being passed on to scummier and scummier CAs, costing you added harassment, CR inquiries, and time to straighten out?
