Here's the sequence of events: 1) Sent the nutcase out to a paid collection CMRRR. They didn't sign for it, and it was sent back. 2) Waited 30 days, then faxed nutcase 2 out to CA, again asking for validation or delete. 3) Just got a letter from the CA saying they got my fax, but they they can't find the accounts. They are asking for my SSN, the original creditor, and my billing address. My question is: 1) I pulled the account numbers directly off the tradeline they put in my credit reports. How can they not find the information, yet still report to the CRAs? 2) What should I send them next? Deacon
The format of the account number may be unique for each one of their 'clients' (OCs). I would send the OC name, the account number that the CA has assigned to the debt, they have your address already (Duh, it's on the envelope and/or in the letter, I assume). I would send nothing more.
Sometimes credit reports don't have complete account numbers. It's not uncommon for a credit report to only have 12 digits of a 16 digit account number. Also, the internal system of the collection agency may have extra digits, leading zeros, etc. They may not be able to find the account with just the information you provided. When I was a bill collector, I worked for a national company that handled a lot of clients. These accounts were on different networks, and someone working accounts for creditor A wouldn't be able to look up accounts for creditors B,C or D. If someone called in on a wrong phone line, it was a real pain to transfer them to someone who could look up their account. Asking for a social security number and the original creditor is not unreasonable. If they account is paid, they can't do anything with that information except help you out. You don't lose anything by giving it to them, and you may just get what you want.
I'm not doing their job for them. Apparently they had enough of my info to validate when I disputed with the CRA. To me, that means they have enough of my information to find my account without my help. I will wait as if I never got their letter, then move to an ITS. I'll also send a copy of the letter to the CRAs, asking how they validated if the CA can't find my account. Thanks guys. Deacon
Re: Re: CA "needs more information"? I don't understand what you think you lose by giving them information. The purpose of the nutcase letters is to get them to delete your tradelines to make you go away. If they can't find your account, they can't do that. The CRAs had your social security number. They probably knew who the OC was too. The CRA was able to validate because they provided more information than you did. If they can't connect the nutcase letters to your account, it's the same as if you never sent them.
Re: Re: CA "needs more information"? Deacon, I think the smartest thing you can do right now is put yourself in a position to exploit the fact that they may not be able to find this account. You would do that by re disputing with the CRA's. Since you've done that already and it was verified the best way to do that is to demand procedures, while at the same time re disputing. Chances are one of 2 things have happened. 1) The cra didn't really investigate. They simply stamped it verified and moved on to "more pressing matters", or; 2) they did investigate and in the process of the CSR (at the CA) looking the account info. up, the file somehow got moved or misplaced, (technologically speaking of course). If this is the case they will not be able to verify again, during this 2nd dispute, and it should be removed. Using this technique does not guarantee success, but it does dramatically multiply your chances. You're attacking the problem from several different angles simultaneously, one of which is the most likely to have occurred scenario. The account may have been misplaced and now won't be found You're demanding the procedures used to verify the first dispute Since they probably didn't investigate the first time, they damn sure will now. You've demonstrated that you're not an idiot. The CRA's will be a little more reluctant to treat you like one The fact that they may not have investigated the first time is covered by your demand for procedures I have a good feeling about this one. Just put the CA on hold for now and re dispute with the CRA's, while demanding procedures. Also, in your procedures demand be sure to request the name and address and telephone number of the person who allegedly verified the first time. They must supply this info. (if reasonably available) but ONLY if you request it. § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (6) Notice of results of reinvestigation. ........ (iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available ... That's why I hate this procedures letter in the library. Also, this puts you in a great position for the unlikely contingency that they DO verify. This time it will be because the CA really did verify it, yet you have your letter that states they can't even find it. With that ammo., a quick ITS should finish them off once and for all. It also puts you in a GREAT position to hammer the CRA's. Your procedures demand for the first dispute is due, by law, within 15 days. Yet the second dispute has, by law, 30 days. Really think they'll comply with both? lol Nope, they won't. Now you'll have a legal argument on one of the 2 violations against the CRA's. Good luck. Keep us posted.
How about sending an ITS for knowingly posting false and erroneous information in your CRA file in violation of FCRA? If they can't find your file when you dispute it or demand validation, how will they find it if you pay it or sue them? I wouldn't give them anything but an ITS letter.
Re: Re: Re: CA "needs more information"? You sure on that? The way I read it, they couldn't find his account because they didn't have enough information to find it. The CRAs won't have that problem. I'm sure they don't need everything they're asking for, but they do need more than just the account number from the credit report.
