CA response insufficient

Did you never have an account with the original creditor? What was the original debt for, and how would you refute their claim that it is your account?

If it's not your account, clearly leaving it disputed indefinitely is not acceptable.

 

Did the CA actually provide any information on statements or letterhead from the original phone company, or provide the original phone number or account number, or was what they provided just their own printout?

Have you checked with the original creditor, the phone company, to see whose name the account was actually in? Is there a distinction in the phone company records between the party responsible for the account, and other names to be listed in the phone book under that number? Is the CA collecting from you based on your phone book listing, not on account responsibility?

The CA has implied that you opened this account, or that the account was opened in your name. You know you did not agree to open any account, and it would be pretty brazen for a roommate to open an account in your name while you were living in the house and likely to see incoming mail. That leaves 2 possibilities:

1) One of your roommates opened the account in both their name, and possibly the names of the other housemates (phone accounts are often opened by phone, with no paper application, and the single SSN of the person opening the account would probably be enough to do it).

2) If it is unlikely that the party opening the account had access to your SSN, and you didn't provide your SSN since you didn't open the account, then perhaps the CA added your SSN to support their attempt to collect from you.

Although the CA provided you with your name and SSN, implying that you had opened the account and that the SSN came from the person opening the account, they might also have simply checked databases to see who lived at that address, and just billed any names that came up, particularly if the person actually on the account was not findable. With a phone account at an address often rented to college students, it might not even be from the period when you were there.

The whole thing appears suspicious. Is it misuse (identify theft) of your identifying information by the party opening the account? Or is it misuse (identity theft) by the CA to attempt to fraudulently collect on the account from you?

If the phone company says your name isn't on the account, it points to the latter.

When was the last payment made on the account, and how much are they attempting to collect?

 

The original creditor would normally obtain the SSN of the party opening the account, in order to pull a credit report, and would have a legitimate right to have that information in their records.

In sending you a piece of paper with your name and SSN on it in response to your request for validation, the CA has represented that this information was obtained from the OC, and part of the OC's records for the account.

A CA who has not obtained the name and SSN from the original creditor, might run afoul of criminal penalties for illegal possession and use of identity information present in many states' laws if they later obtained and used SSN information to deceptively coerce payment from a party not on the account.

This appears similar to the sort of deceptive FDCPA violations that CAMCO engaged in to collect from consumers not responsible for debts, before they were shut down.

 

Is this an account that the CA bought and is collecting on itself, or is it still owned by the phone company, and just assigned to the CA?

 

By the way, there have been "CA"s attempting to collect on old alleged debts, based solely on a phone number lookup to the present holder of that phone number.

 

At this point they have not sent you acceptable validation. Leaving the TL in dispute indefinitely is not acceptable. You want to force them to remove the TL by disputing thru the CRA, or if they still verify the TL to the CRA, when they have not obtained and sent you validation, whether they mark the account in dispute or not, you want to be able to hang them on these FDCPA and FCRA violations.

Did you dispute this account with the CRA(s) following their receipt of your request for validation, your redsputing of their "validation", and their receiving your dispute via your complaint to FTC?

It is this continued collection, combined with willfull erroneous reporting, with no adequate validation sent to you, that you use to get them to settle for real or statutory damages.

 

If, as you say, you know you did not open the account, then it is in your interest to push the issue, to AG complaints, police reports, and to court if necessary. Otherwise, it will just hop from JDB to JDB, with the negative TL staying on your reports, or one of them will sue. Either way, you will be financially damaged on an on-going basis, and may need to deal with it in court, or pay a debt you don't owe if, say, you are trying to get a mortgage.

If the CA owns the account, the CA got quiet since they know that phone accounts are often opened fraudulently, and they have to decide if it is worth it going to court and possibly having the debt found to be fraudulent, or quietly just selling it to another CA, while pretending they don't know anything is wrong with it.

If they are ethical, they will stop collection until they obtain what they claim is validation of the debt, which you could then use to show it is fraudulent, or not opened by you. But if they were ethical, and legal, they would have removed the TL while requesting validation from the OC to send you, and they have instead marked the TL in dispute. That is a hint at their likely compliance with other aspects of law.

At this point, they could claim it is just "disputed", and sell it in what CAs consider "good faith", but if you send a police report, claiming identity theft, it likely becomes worthless, and under FACTA they are supposed to remove the TL, and not sell the account. It becomes waste paper.

You are starting to get the game being played. FTC complaints and police id theft reports are things they don't want, and they may attempt to deflect or maintain that they never received verbal, or even written disputes.

They will also claim you can't do, or have to do, various things, or that they have no obligation to do various things that the law clearly requires. If there is any excuse for ignoring your dispute, or your claim of fraud, they will use it. No doesn't mean no unless there is a consequence. Right or wrong, the law doesn't make anyone follow it, and you as the consumer will have to learn out how to force the issue.

Their goal is to make it appear "easier" to pay, even on debts you don't owe. Money collected from the debtor, and money collected from the wrong party, are the same at the end of the day.

 

Keep in mind, however, if this account was opened fraudulently, and it went to court, what you would want to seek under discovery would be the records of payments made. Whether made by credit card, or by check, they would show someone else was paying the account, if it was paid at all.

At this point, you don't even know if it was really opened in your name, or if they are trying to collect from you based on records of your address. What did the OC say about whether they showed your name on an account, or an account opened under your SSN? Even if they sold it, they would keep track of who stiffed them.

 

If this account was in fact opened by someone using your name and SSN, they could similarly open other accounts in your name. Do any unexpected accounts, inquiries, or identifying information such as erroneous DOB, address, or employer information show up on any of your reports, indicating additional fraudulent information?

You might also ask the phone company what information they ask for from people opening accounts. They may have SSN, but do they ask for DOB, mother's maiden name? CA gave no indication they had this. Was this because OC didn't collect it, or because what they have did not match your actual identification information?

(Obviously, don't provide them any such information they don't have. You would reserve that for court.)

 

Their refusal to provide any other information, while wanting to "make a deal" hints that they know there is something wrong with this account.

At this point, they have received your second request for validation, and confirmed their receipt to you. Dispute thru all CRAs that show their tradeline. If they verify, you then have the basis for an FDCPA suit for continued collection without validation. Also, be sure to keep copies of these CRs showing their tradelines, if later you need to document and prove damages.

You should also file a police report for identity theft. You know you did not open this account, and they have identified you as the "debtor" based on your name and SSN. That indicates identity theft, the unauthorized misuse of your identity information by others, regardless of whether you know who did it.

If you are claiming identity theft, they don't have to cooperate until you present a copy of the police report. Even with it, they may not be cooperative, but you will then file complaints with state AG, local DA, and/or FTC.

When presented with your claim of identity theft, along with a copy of the police report, under FACTA, the CRAs are required to block and remove false information resulting from identity theft, and the CAs are prohibited from reporting or selling such accounts. They are also supposed to cooperate with your investigation by providing information in their records on the account that might assist you in preventing further id theft. It's the DA's job to catch or prosecute the perpetrators, not yours.

Was this a phone landline, or a cell phone account? How long ago did it go delinquent? Where was it allegedly opened? How much are they attempting to collect?

What was the other information you saw on your reports that led to placing a fraud alert?