the law says they are not to perform any further collection activity until they validate. crowmom ========================= Hiding says this only applies if you send the CA the VL within 30 days. If you dent it after 30 days you're Out a luck. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> White out
the law says they are not to perform any further collection activity until they validate. crowmom ========================= Hiding says this only applies if you send the CA the VL within 30 days. If you sent it after 30 days you're Out a luck. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <>
This is all really helpful. Just to clarify, I have not taken any action yet. I have not accepted their settlement offer because they did not agree to deletion. I may be wrong about the re-aging, after all. But I don't know. Apparently, the date used by Experian (verified with a phone call) is something called the "date of original delinquency". This field is not even viewable on the consumer version of the report. Experian verified for me the date of original delinquency on this collection account, and it appears to be correct. So there may not be re-aging after all. But my FAKOs (haven't run real FICOs yet) look way too low and my other derogs are not that bad that I'm really thinking that their reports of "opened date" or "status date" really ARE affecting me.
Why are the CRAs not providing the date of original delinquency as reported by the creditor when they provide a report to a consumer?
they very well may be. despite what people say, no one really knows what & how things affect your scores. do you have a lot of inquiries from creditors who denied you? that can really bring your scores down. besides having derogs that 'are not that bad'...do you have many positive TLs? how about debt ratios? are your CCs maxed out? you probably already realize there are lots of factors (besides the ones i just listed) that will bring down your scores.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment good question. DH just had to call exp to get the dola (or should it be called dold now? lol) on a BofA account. DH wouldnt ask why its not on the report to begin with.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment Fair enough. I have a lot of factors to look at. Stupid PrivacyGuard tri-merge reports are no help. I have to wait for my actual reports from EQ and TU before I can confirm some more. This thread is interesting. If the actual field used to determine the 7-year is not visible to the consumer, is it visible to potential creditors? And furthermore, which agency uses which field to determine the 7-year? I now know for certain that Experian, at least, uses a hidden field called "date of original delinquency". Anyone know the identities of the fields used by EQ or TU?
I believe Hiding is correct. Here's FDCPA 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. (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. Notice how many times the section mentions the thirty days.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment Yes, but it doesn't appear to specifically prohibit validation of the debt at any time after the thirty days. If it did, all of the talk about validation on this message board would be for nought.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment Yes, but it doesn't appear to specifically prohibit validation of the debt at any time after the thirty days. If it did, all of the talk about validation on this message board would be for nought.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment I wish we had some case law. I haven't been able to find any. As the statute is written, it doesn't allow for all the times a person is never contacted at all by a CA.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment Go to the FTC web site and go through their information. You can request validation at any time. When I'm not so busy I'll try to go look up a couple and link them.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment Yeah I know but what I don't know is why hiding is mixed up about it.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment No he's not correct . Click on the new bee link in my signature below and read the validation thread. the 30 day thingy is explained in detail there.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment sometimes it takes a few reads for things to 'click'. It did for me anyway, lol. Read it again. All it's saying is that a CA must send a letter to a debtor w/in 5 days of initial communication that says 'if you dont dispute this in the next 30 days, we can assume it is a valid debt.' and, if you read (c) again, you'll see that just because an alleged debtor does not dispute w/in those 30 days, the debt does not automatically become valid.
Re: Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment Wonder why 90 Can't Seem to Grasp this? BTY where is 90 lately he must be hiding. l o l
Re: Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment Wonder why 90 Can't Seem to Grasp this? BTY where is 90 lately he must be hiding.
Re: Re: CA won't agree to delete on payment the debt does not automatically become valid. Originally posted by crowmom ********************************************** Since the validity of the debt remains questionable one still retains the right of proof before paying. Once you demand the proof the CA is faced with one of 2 options . A* Furnish the proof as requested now . B* Supply it in court latter when either you or the CA files suit. Note A&B are independant of any 30 days. ======================================== NOTE: Since the debt doesn't automatically become valid so to the means to contest it does not automatically become invalid. Since the debt don't automatically become valid what has to be done to make it become legit? You guessed it. It must be proven! And who has to prove it - the CA of course. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
