Asset Acceptance was listing an account on my Equifax credit report that I disputed twice as account not mine. (This account was actually added during the validation period!!!). They verified both times and updated the account as $0 past due and everything else as N/A. They also notated it as "DISPUTE RESOLUTION PENDING." I sent them a letter with a copy of the US v. Capital Management case stating that, if they have no original account records, they must delete or I am suing. They had already sent me a letter stating they had no original account records to verify their collection activites but would forward them to me as soon as they got them. They never forwarded them because they never had any. However, after my letter, not only did they not delete, they contacted the original creditor and had them place a new tradeline on my Trans Union report. This trade line is NOT under Asset Acceptance's name but rather the original creditor. The funny thing however is the account number they are listing on the original creditor account does not match the account number that Asset stated was the original acount number. Previously, Asset themselves were listing this collection account on my Trans Union report and I got it deleted. This is therefore why they contacted the original creditor since they could not get it re-added under their name. The thing is, in my state, the SOL is 6 years. The debt is for just under a $1000. The problem is, I don't know when the clock started. Asset listed on my equifax report that the date of last activity was 3/1998. However, in the computer print out they sent me, it said date of last payment was 8/1998 but next to the abbreviation srv: it says 3/1998. I don't know what srv refers to or why the date of last activity on the credit report does not match the date of last payment on the print out. I am guessing the situation is that Asset does not have original account records BUT the original creditor may. I don't know why but this is often the case. This may be because Asset may just call them up and say do you have original account records to prove this debt is his? Yes? Okay..we are verifying even though they never actually touch the records themselves. The above referenced court case states: In any situation where the defendant either knows that no original records exist, or is informed by the original creditor that no records exist, the defendant shall, within five business days after receiving the consumer dispute, notify all consumer reporting agencies to which the information has been provided that the information is to be deleted from the file of the consumer who has disputed the account It does not say the collection agency has to obtain original account records, it just says if the defendant knows that no records exist or is told by the OC that no records exist, they must delete. Well, calling the OC on the phone and stating do you have original accounts records and they say yes may be considered verifying the listing with original account records (despite never actually having them). Asset says they don't have any (and can't get any) but the original creditor may which makes me afraid that they may then give Asset these records. I really want to sue CFC for all their violations but only after the SOL runs out but I have no idea how to determine it if everything I have says something different. What would you recommend? I was going to do the following: 1) Write a complaint to my states attorney general along with the department that regulates collection agencies. I was going to tell them all the nasty things Asset has done including adding the forementioned Equifax trade line DURING the validation period. Since Asset won't respond to my letters, I know they will respond to theirs. I will then get their stance on why they won't delete. 2) Simultaneously, dispute the OC tradeline through Trans Union online as account not mine. 3) Simultaneously, write the OC an intent to sue letter asking them to forward me all original account records related to this account or to delete thier tradeline. My worry is that, these records may be heavily burried therefore, they may discover things in response to step #3 that maybe they would not discover in response to step #2 leading to the tradeline being verified? But then again, these records may have already been found given Asset's failure to delete even after notifying them they have no original account records and given the OC's new tradeline. On the other hand, Asset still lists the balance as $0 and $0 past due meaning if they did have original account records, they would have probably updated it by now. So, what would you recommend my next step be? I have not dealt with an OC in years because they always handed off the debts to collection agencies. This is the first time I have ever had a collection agency contact the OC to place a tradeline. Should I just dispute the tradeline with trans union online? Or, should I write the OC and request original account records? Or, should I write trans union and tell them this account was previously deleted and now the colletion agency is trying to play games by having the account re-added under a different heading to avoid Trans Union's computers from preventing the new tradeline?
Hey Sunhawk, I didn't see this post. You're asking a TON of "behind the scene" type questions which can be answered ONLY through discovery. The important thing is they've already committed numerous demonstrable violations. You don't need any more. Let me think about this one. .
Save your brain power Due to the way PG reportes TU tradelines, it appeared like it was from the OC but it was actually from the CA...but not Asset (the person that owns the debt but rather CCA / Creditpac). Weird but it only showed up for one day and was gone so I'm not worried about it. You can check out my UCC thread on sales contracts though...Don't understand what those are. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=407213#post407213
You need to check out the appeals court affirmation last week on johnson v. mbna If the DATA FURNISHER can not do a searching inquiry of the actual original information, the DATA FURNISHER must in the least reply that they can not conclusively verify (which requires that the CRAs delete). Just looking at their computer, crystal ball, or other devinition device DOES NOT WORK!
At least now we have conclusive case-law to reply with when they say, "We're reporting what is on our systems, that is all we have to do." -- I bet you $90,300.00 you're wrong.
