yes the account was opened prior to dec 1997 making the charge off date the beginning of the 7 year reporting period... which was 210 days later than legally applicable... in terms of accounts sent to collection or reported to a cra as a collection: there must be something governing this... what would stop anyone from shipping accounts off to collection that are 30 days late? instead of lates we would have charge offs left and rigth, if this were the case... so instead of a simple 'not true' do you have any supporting commentary or anything to that affect to help me out on this? i am suddenly very curious.. unless i have just misinterpreted the point of this thread (which i have been known to do...)
Re: Re: Collection Agency rules There is nothing in the FCRA or FDCPA, or anywhere else for that matter (that I know of) that precludes creditors from sending debts out to CA's when they are even one day late. Now! There might be STATE laws that disallow these shenanigans, but I'm not familiar with those. Don't confuse collections and CO's. Two different animals. An EX - HHld sent me to a CA last year for $44.00. That was past due payments only, not the full balance, as they had not CO'd it yet. Here is one opinion that touches on this subject a bit: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/fdcpaadvisoryopinion.htm
Re: Re: Collection Agency rules and i thank you... i do understand the difference between collection and charge offs and i would assume that it would be in the best interest of creditors to wait it out rather than lose money by sending accounts to collections (be it sometimes not a whole lot) i guess it makes sense for them not to send these accounts off... but like you just mentioned...$44...good god. thanks for the link. for some reason i just thought there might have been a reporting rule regarding the time of delinquency. forgive me...
Re: Re: Collection Agency rules well isn't that the pooper? i was just thinking that after 180 days of nonpayment it shows up on your credit report...or something...i don't fricken know... i think what i am mixing up is the calculation of the 7 year period 7 years from the date of original delinquency + 180 days.... maybe i was thinking that a ca could not report the account before 180 days of delinquency... don't ask me why i think i am the law, but for some reason it just made sense... maybe that is how it should be. j/k
chrisb wrote: "This is the way I see it. The CA is showing this account as a paid collection. You did not pay the CA, you made arrangements with the original creditor, and paid it off. The original creditor can report it as a paid collection, but as long as the CA isn't the collection department for the OC, I don't see them as having a valid paid collection account. Your paying the original creditor in full has terminated any contract the original creditor had with the collection agency. The CA knows you paid it off, they're not going to see any money from this debt, so I don't know why they're giving you such a hard time..." This was exactly my point back several years ago when I first argued with the CA. I told them they should have never reported this to the CRA's because Sylvan agreed to take 2 payments from me, after they had refered this to the CA. I even faxed proof to the CA, the actual itemized statement of my account from Sylvan that showed they received payment from me on 20 Feb 98 and 25 Mar 98, and account was marked Zero Balance, Paid in Full. Yet, the CA insisted that since it had been refered to them back in early Feb, I think 11 Feb 98, that they had every right to report this to the CRA's. Of course, I did not know they did until 10/98 when I pulled my CR, and I disputed the whole thing with them then. Then the kicker is this, even Sylvan/OC took final payment on 25 Mar 98, the CA was still showing I owed $129 and did not mark the account as Paid unitl Oct, 10/98, only once I showed them proof it was paid in full back in 3/98. So... the CA is reporting this Collection to the CRA's, even though they never collected the money, the OC did, they reported I still owed $129 for about 6 months incorrectly (this caused me to get turned down for CC's, have higher APR CC's, etc ...) and once I proved it was already paid, they are still incorrectly reporting when the Paid in Full date is. I've learned on CNet that a mis-reported DOLA date is a violation, but what about a mis-reported "Paid in Full" date, or as this CA states in the Tradeline, "Collection Reported 10/98" Isn't that reporting false/inaccurate information? Seems like I should have them on at least 2 or 3 violations. 1 - Inaccurate date of when account was paid off. 2 - They reported an outstanding balance of $129 for at least 6 months after the account was paid off. 3 - Reporting any of this to the CRA's in the first place, as THEY didn't collect it, the OC took payment themselves. 4 - Maybe I can get them for reporting this to the CRA's also, because in their Duning Notice to me, they said I had 40 days from date of the notice to pay in full, letter date 12 Feb 98. But ... if law/Courts would allow that it takes a couple of days for mail/Notice to reach me, seems like the self-imposed 40 day "grace period" would being when I got the letter, which was actuall 14 Feb 98. The envelope (I still have it is postmarked 13 Feb 98) From 14 Feb 98 to 25 Mar 98, that's exactly 40 days ... ... so, if they would have calculated correctly and reported dates correctly, I was within their 40 day limit and therefore they should have never reported this to the CRA's. Ya'll help me out here, this CA has been a thorn in my A$$ for years now, they are VERY hard to work with, you see how petty they are, and I want to NAIL them good. I'm just now learning they can be sued $1,000 for each violation, and that's what I want to do. Do I have a good case? FedUp2003 P.S. Also, their full name is Interstate Credit Bureau Collections. A lot of times they go as Interstate CB Collections or just Interstate Credit Collections, but their official name is Interstate 'Credit Bureau' Collections, and I've in Cnet somewhere that the CRA's are not allowed to have "Credit Bureau" in there name, so maybe this is a 5th violation. I'd love to collect $5,000 from these jerks. Any money I win, I'd gladly donate a portion of it to help someone on CNet who is in dire needs of hiring a lawyer. Thanks!
P.S. I'd love to hear more about the "thought, idea, notion" that: If the CA did not actually collect the money, but the origninal Creditor did, then the CA has no right to report this as a Paid Collection in the first place." Is there any law, case law, statutes that state this? I'm in NC BTW. If this is true, then my problem is a Slam Dunk! I have one other Paid Collection, with the same damn CA, and the OC was a County Tax dept. that kept sending me a tax bill for an auto that I got rid of in 2001, but they kept taxing me for 2002! So I disputed with them of course, and eventually they must have sent to a CA, cause it all of a sudden shows up on my CR's. I went to renew my plates at the DMV about a month ago, and there was a Tax Hold, so I was told I had to go pay a tax bill at the courthouse. I go to invesitgate and it's the old tax bill I've been disputing. Well, they had me by the short hairs now, I couldn't renew my plates w/out paying, so I just paid them. Took receipt to DMV and got my plates renewed. Lo and behold, I pull my CR about a month later and there is this Collection Account from this same CA. It was not on my CR when I pulled it 29 May 2003, but it was there when I pulled it 23 June 2003, and I paid the tax bill on 02 June 2003. I never received a notice from the CA, it just seems like once I paid the OC, the CA decided to go ahead and report this as a Paid Collection. So, back to original problem with this same CA and that Sylvan account, if a CA can't report an account in which they didn't actually "collect" the money, then I should be able to Slam Dunk them twice, right? BTW, I know what the CA will say, that once the get notified of a debt or account, they can do what they want and report it, no matter when it got paid or who took payment, they might even say that even though the OC took the payment, it was because of the CA's efforts that brought this about, so they have the right to report it, or some sh!t ike that. FedUp2003
hey fed up, in your other thread about sylvan you said you paid the debt in january, but that the collection began in february... did i miss something? did you send partial payment in jan... then finish up in march? why not just get all stern with slyvan, tell them you have proof that you paid this before it was sent to collections and tell them it was a mistake, have you done this? also like i said, send a d/v letter to the collection agency... i don't know about the other stuff you mentioned about suing for 5,000 or whatever, but i am posted your oringinal question about sylvan with a friend at cic so we will see... good luck
kbean, Sorry if I've confused you any, Sylvan said I owed tuition for 12/97, I said I didn't, we argued for a while, I disputed, etc ... for about a month. finally in late Jan 98, early Feb 98, I told Sylvan I'm agreeing to paying, but in middle of buying a house, can I send you half next week and the last half a few weeks after that, they said "Sure!" Then, on 14 Feb 98, I receive Collection Letter from CA for $258 - 1 month's tuition. I call Sylvan back, say "Hey, you agreed to take 2 payments from me," they say "Oh yeah, ok, and don't worry about the CA, we will call them off. I sent 1st payment of $129, Sylvan shows it in their books Paid on 20 Feb 98. I send 2nd/last payment of $129 - Sylvan shows it in their books Paid on 25 Mar 98 --> Paid in Full, Zero Balance. I find out later, on 10/98 - that Sylvan never called off the CA, and CA had been reporting that I never paid off this account - was showing I still owed $129. Apparently the CA had been reporting this from 3/98 to 9/98. Only after I faxed proof to CA that Sylvan was paid in full ever since 25 Mar 98, did the CA show this as a Paid Collection, with Zero Dollars owing. The CA is reporting DOLA as 12/97, which is the month I disputed with Sylvan, and must be the date that Sylvan told CA as when they never received payment. But, the CA is placing in my credit file this as a Collection Account and "Collection Reported 10/98" They don't even have the date I paid in full correct, plus, if you allow that I didn't receive their first notice till 14 Feb 98 and the CA themselves said they were giving me 40 days to pay in full - well 14 Feb to 25 Mar is exactly 40 days - so by their own admission/rules, they should never have reported this. Lastly, the CA never actually collected the money, Sylvan did, so I'm asking if the CA ever had any right to report this at all. Does the act of Sylvan taking payment from me constitue that Sylvan "broke" their agreement or assignment of this account with the CA, and therefore the CA had lost their authority to collect on this and/or report this to the CRA's? Sorry if this seems redundant, but this has been irking me and haunting me since Feb 98. And, I've tried getting stern and nasty with Sylvan, all they did was send me an itemized statement showing that I paid them. The orignal manager there that gave me a verbal agreement to take 2 payments from me and to call off the CA, well, she is no longer there, so I'm afraid calling/working with Sylvan will do no good. Again, thanks for your and everyone else's help! FedUp2003
well it appears that you need to write a nasty nasty letter to the ca... it is up to them to report accurate data... i would send a d/v letter and a letter incorporating all the other stuff they did wrong... i mean easiest case senerio : 1. you send d/v letter 2. they can't validate...they have to remove but read this... and the link i am about to post. fcra: § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. (C) No address requirement. A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address. (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. (4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed. (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action. (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. (c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s]. (d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section.
there's more... here is what i got from my friend at cic.. i guess creditors can send accounts to collection whenever they want... even if it's 2 days late (the board members here were right!!!) also: ca's can report as soon as they get a debt... so in essense, sylvan could have sent that debt to a ca as early as december when they told you it was overdue... but here is the feedback from sisflomi: i found this question at credit net... basically what it comes down to (aside from the question she is asking) is my question: do you know if creditors must follow a guideline as to when they send accounts to collections? I mean what is stopping a creditor from sending the account into collections after 2 days of non payment? There is no set guideline for oc to follow when you are late. They can send to collections if you were one day late. and when the creditor does send the account to collections...how long does the ca have to wait before they report it to the bureaus? The CA can report it as soon as they get it. They do have to follow the FDCPA and FCRA though. They have to contact you and let you know about the debt and give you a chance to respond. This does not keep them from reporting though. This is found on FTC opinion letters. The letter can be found here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm what is to stop a creditor from shipping an unpaid bill (by lets say a week) off to ca and then it pops up on your credit report all in a matter of 1 month? There is nothing to stop this, unless it is a billing that is under dispute with the Fair Billing Act. If under Fair Billing Act, the oc has to investiaget the transaction in question. You can read about FBA here: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcb.htm that just can't happen, can it? i mean it seems as though it would not be in the best interest of creditors to get less than what they are owed by paying collection fees...but the post below brings up an interesting question (or series of questions)... i didn't post the whole thread, but you get the idea...i just wanted to see what you think of this... i don't think i ever saw it covered in recent conversation at cic.com...thanks, kelly This happens all the time. Here is what I would do. Send strongly worded debt validation letter to the ca. Keep on the ca until they fold or send proof that you owe them. I would at the same time send a verification of debt letter to the OC and get proof of paying this to the oc. Same with this, keep at them until they give you what you want. Send all letters crrr mail and when you get the green cards back, then dispute this with the cra that it is being reported to. After a couple of months, if nothing has happened you would then want to file out court papers and send a copy of that with intent to sue letter. This is all you can really do for now. Give it time and donâ??t give up on the ca or the oc. I would not only send the letters crrr but also fax the letter each time to the ca and the oc. They will get tired of you and adventually go away.
To point 1, This is already padi off, so how can I ask the CA to prove that I owe them, there is nothing left to owe? Also, It's pretty much already been Validated, as I faxed them an itemized statement that Sylvan sent me, that shows dates of service, payment dates, etc.... so the CA and I both know I had a bill there ... the issue is, were they allowed to report this to the CRA's, even after Sylvan took the payments. Does the fact or action of Sylvan accepting payment, make Null and Void the CA's right to collect on this, and by extension, Void their right to report this to the CRA's? To point 2, I DO have proof that I paid the OC, they sent me an itemized statement that clearly states I was billed on 12/97 for 1 month tuition for $258, on 20 Feb 98 they received $129 payment, and finally on 25 Mar 98 they received $129 payment - net result, Zero Balance, Paid in Full. ------- The angle I thought I might be able to use to force the CA to delete this from the CRA's, was that they were no longer authorized to report this to the CRA's because they lost their right when Sylvan decided to accept payment directly from me - in other words, but Sylvan's actions of taking payment from me, did that somehow mean that they were no longer authorizng the CA to try and collect as well, which would further mean the CA could not report this to the CRA's, even though they are now reporting as Paid Collection. If that angle won't fly, then I still might have them on reporting inaccurate dates. I've read info that clearly states the DOLA must be correct, but what about they way they report when collection was reported. I'm wondering if this CA is somehow sidestepping having to report correctly because of the way they state or word the Tradeline. The CA reports DOLA of 12/97, which is probably correct, but also state "Collection Reported 10/98" which is NOT the date the account was paid in full, but just the date that the CA starting reporting this account as Paid Off with Zero balance rather than reporting that $129 was still due. So, I asking, can I technically get them for reporting incorrect date of when this account was paid down to Zero - I know I can for incorrect DOLA, but what about when they say account was paid off? Do I still need to request they Validate first, or go straight to an ITS letter because they are reporting inaccuracies? Again, thanks a lot for everyone's help and patience. I just want to get ALL the facts and make sure that I do this right the first time. FedUp2003
well okay, so you proved that the account existed...but in terms of validation, there is still more... so what they have the statements, do they have a copy of the contract you signed w/ sylvan? it's all about the paper trail... sis' point is that if you constantly threaten, bother, and annoy them, they will cave... i had a paid collection deleted from all three reports based on my snazzy d/v letter... now i dont' know about these charges you think you may have against them, but i posted a link to a list of allegations you can claim against ca's, creditors, and cra's that state's which section of the statutes are in violation, in addition to how much you can sue for... and inaccuarte data was one of them. i think that based on the the reporting issues, you should send a letter based on what you know they have violated... so look at this link again http://www.creditinfocenter.com/eBooks/PoorMansClassActionLawsuit.shtml or you can post there, someone might have better advice.
Thanks kbean You don't realize hwo much I appreciate this. I think what counts the most is the fact you were in a similar situation and that you actually got results, so I'll use the same tactics that you used. That is what's most helpful, either cut n dry law or statutes, or actual live cases in which a particular strategy worked vs. Theory, etc ... The only reason I mentioned the allegations/violations is that it's been said others have had success when they have caught a CA ina violation, then threaten to sue or actually file in Small Claims Court, and once CA sees the ITS or LN letter, or gets served with lawsuit, then they usually are happy to delete the Tradeline, and that's all I'm really after. So, I send a Validation letter (you don't happen to have the link or a copy of what DV you used, do you?) Now, do I wait for a response, or just go ahead and dispute with CRA's once I recevie my CRRR slips? I ask only because this is already paid. I know that normally once you rcv the CRRR's you Dispute with the CRA. If nothing happens after this, then send the ITS or LN letter, or go straight to Lawsuit. Thanks Again! FedUp2003
**how long ago did you actually dispute with the cra's as 'not mine'? am i to assume that they were verified with all three bureaus? **you do have the right idea about catching them in violations...everyone is right about that. it's weird with paid ca's because the same 'continued collection' practices are no longer the easiest violations to aknowledge. but if you make a nice d/v letter and make no mention of paying the debt or have paid the debt...don't further incriminate yourself by showing them any documents regarding the debt...when you catch them in violations, you are creating the leverage for a deletion, make them think you will sue... but anyway, you follow the same format in a d/v letter... say 'i never received notice of your collection..therefore i was never able to exercise my right garenteed by the fdcpa to dispute this...blah blah but like i said don't say you paid or that it's been paid... also let them know that you have them on whatever violations (did you read that link about suing ca's?) also let me know what the status is on your past cra disputes regading this account. but yes if you send a d/v letter, get the card then dispute and the ca verifies with the cra before they note the account in dispute...that's another violation...so *takes a deep breath* does that help?
I never disputed this with the CRA's, just years ago, back in 10/98 was I disputing/arguing with the CA, telling them I had already Paid Sylvan, that I should have been within their self-imposed 40 day Grace Period to pay this off, that they were still reporting I owed $129 in their 10/98 report, even though it was paid off back in March, etc ... but, the CA said the 40 days started from the Date of their letter, 12 Feb 98, which meant it was 42 days till full payoff on 25 March. I'm now contending, if I went to Court, the Judge would probably allow that the 40 day timer should have started when I actually Received the notice, on 14 Feb 98, which meant since I paid in full within 40 days (24 Mar 98) that the CA should not have ever reported this. But anyhow, I'll send the D/V letter, and once I receive the CRRR slips, I'll dispute with the CRA's. Then I'll pull the reports and see if CA marked file as "In Dispute" or not. I guess if the CA Validates, I'll pursue the "I paid within 40 days" angle ... but, if the Validate/Verify and do not update the Tradeline to say "Collection Reported 3/98" then I have them anyhow, cause that will be false/inaccurate data. If/When all else fails, I'll send ITS and LN letters telling them how petty they are being, how the ignored their own 40 day Grace Period to pay this off, and how they are reporting inaccurate dates, and hopefully scare/harrass them into Deleting. Thanks for everyone's help! I'll post the results in this Thread and also any Threads on CNet that are asking for success stories. FedUp2003 P.S. Sorry I've been such a pain about this, but it just wasnt' "sinking in" that I could still use Validation even on a Paid Collection. Also, this was kinda old, and having gone through the process of discussing this and refreshing myself with the circumstances, I dug up new issues and angles, etc ... that might work other than Validation and CRA Dispute. Thanks to all for being patient.
oh my god!!! if you haven't even disputed the entry with the fricken credit bureaus...why are you freaking out?? chances are these people got their money and have probably forgotten all about you!! dispute the entry with the credit bureaus!!! when they ask how you want it to be investigated say "it's not mine" wait 30 days... that is my very best advice... others will say d/v then dispute...but i am thinking you should just dispute and wait!!! anyone else have any other advice?
I guess I'm just undecided on best course of action, dispute first with the CRA's, Or request Validation from the CA, then dispute with CRA's. If I first dispute with the CRA, it comes back "verified" then send Validation letter to the CA, and go and dispute again with the CRA, will that be seen as too soon and cause the CRA to mark my dispute as frivalous? FedUp2003.
