-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am currently disputing a Spiegel account that supposedly has been bought by Capital One and being collected by their Westmoreland Agency (they're one and the same). First of all they've referenced this account as First Consumer's Master Trust, then Chase and Spiegel. None of the account numbers jive nor do the name references. I had an old FNCB account but it was for a different balance. They may be talking about this account but I would never deal with them because by paying or settling with them with so many conflicting trade names account numbers...they can just come back and sue me with another account. On 11/18 I sent a validation letter to Westmoreland/Crap One. They used to be only on TU and now lo and behold they suddenly appear on Ex. Can they do this? Isn't this is a violation. Crap One sent me a letter that they have purchased the debt but have made no references to the right creditor or amount. Furthermore, NCO just sent me a settlement letter about a Capital One account for the same amount. Yesterday, I got a letter from Westmoreland that they are researching this issue and will get back to me. My question is....did Capital One commit a violation by posting this TL on Ex during validation or does it not pertain to them because they're trying to come off as an OC. But wouldn't that be false seeing that they're their own CA? What should I do? Wait til the 30 days are up and see if it falls off TU? Can I dispute this with Ex. with my previous Report Number or do I have to get a new one. I know this is alot of questions but I am very disgusted right now!
Crap1/Westmoreland pull a fast one dogwood | 4 posts since Dec 2003 64.63.223.250 | 12.12.2003 @ 21:55 shameless bump
did you send it crrr and if so, did you send it to westmoreland or Cap 1? cap 1 reporting dept may not have known you sent validation request to westmoreland - regardless of if they are the same company, its different departments. if you didn't send it crrr, it doesn't matter what they did. its difficult to prove.
When the tradeline 'appeared' on the new report, was it showing that the account was in dispute. In some cases, for whatever reason, the company may have reported the account to the CRA, but the CRA may have suppressed it because something didn't align 100% with what the CRA was reporting. When they send an update to the CRAs to mark the tradeline in dispute, they may update the name, address, etc. to exactly what was included with your letter of dispute; and chances are that will match 100% with what the CRA is showing on their system. I had one account which was showing up on TU, and Eq, but not on Ex. Requested a copy of my credit report from Ex, which of course gave Ex my 'new' three year old address; and suddenly as of the next month the 'missing' tradeline appeared on Ex. Oh, they are 'allowed' to update (even if the CRA that they are updating originally suppressed the data) the tradeline... They are just not allowed to VERIFY the tradeline until after they send the validation documentation. Updating the tradeline, as long as its done within the parameters of the FCRA (updated as in dispute) is allowed, its when you dispute within the FCRA and request verification from the CRA to the data furnisher, and THEN the CA responds to the CRA with a verification, that there is a violation.
Jenz: When I had my very short run-in with Westmoreland. (They deleted the account in less than three days after they received my letter.) Westmoreland reported under their own name; however, even if that has changed since then, Westmoreland is obligated whomever is reporting the account of the dispute; whether it is their parent company (Cap1), or a 'servicer' (such as NCO in this case). Westmoreland/Cap1 is responsible for any and all collection activities done in their name; regardless of who does it.
