I sent EMCC a validation letter regarding a charged off x.com account. the account which was a checking account with a debit card is being listed as a credit card and it had not been updated since 2001. Now it shows an update of 1/03 and it not marked in dispute. That is a violation, right? I have a copy of my report from Jan 15 that shows no update and my cccr that shows they received the letter on Jan 20, now there is an update. Should my next move be an estoppel?
Yes, it is a violation of FDCPA for them to report on an account once they have received a dispute from the consumer (you). It is considered collection activity! It is also a violation for them NOT to report that the account is in dispute. Now, wait 15 days and dispute the account with the Credit bureau. If it comes back verified, you have them on violation #3. $3,000 per violation, per credit report. I think you may be able to have them delete it soon! If they do verify, include all 3 violations in a follow up letter and demand $3,000 and deletion. Also, you can try and "trick" them into giving you their fax number (or look it up on the internet). Tell them that you would like them to fax you a settlement letter so that you might be able to clear this up. Once you have the settlement letter with their fax number at the top, you can Fax a Son of nutcase letter to get their eyes wide open! NO more CRRR and waiting for the word. You'll have proof they received the letter through fax! Good Luck!
thanks, the 30 days is up thursday. I will fire off a dispute to the cra's and then see what happens.
Hi. Apparently I am new here and have only been reading a couple of weeks. I am in the process of cleaning up my credit reports and my husband's as well. I purchased Carreon and Ass. e-book a couple weeks ago and immediately went to work. So far, I've only received a response from Equifax telling me they were forwarding my request to the cra that maintains credit files for consumers living in my area. One of my VOD letters was replied to with an account history (which I did rewrite the ca and let them know that was not legally binding me to the debt, I wanted more) and another from a ca that simply had a letter from the oc stating how much I owed. I also wrote back to them and notified them that was not acceptable proof that I owed the alleged debt. I read this and wanted to ask a question... "Yes, it is a violation of FDCPA for them to report on an account once they have received a dispute from the consumer (you). It is considered collection activity! It is also a violation for them NOT to report that the account is in dispute. Now, wait 15 days and dispute the account with the Credit bureau. If it comes back verified, you have them on violation #3." My question is why is it violation #3 if the credit bureau says it is verified? I guess I do not understand and if someone could please explain, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for all of the insight I've gained from reading this forum!
mvalrie I believe that it is a violation if they verify before they provide validation to me. ================== Correct and it's also why you dispute with the CRA when you get the green card back from the CA.
BY LAW, they can NOT verify an account which they can not validate! If they do, you have them on a violation! Remember this is only true if you have disputed the debt or asked for validation from the Debt Collector.
I have sent the 2nd request for validation combined with the Estoppel and there has been no response, but they have verified to both TU and EXP. Should I send the intent to sue now?
Re: Re: EMCC - Xcom Validation ? So us newbies get it right(these are my assumptions so please correct me if I'm wrong) After sending a letter of validation with a CA you wait for the return receipt(green card) as soon as that happens you dispute with the CRA's. If it comes back verified from the CRA's BEFORE validation there is a violation. correct so far? what IF they dont validate @ all? then the CrA's have 30 days to take it off, otherwise they are violating.(Is THAT right?)..If my presumptions are correct then the worst that could happen (if youre past SOL) is be stuck at square 1.(that is if the CA's validate and the CRA's verify)..Now another question to ask. I have seen this brought up in sample letters. A request for [proof that the CA is licensed to collect], does that mean in the state the contract was signed OR the state that the debtor lives(if the debtor moved)......... Again, as i am a newbie also please let us all know where I might be mislead. This is the way I have interpreted the posts I have read. thanks, PK
Re: Re: EMCC - Xcom Validation ? I hope this isnt a thread hijack. if it is please disregard. IF a CA cannot validate and the CRA's cannot verify a collections account and they delete it from your file, whats to stop the OC from reporting the info again? I was just wondering b/c it seems that if the OC's really wanted to "punish" people for not being able to meet thier obligations then the OC would just re-report and let it stew until the 7 year drop off period finished.
Re: Re: EMCC - Xcom Validation ? First of all, let me speak to the original thread about xcom. Xcom went out of business about 2 years ago now. Right about this same time of the year, maybe a bit earlier. EMCC in N.Y. bought up all their old accounts but obviously never got much of the banks records to enable them to provide any kind of documentation or proof of the debt whatever so you should have no trouble at all getting rid of them I know a ton of folks including both my wife and myself that got rid of them with a simple demand for validation. Never have had to go any further than that and now that the debts have aged to the extent they have now, they are dead meat for sure. They bought those old XCOM debts for about a penny on or less so they did collect on an awful lot of folks who just paid up with no arguments so they came out exceedingly well. Now on to your post. I'm quite sure that has happened many times before.
