Got validation from CA?

First off, is this debt reporting on any of your reports? If so, and there is no notation that the account is in dispute by you, the consumer, they've already racked up 1 violation.

Secondly, take a look at the FDCPA section I pasted below, especially subsection (b)

§ 805. Communication in connection with debt collection [15 USC 1692c]

(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt --

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location;

(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer; or

(3) at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.

(b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

That's another violation they bought themselves.

Now, as for what they sent you back, it sounds like a really bad attempt at validation. White-out all over the paper? I wonder what they could be trying to cover? Keep the letter and send out the estoppel letter after 30 days has passed (from the day they signed the green card), include with your estoppel a FTC opinion letter which spells out what the CA needs to provide for validation. I've pasted it below for your reference:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Credit Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection


March 10, 1993

Jeffrey S. Wollman
Vice President and Controller
Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.
1261 Broadway
New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Wollman:

This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .â? in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer.

The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer.

Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it.

Sincerely,

John F. LeFevre
Attorney
Division of Credit Practices


Finally, sending you just a signed application is not proper validation. They would need to send you a complete accounting of all transactions of the alleged account, maybe even some signed receipts as well.

 

Don't send your validation letter(s) to the CRA's just yet. You want to build a paper trail, and just one CRRR letter to a CA is not quite enough yet. However, if after you send your validation, estoppel, and intent to sue, and you get no satisfaction, then as a last resort (before having to file against the CA) would be to send copies of your paper trail to the CRA's asking them to delete.

The estoppel letter can be found in the sample letter section on the board.


It's not called the estoppel letter in that section however, you'll find it under 'Debt Validation 04 | 60 days'.

You can also do a search on the board using a members name "lizardking" and searching for "estoppel letter". He has written up a few very nice ones. Let me warn you though, when you do that search you will come up with endless threads, narrow the criteria down to something posted over the past few months, it may help, if you still cannot find it I'll post something for you.

Yes, re-aging is illegal. 1 more violation to chalk up.

 

This has been somewhat up for debate. According to an old ex member of the board, the CA has 5 business days (or 5 days, I can't be sure) to notify the CRA that the account is in dispute by the consumer. There may be something about this in the FDCPA, I'll have to check to be sure.

There is a service called creditexpert which pulls your experian credit report. The service has a 30-day free trial membership and then it's $59 (usually $79, but $59 using the link below) after that for 1 year. Here's the link:

http://www.creditexpert.com/freeoffer

There is another service called creditwatch which pulls your equifax report. The service has a 30-day free trial membership and then it's $69? after that for 1 year. I put a question mark because I'm unsure if thats the exact price.
Here'e the link:

http://www.equifax.com

The nice thing about these services is you hav unlimited access to your reports, vs. paying between $8-$12.95 for one report per CRA.

Now as far as transunion goes, there is http://worthknowing.com , however from what I've heard on the board, it's not that accurate. There may be another service, but I'm not aware of it. Maybe someone can direct you to it.

Hope this helps.

 

Equifax Credit Watchâ?¢ helps you monitor, manage
and protect your credit. Try it FREE for 30 days â??
then pay just $69.95 per year <---------------------------****


E-mail notification within 24 hours of changes posted to
your credit report
Unlimited access to Score Powerâ?¢ - your Equifax credit
report and FICO® credit score
Online history of all notifications and reports by date
Ability to dispute inaccurate information in your report
online
A toll-free dedicated customer service hotline

With Equifax Credit Watchâ?¢ you can:

Protect yourself against identity theft by being alerted
whenever a credit account is opened in your name
Know when a company requests a copy of your credit
report for a lending decision
Manage your credit report and score to see how actions
you take impact your credit standing
https://www.econsumer.equifax.com/webapp/ConsumerProducts/pgConsumerProducts?

 

Mindcrime. I used the lizardking validation letter or variation of. The problem is the credit agency gave the account back to the original creditors after this. Do the original creditors have to add notation of consumer dispute on the credit bureaus? also I ;m still not clear as to whether or not the original creditor has to validate.They are still reporting me as charge off and making payments at 120 days late, on the two of the credit reports which I am not any payments. this account is not mine. minecrime, veterans of the board?

 

This is a violation Val.or no Val.

 

tonyastime,

If the CA gave the account back to the OC, and deleted the collection tradeline on your report (if they even reported one) that's a good thing in a way. Now, you won't have to worry about having a collection account on your reports for one.

As far as OC's and validating goes, OC's are not obligated to follow the law under the FDCPA, they are however, obligated under the FCRA. So, (and others on the board have done this), you could use a variation of the estoppel letter but instead of quoting sections from the FDCPA, you would use the FCRA. For example, under the FCRA section 623 (a)(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.

So the answer to your question, does the OC have to note the account as being in dispute by consumer, is yes.

Now, how are they reporting you as charged-off (R-9) and making payments at 120 days late (R-5)? Those are two separate status's. You can only be one or the other.

 

You said it had been several years ago. Does SOL come into play here?

Dancer

 

mindcrime, all of the bureus are reporting this account by the original grantor. None have deleted. also each bureau has something diffrent. pays as agreed charge off (I 'm not paying), charge off and current pays as agreed but was 120 days late 3 times 90 days late 7 times and 30 days late 6 times. Again I'm not paying. When I have called to speak with them about validating they ask me for all kinds of information like address and phone numbers and previous address ect. I refuse to give this to them so they refuse to put in fraud investigation. I do not know what to do. I will send the info that they must report as dispute. But this is still hurting my credit, it is the only negative on my report. any more advice mindcrime, veterans

 

dance,r what is SOL?

 

SOL= Statute of limitations

 

tonyastime,

Under the FCRA, OC's are required to report accurate information about your account on your credit reports. Obviously they are breaking that law by reporting different information to different CRA's. BTW, don't bother calling these yokels on the phone, you won't get anywhere. You need everything in writing in order to create a paper trail. I would suggest you also include in your letter that they are violating the FCRA by incorrectly reporting your account history, and they now need to delete the accounts otherwise legal action against them will be taken for their violations.

 

thanks much mindcrime I will start paper work immediately!

 

It's not 60 change it to 15