Okay, now I REALLY don't know what to do... ugh. The CA that I sent this letter sent me what they obviously believe is "proper validation." They provided a contract w/my signature on it for an old medical bill (10/95) that my former insurance SHOULD HAVE paid. The thing is, the envelope they mailed it in is post-marked June 27 (the day AFTER I faxed the previously referred to letter), but they backdated everything INSIDE the envelope so it would look like they validated before the 30 days would be up (June 23). Per Texas Finance Code, they were supposed to do this within the 30 days or delete. (Unless I'm reading the thing wrong, but I don't THINK I am.) Also they NEVER marked this thing as "in dispute" on my credit reports. I would just ignore this until it falls off my report in 4-5 mos., but my mtg co says I just have to pay off these last three little collections (total less than $500), and I can have my house. And I already know exactly which house I want...I'm salivating for it! LOL So, of course, I'm doing what I can to have the unvalidated CAs deleted first. This particular one is about $250...the largest one. *sigh* Should I start drafting a settlement letter? Something like, "Hey, I have you on this and that violation, but in order to settle this quickly, here's $50 for you to GO AWAY NOW!!" And perhaps point out to them that if I/they choose to wait out the four months, they won't get any money at all?
The postmark is admissable in court, so that is another violation of the 30 day limit. Maybe for grins, send the last letter, CRRR, fax letter, and the response letter and envelope to the CRA's. You might get a couple to delete based on that info. Send it to Consumer Complaints or Dispute Resolutions. Charlie
the SOL of that debt is like up. Is it a contract or a application for service? Do they have an itemized statement? What you need to do is draft a letter stating this isn't validation of the debt. This is nothing that says I owe $250 dollars. Show me absolute proof this is my debt.
Okay, I'll do that for grins... Long shot, probably, huh? I will definitely point out ALL the "error of their ways," though, in my letter to them.
Oh! *smacking self in forehead* I know what you mean now... LOL I'm crafting the thing now. In it, I'm giving a rundown of the timeline of my actions and their actions, and then listing their violations. Any further suggestions? Should I offer a settlement, or should I just do the rundown, list their violations, and then see what their response is? By the way, one of their violations (I feel) is violating the estoppel. Does the cease and desist have to have specific legal language in it to qualify as a cease and desist, or does the letter that I refer to in my original post stand as a good cease and desist? MHO is that it does, but then again, I'm rather new at this.... Which is why I turn to you experienced Creditnetters... *grovel, grovel*
Future1966, The whole credit process is a crapshoot. Like GEORGE says, "RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR". I had a certain late pay, maybe 6-30 day lates, and a friend had about 30-30day lates, 20-60 day lates and a bunch of 90's. Both were with the same OC. She got hers deleted 1st letter and got an apology letter. I had to send 4 or 5 letters, before I got it deleted. I sent the SAME EXACT letters for both of us. Go figure. That is why I believe to send the 1st couple of letters as though you are totally ignorant of credit disputing. For no other reason you want to put yourself down to THEIR level. Then, if need be, start showing your teeth more and more. Just my way and opinion. Charlie
Here's what I have so far.... ------------------------------------ Dear Sir/Madame: On the evening of May 23, 2002, I faxed a letter to you regarding this account that is showing on my credit reports. In that fax, I gave you thirty (30) days to validate this account per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Sec. 392.202 of the Texas Finance Code. On June 18, 2002, I sent a reminder that the 30 days were due to expire soon. The thirty (30) days expired on June 23, 2002. On June 19, 2002, I received a facsimile from Ms. Mary Lou Stewart (see attachment). At the bottom of the fax cover sheet, Ms. Stewart handwrote the following: â??We do not have database here at SARMA. You must write Transunion at Transunion, P.O. Box 34012, Fullerton, CA 92834.â? I then faxed you an estoppel (cease and desist) letter on June 26, 2002, telling you that since you have been unable to sufficiently validate this account within 30 days under the Texas Finance Code, that you must cease all collection efforts, which includes deleting the notation from my credit reports with all credit bureaus no later than five (5) days from June 26, 2002, per my rights under both the Texas Finance Code and the FDCPA. On Saturday, June 29, 2002, I received an envelope which was postmarked June 27, 2002, fully 4 days after the 30-day deadline was over, and the day after I had faxed you the final letter requesting that you cease collection activity. Copies of what you presume to be validation of the debt were in that envelope. However, it is a violation of my rights to continue to attempt to collect the alleged debt after I notify you in writing to cease all collection activity. This you very clearly did. I have copies of all correspondence and the dates. Another way that your company violated my rights was by neglecting to note this account in dispute with all credit bureaus. You never did this the entire time this item was in dispute. ------------------------------------- Okay, and I get kinda stuck from here on... (Darn writer's block! LOL) I know there are other things I should say... Should I even mention what was in the envelope? Oh and BTW, in this last letter to me, they did put the mini-Miranda "attempt to collect" blah blah. Question: DOLA is October, 1995. Date assigned is March, 1996. This debt is prior to the '97 amendment, so what date do I go by for SOL on credit reporting? And should I point it out to them that it's about to fall off? And in what way? Any thoughts? Suggestions?
hmmm what do you think of that letter? Would you read that? I would shorten each paragraph and don't enter any information regarding what statutes were broken, just say, YOu did this, you did this #2, you did this #3, clearly you are incorrect. The documentation you sent was not verification of the debt therefore you are to delete the tradeline immediately. Fax the UDF in 48 hours.
The dola is Oct. 1995. If that is on your reports, then that is what you go by, not the date assigned. It will come off in Oct. Also, the cra's will often delete negatives a few months prior to the drop off date. You might try sending a dispute to the cra's just stating "obsolete - please delete". It worked for me on several items about 6 months prior to the drop off date.
I suggest you do not point out to the CA the fact that the reporting period for the debt is coming to a close. Some (okay, many) CA's will re-age the account on you if they realize they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and figure why not continue to damage your reports for as long as they can.
Whats wrong with future1966's letter? His/her letter is maybe 1 page long. I've sent 4 and 5 page letters to CA's, outlining every single violation, quoting every part of the FCRA and FDCPA I could. Why should I care if the receipient of my letter is going to think it's too long? If they don't want to read it, and just toss it, then I say "oh well", guess they'll have some explaining to do in front of the judge. Explaining reasons such as why they received my letter outlining their violations and what they needed to do to remedy the situation, that is, unless they wanted to be sued, and instead just ignored my requests, bringing us in front of this judge, wasting his and my time because one of their employees didn't want to read my letter, all because it was filled with big words.
Your dispute must go to the address furnished in your original dunning letters regarding billing questions. If no special address for such issues exists then the address of the company suffices. They may NOT write back to you 30 days later and tell you to write to somewhere else. This IS a prior to CCRR debt and could have the DLA adjusted if your not careful. There is no federally mandated time limit of 30 days for the CA to attempt validation. The 30 days spoken of in FDCPA refers to the 30 days YOU have to dispute after intitial contact. ( A very common mistake ) 30 days is concidered reasonable tho so from that stand point you're right. Though I don't know what TX law says about it. Please link me to the TX code section, I'd like to read it. (I'm in Ohio) At this point the CA knows you know more than they do. You're probably the talk of the town at lunch The fact that they attempted to fudge some documents is a HUGE violation if you can prove it. In fact that's outright fraud. And since there isn't really a 30 days limit for them the mere fact that they attempted to make it look like it was done before the 30 days was up just means they don't know. You have them well on the run. Here's what I'd do, since you're in a hurry. Point out the error of their ways but then offer them an easy way out of what is gettin ready to be their worst nightmare, YOU. Offer them $50 bux in exchange for deletion. Make sure you get it in writing FIRST. I bout bet ya they'll take it. Cause they have no idea what they're doing. LOL
Although there is no mention of "time" in the FDCPA when speaking of valdation of a debt, the FCRA does address this issue. Although the addressing of the issue is in reference to a consumer initiating a dispute through the CRA, it is also "linked" or in reference to when a consumer sends a CA a validation request, and follows that up with a consumer initiated dispute through the CRA. As we all know the CRA has 30 days to contact the CA, verify if the account is being reported correctly or not, and report back to the consumer as such. Now, the FTC addresses the issue of what is considered "continued collection activity", which is placing a collection account on a consumers report during the initial 30 day validation period when validation has been requested, but not "produced" by the CA. So, to wrap this package up, if the consumer sends a validation request to the CA, then disputes the account through the CRA, the CA cannot legally verify that account to the CRA, which leaves them no other (legal) option other than to delete, which would come within 30 days from date of dispute. Thus the 30 day "rule" is born. From the FCRA: § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (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. § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.
hey future, Is this agency bonded in Texas? They must have 10k surety bond on file. Also the SOL in TX is 4 years. I know u are paying to get a house. To me, this would be funny. Pay the collection. Then sue them in cort for all the violations!! They did not report the item as being disputed to CRA(3x1000), They violated the TX finance code and FCRA by not getting info back to u in atimely manor,(2x1000). I bet we could find more. Thats 5k alone. Would help with closing costs!!! lol
Future, I do believe creditman is correct! The SOL in Texas is 4 years, but would someone please clarify this for me: Since the SOL is 4 years in Texas, does this mean it must be deleted from the credit reports or does it just mean collection attempts must not continue after the SOL?
just means that they can not collect on it. SOL and FCRA are 2 different things. If you are sued for a debt over 4 years old, your defense is the SOL. Be careful here though. They can pursue you in the state that you live, too. I believe the SOL pertains to the state where the account was originally opened. If you move, the SOL may be for that state. This has always been a little vague.
Great point Mindcrime, If however the CA suddenly decides to properly validate 12 months later, they can and probably will RE-report. Don't you think?
