This is part of another post I have here. hiding90 gave clarifications as to what FCRA sections covering re-aging I sent out an ITS letter to Anderson Financial Network (AFNI) for re-aging and old Sprint PCS charged off account. They re-aged this account on all three CRA's. That Date of Last activity was 6/2001 (charged off). Anderson Financial Network shows on my credit reports now showing the following: Date opened: 01/2003 Reported Since: 06/2001 Date of status: 06/2001 Last reported: 03/2003 Now, I guess I woke up a sleeping dog. I have not received any letters from AFNI, but since I sent my lTS letter (they now have my address) I received a collections letter today stating "We are making another attempt to collect a debt", and of course they want me to pay half and the account will be closed. Did they re-age my account? From all I have read here, I think that they did. Was I wrong? In my letter I stated they were in violation of FCRA 605(a). I have since learned that pertains to CRA's only. Does this make my ITS letter a waste of time? Should I send another one? Should I now also dispute this account with them? Should their letter have the "mini miranda (sp)"? It only states "This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. You have the right to inspect your credit. This letter is from a debt collector". Should it not state a specific time period to dispute? Thanks!
Sometimes I HATE IT WHEN I AM RIGHT THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF SENDING THESE "LETTERS" found on sites. Sure, sometimes they will work, NOT BECAUSE THEY HOLD ANY WEIGHT. "I sent out an ITS letter to Anderson Financial Network (AFNI) for re-aging and old Sprint PCS charged off account." -A DISPUTE regarding re-aging sent to the colleciton agency DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO DO ANYTHING.(generally) "They re-aged this account on all three CRA's. That Date of Last activity was 6/2001 (charged off). Anderson Financial Network shows on my credit reports now showing the following: Date opened: 01/2003 Reported Since: 06/2001 Date of status: 06/2001 Last reported: 03/2003" -The "date of last activity" IS NOT IMPORTANT THe 7 year reporting period starts from the "orginal delinquency date" (usually the first 30 day late). It appears they are just a little "retarded". -YES, they have listed the "open date" as '03, which is silly of course BUT look at the "reported since" date, '01. "Now, I guess I woke up a sleeping dog." -YES you did I like to refer to it as "calling your bluff ! "Did they re-age my account? From all I have read here, I think that they did. Was I wrong?" -Well, they reported the dates correctly. BUT, that does not anwser the question of delinquency date. "In my letter I stated they were in violation of FCRA 605(a). I have since learned that pertains to CRA's only. Does this make my ITS letter a waste of time? Should I send another one?" -DEAR GOD dont send another ONE lol -YES, this ONLY pertains to the CRA. ITS letters are mostly a waste of time UNLESS YOU INTEND TO SUE AND ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO "Should I now also dispute this account with them?" -BINGO! send a DISPUTE letter to the reporting agency (s) reuesting the "origninal date of delinquency" of the account. "Should their letter have the "mini miranda (sp)"? It only states "This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. You have the right to inspect your credit. This letter is from a debt collector" -Seems to be sufficiant notice. (MIRANDA ONLY APPLIES TO CRIMINAL MATTERS) It is actually called "disclosure" AND only has to be on the initial correspondance ONLY "Should it not state a specific time period to dispute?" -ONLY IN THE INITIAL- YOUR VALIDATION RIGHTS HAVE BEEN "lessoned" -AT THIS POINT, the collection agency DOES NOT HAVE TO REALLY DO ANYTHING IF YOU REQUEST VALIDATION.
hiding90- Thank you again for taking the time to respond as much as you have. I guess I should come in and asked questions prior to sending out my ITS letters so I wouldnâ??t have looked like an a$$. hiding90- Thank you again for taking the time to respond as much as you have. I guess I should come in and asked questions prior to sending out my ITS letters so I wouldnâ??t have looked like an a$$. From what it sounds like, I don't have valid reason to sue them, and that they did not re-age this account. The amount is only $300, so I am not worried about them suing me. Sprint told me they charged this off in June 2001 I can find out the "original DLQ date". I will dispute and see what that does. When I send this dispute letter that means once the CRA contacts AFNI will have to stop sending any new letters, or any phone calls?
"When I send this dispute letter that means once the CRA contacts AFNI will have to stop sending any new letters, or any phone calls? " -NO. I dispute letter only required the CRA to contact the collector and notify them of the disouted status of the debt, and REQUIRES THEM BOTH TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. -ONLY the initial 30 day validation process required a collector to cease collection efforts until they send verification of the debt OR stop collecting (then they DO NOT need to send validation or even reply)
Re: Re: Intent to Sue question ONLY the initial 30 day validation process required a collector to cease collection efforts until they send verification of the debt OR stop collecting (then they DO NOT need to send validation or even reply) Hiding ================= Where are you getting this? All the CA has the right to do is assume the debt is valid. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
ONLY the initial 30 day validation process required a collector to cease collection efforts until they send verification of the debt OR stop collecting (then they DO NOT need to send validation or even reply) Hiding ================= Where are you getting this? All the CA has the right to do is assume the debt is valid. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Intent to Sue question -FDCPA 809 http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 SECTION (b): "(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." -"within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) " - -SECTION (a) describes "after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.." -I KNOW this causes confusion. Think of if this way, WHY didnt Congress just write "(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing that the debt is disputed, the debt collector must cease collection activity until they mail it to the consumer"- THAT would have made it a lot more clear that they have to cease collection activity after EVERY DISPUTE RIGHT ? -BUT CONGRESS DIDNT WRITE IT THAT WAY
Re: Re: Intent to Sue question Welcome to the board. I'm glad you've found it useful. The FDCPA states that if the consumer doesn't respond to a collection letter within 30 days, that DOES NOT mean that they are accepting that the debt is theirs. So basically, you can ask for validation at anytime and they MUST provide you with proof. Go get'em. Good luck! Alex
Re: Re: Re: Intent to Sue question " So basically, you can ask for validation at anytime and they MUST provide you with proof." -What happens if they dont ?
Re: Re: Re: Intent to Sue question " So basically, you can ask for validation at anytime and they MUST provide you with proof." -What happens if they dont ?
Re: Re: Re: Intent to Sue question " So basically, you can ask for validation at anytime and they MUST provide you with proof." -What happens if they dont ? To answer this, read below ----->>
