So I have an alleged debt that I've been fighting with PRA on for years. I've been asking them for validation, they sent something half-baked that was roughly one-fourth of the amount they're requesting, I wrote back that this was unsatisfactory, and this has been going back and forth for years. Based on the last payment to the account (which is based on the account statement that they mailed to me), the alleged debt is past my state's SOL by well over 90 days. And I've found cases in my state where a CA tried to bring suit for a CC debt that was several days past SOL, and the defendant asserted the SOL defense and won. So my state apparently feels that the SOL is carved in stone; one day past four years and it's game over. I just noticed on my credit report today that PRA moved the "assigned" date from Feb 2005 to Dec 2005. If I didn't know better (because PRA always adheres to the highest standards of ethical conduct and legal compliance), I would think that PRA is gearing up to try and sneak a hail-mary lawsuit past me sometime this year. A less-educated consumer -- one who didn't know the SOL was up -- might roll over and accept a "generous" settlement of 50% to avert the lawsuit, not knowing about their SOL defense. I've never been 100% clear on the finer points of re-aging an account. Is that what's going on here? I know it would be clearly re-aging if they moved the DOLA to, say, January 2009, but what about the "reported to us" date? I'm confident I have the paperwork to prove the true DOLA in court should that be necessary, and I'm now expecting an empty lawsuit this year from these folks. But I'd love to hear any observations on this. Note that I believe in the "let sleeping dogs lie" philosophy, so I'm not about to go banging on PRA's door over this. Let them come to me, I always say.
Assigned date is the date it was given to the the CA, it doesn't have anything to do with the default date. Chances are, its older than Feb 05. If they assign it to someone else, their date might be 2009 - still legal, as long as the removal date is the same - that date is set in stone. You could have some FCRA fun with them.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that they do, in fact, sue. I don't know how it is in other states, but a claim in small claims court requires a presence here; their lawyers must physically be present. No motions, no trial-by-mail, you're either here or you lose. So I would enjoy seeing them pay filing fees, drive several hours, expect to have an easy victory, and wind up having to explain to the judge why they're wasting everyone's time by filing outside the SOL.
It would be much more enjoyable seeing them pay their lawyer to explain to a federal judge why they broke FDCPA by doing that which it was illegal for them to do in the first place then paying your court costs, plus the $1,000 and your attorney fees as well.
We can dream... I'm thinking that the more normal situation is like that of Credigy who, after being slapped silly with a giant (and well-deserved) award for seriously bad behavior is STILL vehemently saying they did nothing wrong.
