More ASSet Acceptance stuff I sent my letter to ASSet Acceptance. Basically an outline of all the crap they did. - Didnt validate - Letter to AG - They say they would delete - Didnt delete - 3 inquiries without permission ( 5/14/2001, 6/1/2001, 9/19/2001) New news: The day they receive the fax from me. All three CRA's show hard or soft inquiries. I get a letter from the general counsel stating that they followed FDCPA and FCRA to the letter. Further he says that I disputed in June. They sent the delete to the CRA's 8/29/01. They received confirmation that it was done 9/14/2001. He further stated that at the time the inquiries were placed, they had permissible purpose and that there was nothing any reasonable person to believe that AAC had knowingly done anything wrong. Considering the above information from the FTC. From the dates he put in his letter, I can see 3 inquiries per CRA that were made AFTER his client knew that the account should have been closed; June, September, and then last week. What would you folks do in this case? Thanks for your insights in advance! Parul
Re: More ASSet Acceptance stuff This is what I was planning to write to them... what do you folks think? --- Parul Bhargava <Address> <City State Zip> Asset Acceptance Corp P.O. Box 2036 Warren, MI 48090-2036 RE: NOTICE OF DEMAND Your File <Number> Attorney General File <Number> Date: July 6, 2002 Dear Mr. Beach, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter. I appreciate the time you are dedicating to getting this resolved as quickly as possible. Based on your letter, I am sure we both can agree on the following: · The dispute with AAC began in June · Deletion from the credit bureaus was requested on 8/29/2001 · Confirmation was received on 9/14/2001 Based on the credit reports from just one of the credit bureaus, I am sure we can agree on the following: · Hard inquiry was done in June 2001 · Soft inquiries were done in 5/14/2001, 9/19/2001, 6/28/2002 Now here is where I am confused. Your letter further states that â??â?¦any inquiry that may have been made by AAC was allowable as there existed a valid purpose in collecting a debt at the time the inquiry was made.â?? If this is so, I can understand the 5/14/2001 inquiry as AAC did not receive my dispute as of that time. However, I am hard pressed to understand the permissible purpose for the other three inquiries. I believe permissible purpose is defined in the FCRA § 604(a)(3)(F) of the statute. It allows a consumer reporting agency to provide a consumer report to anyone who "has a legitimate business need for the information -- (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or (ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account." Furthermore, the FTC has stated the following : â??Neither the dispute resolution conference, the imminent threat of civil litigation, nor the desire to craft a settlement offer provide the brokerage firm with a permissible purpose to obtain a brokerage client's consumer report under Section 604.â?? â??Any person who procures a consumer report under false pretenses, or knowingly without a permissible purpose, is liable for $1000 or actual damages (whichever is greater) to both the consumer and to the consumer reporting agency from which the report is procured. Also, Section 621 governs enforcement actions brought by the Commission, other agencies, and the states, and provides for various monetary and injunctive penalties. The potential monetary penalties include, for those who knowingly violate the FCRA, up to $2500 per violation in a civil action brought by the Commission in district court.â?? Given all this information, I am at a loss, honestly, as to how you can say, â??There is nothing that would lead any reasonable person to believe that AAC had any knowledge that they were reporting a paid account or that AAC made an inquiry on an account that they [k]new was paid. Therefore, there is no FCRA violation.â?? I would like to continue amicable relations with your company and prefer to work things out as gentlemen, but please do not misunderstand that I will require the following to occur: 1. Complete removal of any negative remarks and inquiries on my credit reports including but not limited to Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union. Providing me this confirmation in writing, signed by an authorized employee, on company letterhead. 2. Nullify this alleged debt as well as any future collection attempts from ANYONE. Provide this information in writing, signed by an authorized employee, on company letterhead. 3. For the 3 inquiries (6/2001, 9/19/2001, 6/28/2002) which were without permissible purpose, $1000 per violation. If all three of the above are not satisfied by July 12, 2002, I will immediately begin my lawsuit for the aforementioned violations. May I remind you that if this is not settled by July 12, 2002, under § 813. Civil liability [15 USC 1692k] I am allowed to sue for $1000 per violation as well as actual and punitive damages. In addition, I plan to file complaints with the Better Business Bureau as well as the FTC. Your failure to acknowledge or respond to this letter by July 12, 2002 will be interpreted as your authorization / instruction for all credit reporting agencies to delete these inquiries and tradelines. I thank you for your immediate attention to this matter and look forward to settling this in a fast and amicable manner. Sincerely, Parul Bhargava
Re: More ASSet Acceptance stuff Dear Parul, Hold up here a second. Lets slow down a bit. I mis-spoke in my "sue the hell out of em" post. I apologize. You said, they said: "Further he says that I disputed in June. They sent the delete to the CRA's 8/29/01. They received confirmation that it was done 9/14/2001". Your problem sounds like it may be with the CRA's. Now it sounds to me like these people are trying to help you. Perhaps they pulled all those inquires to see if their request for deletion had been done yet. It's not unusual for an unknowlegdable lawyer to pull inq's on a closed account to see if there change request went through ok. See what I mean? "I get a letter from the general counsel stating that they followed FDCPA and FCRA to the letter." Ok well so what if they didn't? What you're looking for is the deletion of this neg. TL not compliance with the FDCPA. On the other hand I find it very strange that they would request removal from all 3 CRA's and NONE of them followed through. You mean it's still listed on all 3? If you have all this in the letter sent to you from the AA you might just consider faxing a redacted copy to the CRA's and start pressuring THEM instead of the CA. Please Advise,
Re: More ASSet Acceptance stuff And firther... "Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter. I appreciate the time you are dedicating to getting this resolved as quickly as possible. Based on your letter, I am sure we both can agree on the following: · The dispute with AAC began in June · Deletion from the credit bureaus was requested on 8/29/2001 · Confirmation was received on 9/14/2001" How do YOU know that confirmation was received? The best way for you to know whether your problem is with the CRA or the CA is request a copy of this "confirmation". We could talk more about your letter but it may be a moot point since approaching this thing from a completely different angle may be the best course of action. Have you talked to them on the phone?
Re: More ASSet Acceptance stuff I havent spoke to them on the phone, but the confirmation information that I put in my letter came from the letter that he had written to me. He gave me those dates. Agreed - I am definitely looking for the deletion of the tradeline, but I would also like to get the hard inquiries off my report as well. There is 1 on 2 reports as well as a soft inquiry here and there. I guess I should be requesting the confirmations and then go after the CRA Parul
Re: More ASSet Acceptance stuff I have to agree with Butch. As much as I would like to see ASSet hung out to dry, it looks like this could potentially be a CRA issue with not deleting. HOWEVER, given ASSet's shady business practices and Mr. Michael Beach's reluctance to really help anyone, I sincerely doubt those inquiries were as a result of him trying to see if the neg TL had indeed been dropped off. They are nosy little buggers that's for sure. They love doing the hard inquiry thing on my reports. Just a question: How did you go about getting them to say they were going to delete in the first place. Currently, they are ignoring me, but I'm writing a VERY strongly worded letter to Mr. Beach about his numerous violations.
Re: More ASSet Acceptance stuff I got a response from him by filing with the AG. They sent the complaint to him and he responded saying there had been an error and that they would delete. Parul
