Ok. So I've been on creditboards for a while and while i love that site, i think i've found the information easier to understand here. I've been on this site reading all week long. today i went through all of my credit reports and i created a document which lists all of my negative accounts that are not medical ( i wanted to seperate them and deal with medical last). what i found is that i didn't know that all three of your credit reports can have totally different information. so when i listed them, i listed which CRA's they were reported to. i found that some show up on all three, some show up on one, some show up on two. also what i found is that an OC will be listed alone, then it will be listed with like two or three other CA's. how can this happen? how do i rectify this? it's looking like i owe more than i actually do. doesn't this pull my credit score down? also, in my reading, i have a some questions: 1. In reading, I keep reading about an estoppel letter but have not found a complete definition of this. What is this and when is this used? i have more but they are all not in my head right now. i will post more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel Some have advocated that it is somehow applicable to the case where a CA dunns for a debt, the debtor demands validation, and the CA refuses to send anything, or sends inadequate validation. They may be turning the concept on its head. I think you are on a better legal footing directly using FDCPA, specifically requesting validation within 30 days of first letter, or suing after disputing thru the CRA if erroneous information is verified. The concept might have better applicability where a CA has offerred a settlement for less than full, the debtor, who might otherwise dispute the debt, relies on that representation to pay and settle the debt, and the CA, or OC who had employed the CA, later comes back demanding the rest, perhaps even claiming the earlier partial payment was an acknowledgement that the debt was legitimate. The FDCPA's prohibitions from using false and deceptive means to collect, and possibly state unfair trade practices statutes, would appear to cover this more directly, on top of the settlement agreement (contract) created by paying in response to the offer. Note: I am NOT an attorney.
ok. but i'm not suppose to pay all four of them. that's crazy. how can more than one CA have an account and if they have it then why is the OC still reporting on my CR?
no. in one example..the OC is not listed but two different CA's are and they are listing the same amount owed.
If the one with the earlier starting date returned it to the OC, who then sent it to the second one, or if the first CA sold it to the second CA (assuming they owned it), the first CA should show $0, and only the second CA should show a balance due.
Two possibilities: 1) Both CAs think they are trying to collect on the same account. 2) One CA was collecting, but it was passed to the other, and the first one failed to zero their balance due. Either way, one of them is misreporting, but they are not liable until you dispute thru the CRA. Of course, if you still owe the debt, one of them still may have a right to collect.
