OK, so using the advice I found on here and another forum, I managed to get EVERY negative TL and collection deleted. Not more than one day after the last long awaited deletion, WHAM! An old AT&T cell account pops up from Palisades. I had cancelled service, when I got a phone through work, but I had a line for my gf and I think after we broke up, she may have put it back in use using my info. Point is I have NEVER received a single collection letter from these people, and this account was in limbo for probably 3 years. Why now? GRRRRRRRR... So I'm not sure how to start. Do I try a PFD? I would, and would be willing to pay just to get rid of it, but could that be used against me later? As accepting ownership of the debt. Or, start with requests for validation or use nutcase letters? Will those help, or just pi$$ the CA off and make them less cooperative should I need to try a PFD later. I could send a C&D, but they haven't been contacting me - at all! And the listing would still remain. There's pro's and cons to any avenue I look at here, any advice or tips???
First, I wouldn't consider myself one the experts. I've been able to have some success, and I can offer advise from what I've gained, but there are others who know far more than I. I don't know how she was able to use the phone after you cancelled service. And I'm not sure, but it seems to me if she did in fact do that, it might be fraud. I think in that case you have to file a police report, but again, not sure. And how did that compnay turn on service under your name without your consent? Was she an uathorized user (if there is such a thing) and did she have the authority to restore servie using your info? If not, I think that company is liable. I think there could be several approaches, but answers to the above question will help know better what to do. I think the first thing to do is find out exactly what you are dealing with. You said you think your gf did this to you, but you need to find out for sure. can you talk to her, and if she did it, would she pay for it, or at least split the cost? (if you are willing to pay the whole thing in a PFD, then paying half is a good deal, if she'll pay the other half, but get her money first) Whether you can talk to the gf or not, I think you should get validation. Follow guidlines found here and other places: send it CM/RRR, have a file to keep everything in, write a short letter with just the request for validation (nothing nasty, not yet). If they don't send you something that is good validation, it may mean they can't validate. (that's good, more later) If they can validate, you'll get more info to see if this is fraud. If it IS fraud, your gf may be willing to pay rather than face charges. Requesting validation will give you info, one way or another, and you need that to start. That may take some time, so start with that. If they can't validate, I would suggest disputing with that account the CRA as "not mine". When they try to validate with the phone company and can't, they will remove it, and you're done. Something else to do is find out what the SOL (statute of Limitations) is for your state and/or the state where the phone agreement was written. I can't tell from your post, but it seems that it was 3 years from the last time you knew of it, but if she was using it more recently, this may have just come up because it's a new issue - what are the dates on your CR for "first deliquent"?
WOW, weirdly enough, I got a similar letter back in Oct but I just came across it today! It was from Palisades also, and also about a cell phone, a very old cell phone acct. It is not on a CR and I left that company back in about 199? (maybe 2000 at the latest). An old CR (2004) lists this item with Date Placed: 12/2001 and Updated 8/03.This was alos in another state. The amount owed listed on that CR is $77. This bill says I owe over $700. The funny thing is, about a year ago, before I knew better, I grabbed my CR and started to pay some things to clean up my CR. (I didn't validate, I knew nothing about this then, I just started paying) I TRIED to pay this account! It was only $77 and I wasn't disputing it. I made several calls trying to contact someone about this, I think even to corporate, but I was never able to get anyone to help me with this. After a while, I stopped trying. Then I learned more about this stuff, and I thought this wouldn't come back at, if I made many efforts to reach them and couldn't, this must be a dead issue. It was old. This is insane. A $77 bill that is now over $700, and I tried to pay this $77 with no luck. I will request validation, CC/RRR. SOL in that state is 6 yrs. I moved out of that state 2 1/2 yrs ago - did that time clock stop at that time, and in their eyes, is this debt holding at about 2 yrs? I don't know why or how it was "updated" in 2003. At any rate, those charges are outragous. I wonder if I should handle this more aggresively, like FTC for outragous charges. I can't prove that I made attempts to contact them last year to pay the bill at that time of $77. Interesting that they have my current address to mail me this. (it was not forwarded) Does anyone know about this compnay Palisades Collection LLC? Is there a more specific way to handle them? Or just start with validation, as normal? Since this isn't on my CR, should I even bother to respond at all? Or will this company get nasty?
Pull your current credit reports. You may find this account still on them, and presumably an inquiry from Palisades on one of them, from which they could get your current address. With the difference between $77 and $700, you may or may not be dealing the same account, or even your account. Cell phone companies have been notorious for sloppy identification of the party opening the account, or for properly closing accounts when requested, and the result is that there are many such collection accounts in the hands of CAs such as Palisades, where they might or might not be trying to collect them from the proper party. Of course, they could care less who pays them. You are right to request validation. If you are considering paying such a debt, you would want to receive statements showing that it was in fact your account, and also showing how they arrived at $700. Since normal cell phone accounts run about $50 a month, and if you don't pay, they cut you off in a month or so, it would take a lot of extra minutes all in one month to ring up $700 before it was cut off. If you never used your phone that way, something may be rotten about this account. It might either have been opened fraudulently, or not be your account at all.
Ontrack, I subscribe to 2 credit monitoring services, and check them both often, haven't noticed anything, but I'll double check the inquiries. If you can stick around here, I'll check now and get back to ya in a few min. Also, the letter also has the name Allied Interstate as a letterhead, and mentions Palisades all over the place. Also, looking at that old CR, I also saw an entry for a bill that is over $600 for another phone (land line) that is now the same company as that old cell (it wasn't at the time) Dates on those are 2001, what is SOL for land line phone service considered - "OPEN"? "REVOLVING"? other? BRB with CR info from online... Back: There are no current inquiries - the last one in July, 2006 is my credit union (I autorized) However, I did read old posts in this forum and saw this was an issue back in 2002 with this company, and I saw how they were tied to other names, OSI was one of them. I do have an inquirie by OSI in 4/2005 and I don't know what that is about. This high amount may be the combining of 2 accounts; one a cell and one a land line. How does this come from out of nowhere all of sudden? It is not currently listed on CR and no current inquiry pull. Can they get aggressive? I'm not considering paying at this time (I did a year ago and I was trying to pay $77 then. Not sure the best way to handle this now.)
Palisades is a notorious distressed debt purchaser although it sounds somewhat odd that they would purchase cell phone accounts. It is more likely they are simply attempting to collect on behalf of the OC, however, I've never known them to collect as a third party. Whether they own it or not is largely irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion insofar as the OP just wants the tradeline removed. It would be a wise decision to request validation and then shortly thereafter their receipt, dispute it through the CRA's. Unfortunately, Palisades is not well known for compliance with the FCRA and/or the FDCPA. You may consider "googeling" the term 'Realtor Ken v. Palisades." What that means for you is that it is plausible that you will have to litigate to acheive removal of the tradeline. I will say though that I've garnered some results by going directly to their CEO. You should be able to obtain the information aforesaid through your state Sec. of State's website.
Palisades appears to be extensively involved in buying and collecting on cell phone accounts. For example, here is a court decision throwing out their attempt to get a summary judgement on a cell phone account purchased from ATT. It is instructive in seeing many of the things that can be wrong with JDB attempts to obtain default/summary judgements supported by "affidavits" by their own employees. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_52015.htm The complaints on ripoffreport.com are instructive: http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=226165 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=225970 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=224995 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=221328 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=223171 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=221514 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=222749 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=220510 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=216491 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=219964 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=216846 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=214676 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=213261 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=213881 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=213561 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=212335 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=211925 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=211616 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=211038 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=201617 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=207423 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=206635 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=205467 There appear to be two patterns: 1) There are a number of accounts apparently sold by ATT Cellular that consumers claim had been closed and paid, or they reported a billing problem, and ATT claimed they had corrected it, yet the account was sold as a bad debt anyway. In one case, termination fees were paid to ATT, the account was sold anyway at a balance far higher even than the fees owed and already paid, and the consumer reports paying each of several CAs in succession for the same debt, in an attempt to get the debt off his reports. Several CAs were paid, either in settlement, or in full, yet sold the account. There is also a report of suing on a debt already discharged in bankruptcy. Also note that ATT Long Distance also managed to generate a large number of illegitimate long distance bills, many of which may have been sold as "bad debts". In addition, SBC had sued them for "slamming". They have since merged. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/att_slam.html "AT&T attributes the improper billing to a computer problem that has affected about one million customers nationally, many of whom are not current customers of AT&T." Alleged ATT bad debts are suspect. 2) There are a number of consumer reports of Palisades collecting from the wrong party. They may be dunning consumers, and posting their collection account information on consumer reports, based solely on similar names, with no attempt to adequately verify identity by either SSN or address. Palisades might also be matching new purchased accounts against names already in their databases from other collection accounts. It may be that the purchased accounts do not include SSN information, or that they ignore it in their attempts to collect from any consumers with similar names, as was reported by consumers about CAMCO. Both problems appear to be compounded by failures to respond to consumer disputes or provide validation. Both FDCPA and FCRA assume that errors are generally unintentional and relatively rare, making allowances for data furnishers to correct with no liability once they are notified of a dispute. The cost/benefit public policy balance struck by this approach is defeated if in fact errors are common and the result of the intentional business practices of a few companies chosen to maximize profits at the expense of the public, either by saving on the business costs of responding to validation requests, or by collecting alleged debts even from the wrong parties. An extreme case is, of course, CAMCO, shut down with claims by the FTC that 80% of what they collected was either not owed, or collected from the wrong party.
Wow, Ontrack, that is a lot that you found! I don't want to hijack this thread from the OP. I wanted to add that the same thing is happening, so that others can know to watch out. The next thing is, when this does happen, what should one do? What is the best way to handle this company? For me, specifically, I want to know if I should start with validation? I got this in Oct, and it has the standard part about requesting validation within 30 days, and of course 30 days is gone, so should I still request that? Or is it best to ignore - this is an older account, maybe just barely inside 7 years, and I'm not sure about SOL - is this an OPEN type, or what? Or should I get agrressive right away and they wiol likely back down? (JDB's often do I think) How should anyone else handle them, should they get this kind of thing? Thanks!
If you think you might have a bill for $77, then you would not want to make a payment toward a $700 bill before resolving whether this is even your debt, or the amount is accurate. Paying on a bill you don't owe, even if you think you might owe some bill, will probably only hook you into paying the full amount you don't owe, and maybe not even pay off the bill you do owe. As a bonus, you get the negative mark on your credit, and since you paid it, you will probably have problems getting it removed. The above reports should warn you that there are many problem ATT accounts, and that many of them are in the hands of Palisades. "I got this in Oct, and it has the standard part about requesting validation within 30 days, and of course 30 days is gone, so should I still request that? " It isn't your job to provide them with excuses not to validate. If they want to risk not validating while still collecting, that is their decision. If you don't even dispute a debt likely to be erroneous, they don't run any risk for the damage they cause.
I can tell that they are many problems, but I may or may not be one of them. I will start by requesting validation, as it seems that's what you were saying in your last post. (I wondered if ignoring is the best thing with them but it seems you suggested validation - correct me if I'm wrong. The letter I got states the OC as Verizon (cell), and on my old CR (2004) there is an account listed for them for $77 (I tried to pay before, but couldn't reach anyone) That same old CR also lists as a seperate entry another phone bill (a land line) that is also Verizon, (now another name, but then, verizon) and together they total what the letter says - over $700. So they have 2 accts they are trying to collect. dates are 2001 and 2003. They are not on CR now, and I want to avoid them being added. I can see where the potential problems with this company are, but I think in my case, they might have something. I can request validation. Will that stop them if that can't provide validation? If I respond to them by requesting validation, will that be setting this old clock back to a fresher date (having contact?) If they can provide validation, then what? I can't pay that amount. Since there is no CR entry, i can't claim error on CR. How can I get rid of them without causing damage?
WOW! I stand corrected regarding Palisades and purchasing cell phone accounts Ontrack. I've dealt with them a few times here and there but, never pertaining to cell phones. In any event, Suzie, you may or may not want to request validation from Palisades. On one hand, they're not even reporting so why prod an animal which may or may not own an account legitimately belonging to you. On the other hand, Palisades is, as Ontrack aptly noted, is very litigious which means you may be served a summons out of the blue. The determining factor is whether your contemplated request for validation would be timely. That is to say, whether you should request validation from them depends on whether said request would come within thirty days from your receipt of their initial communication to you. If such request is within 30 days, then I'd tend to advise requesting validation. Reason being is that they could not take any future collection activity against you, including a civil action, without providing "proper" validation first. Now, if you're outside the thirty day window, I'd leave it be and pray they insert a tradeline before a summons. You would be able to sink your teeth into one of their tradelines which would give you a cause of action or an offset if you chose not to put the matter to bed via your own civil action.
Thanks for the replies. I am outside of the 30 days to request validation. The letter was dated in Oct., but it seems it got lost among paperwork and old mail, and I really did just discover this recently. So does this mean if I request validation now, outside of nthe 30 days, that they have the right to not provide it and by me responding I am engaging them and bringing on more grief? I'm surprised the paperwork for validation would still exist, after many years. I haven't heard from anyone in many years about this, and it is very old, so I'd be surprised the paperwork exists, which is why I would want to request validation - hoping they can't validate and that's the end of that. But, as was mentioned, I don't want to engage with a nasty, litigous company either. apexcrsrv: How so? Can you explain what I could do if this happens? Thanks
If you are outside the 30 day window, they can continue collection activity without providing validation to you first. This would include inserting tradelines and instituting civil action. For this reason, I would not now ask for validation since you would have no protection under the FDCPA. Regarding the possibility of them inserting a tradeline, that would be a good thing inasmuch as it (they) would likely have some inaccurate or incomplete information within them. If they would insert a tradeline, you could then dispute the tradelines through the CRA's and if they verified the inaccuracies, you would have a cause of action under the FCRA and FDCPA (in most cases). You could sue or use these as counter claims in a defensive position. Moreover, if they inserted tradelines, it may also be advantageous to go ahead and request validation in hopes that they would fail to mark the tradeline as being in dispute.
Thank you. So at this point, I can only hope they don't pursue this any further. And if they insert a TL, I have to hope they make a mistake. It sounds like they can take a legal action without inserting a TL for me to possibly find them at fault for. If they take legal action, I think I'm up a creek, but I don't know. I'm thinking they would have to provide documents at that time to validate the account, and I may be able to say there are errors and get the case dismissed??? Is there nothing I can do now but wait and see?
Suzie, Your above assesment is spot on. "I" would wait and see. You can request validation, however, I see no practical purpose for doing so in that they can take collection activity without providing it to you now. In other words, requesting validation now would do nothing. You're not necessarily without a paddle if they sue. This is because they will likely use an Affadavit instead of an actual contract to prove up their claim. This will not suffice unless they intend to produce the affiant at trial so that you may cross-examine them. If they have docs, then, in that case, you'd have problems. Still, I think you would have meritous estoppel defenses since they likely bought the account for pennies on the dollar. I would wait and see . . . others may differ.
