I just copied the below from a law firms site in Indiana. They list FDCPA violations... this is one of them. "Changing the default date used to compute the seven year period a bad debt can remain on your credit report. A collection agency or bad debt buyer is required to use the same date as the original creditor. Often, they use a newer date, which allows the entry to remain on your credit report longer." As I mentioned, I just got my CR, and I have several accounts from 96/97 that are now showing 2001/2002! The only thing I did in 2001 was open a Providian account...... If I'd only know about opt out then!! What is my recourse with these CA's reporting I have a new debt? Please please please help me! This board has been my only source of hope on these matters! Thank you!!
Write and request PROOF of the debts, if they can't provide it, to remove them. Either way the CAs will be screwed. If they can't provide the validation, they need to remove the TLs from your report, and if they DO provide proper validation, you will have proof they re-aged the accounts. Write the letter requesting validation and send it to the CAs CMRR. After you get the green cards back dispute the accounts with the CRAs. OR, if you have proof already (like an old report showing the original DOLA) just go ahead and file against them and watch how fast they cave in. Gib
Thank you Gib! Now, if they were to validate (which I don't see how they could), and prove the re-agings, what is the consequence to them? Or will they just go ahead and delete the accounts when I point it out?
The consequences would be that is a big no-no, and you could file a 1k suit in small claims. The accounts from '96 they have to delete anyway. The accounts from '97 would be due to fall in the next year anyway. I would ask for deletion and cash to settle. Gib
Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations Mmmm, I like that idea. Have you ever heard of anyone doing that successfully? (Asking for deletion and cash?) It makes sense... I about had a heart attack when I saw my report and all those accounts opened in 2001!!!! Thank you very much gib.
Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations Or will they just go ahead and delete the accounts when I point it out? ........................................... Deleting the accounts will not erease the violations.
Re: Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations 7... seven re-agings on my report! So, what you're saying is if they just delete, I should still go after them on the violations? Of course I could use 7 grand! I'm more apt to settle with them, what would a reasonable settlement be? I haven't seen any sample letters putting these types of bargains on the table. And thank you LBrown59, for responding.
Re: Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations did you ever pay these debts? here's the only thing i don't get about these boards...there are some people who post about ways to get around paying the debts that are theirs (which is fine, i've screwed a couple of my debtors) but then there are people who will sue the creditor that they didn't pay over a technicality...the point of the fcra and fdcpa is for people who legitimately pay their bills or maybe had a rough time for a short period - not for career scammers, because ultimately, as a consumer, i pay for the unpaid debts and petty lawsuits through higher rates and fees. pick and choose your battles, people. if they fix the problem, let it go.
Re: Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations did you ever pay these debts? here's the only thing i don't get...there are some people who post about ways to get around paying the debts that are theirs (which is fine, i've screwed a couple of my debtors) but then there are people who will sue the creditor that they didn't pay over a technicality...the point of the fcra and fdcpa is for people who legitimately pay their bills or maybe had a rough time for a short period - not for career scammers, because ultimately, as a consumer, i pay for the unpaid debts and petty lawsuits through higher rates and fees (or they change their scoring system so i might not GET credit) pick and choose your battles, people. if they fix the problem, let it go. i'm sure i'll get a lot of angry replies to this, but i don't care - it needed to be said.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations I don't think you would have gotten any angry replies had you said what you had to say in a nicer tone. And perhaps the only angry reply you will get will be from me, since you are directing it my way. Perhaps you never have had a "rough time for a short period" and you can sit there and make riteous comments. To insinuate that I might be a career scammer... is wrong. You don't know anything about me, nor should I have to explain myself, or what happened to me in 1997, or how much I paid to whom, or who worked with me and who didn't, or the heartbreak I went through, or how my perfect credit vanished in one year, or the harrasment I got from the many many creditors... I did the best I possibly could during that time, in that situation, and have continued to. I didn't know a thing about my rights at the time and am just learning now. This coming year was the end of the 7 years, the negatives were going to go. I pulled my credit report for the first time on Friday. When I saw all those NEW accounts for 2001 I about had a heart attack. I will dispute them. I will do so with a clear conscience. I am not a scammer. I never have been. I'm a pushover. I'm trying to learn how not to be. I'm a do gooder, never did drugs, take care of my family and neighbors, bend over backwards to help other people, always try to avoid confrontation... which has resulted before in my paying things that were not mine... well.. that part has to stop. Don't presume to know people. Don't presume to know me. Think about something nice someone did for you lately, or some time ago. That person could have been me, or someone like me, who may have had a "rough time for a short period" at sometime in their life... and you don't know what their circumstances were, and maybe it's not for you to know, but you know what, should you ever have a rough time, I hope that someone like me is there to help you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations I am not advocating not paying their debts. Consumers pay stiff penalties for having collections on their report. 7 years of harm to their credit reports costs a lot of money in extra fees and interest. The sad part is, due to the wonderful scoring system our economy is so fond of, you suffer the same consequences for a PAID collection as you do an unpaid one. If that isn't enough, then you have to deal with a scum sucking bottom feeder that purchases debt for 2-3 cents on the dollar and then RE-AGES the old debt to try and make it stay on your report another 7 years so they can use that as leverage to collect. I had several medical collections on my reports. All of them had to do with my ex-wife taking my daughter to the emergency room on a weekly basis whether she needed it or not. She'd get the bill and just trash them. I never knew about the bills, we were each liable for half of what my insurance didn't cover. I had no problem whatsoever paying the collectors who agreed to delete the negatives, but I fought tooth and nail the collectors who simply wanted to screw me. Yes I threatened a lot of lawsuits over TECHNICALITIES because I figured the years of credit hell I lived with because of that woman were enough. I really didn't find it very fair that even after 8 years of being divorced she was still screwing up my life. I will never pay 25% interest on an auto loan again. I will also never have some bottom feeder make my life hell for a debt that wasn't my responsibilty again. You will see a lot of talk about suing on these boards. Civil laws are what we have to work with. If debt collectors followed the laws in place that govern thier industry, then they would be law suit proof. As for letting it go, do you really feel that a CA who knowingly re-ages an account should just get away with it because they got caught by a knowledgeable consumer? If they don't have to face any consequences for THEIR illegal activity, they will continue on to financially molest the uneducated. The only way to get these companies to follow the law is to hit them where it hurts most, their bottom line. Where do you let it go? If a debt collector sends out a 100,000 dunning letter on fake accounts, do you just let them off the hook if a consumer fights back and they say "Oops, my bad?" What of the other 99,999 people, who will look out for them? I'm rambling now so I'll just let it go at that. Gib
Re: Re: Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations I think you've not read here very much, jenz This is the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever read!!!!!!!!!!!! This part especially: That is not the purpose or point of the FCRA or FDCPA, have you read either of them????? They both have a congressional findings and purpose section. The point of the FCRA is fair and accurate reporting -- it doesn't apply to consumers, it applies to furnishers and reporting agencies. The point of the FDCPA is to address abusive collectors -- it doesn't apply to consumers either, it applies to third party debt collectors. NEITHER have anything to do with consumers that had difficulties, whether they pay their bills or not, nor whether they had a rough time -- it's not relevant and has nothing to do with the requirements at all. Nothing, nada, zilch!!!!!!!!! Amazing, this is truly amazing! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations Your prose was indeed eloquent, gib!!!!!!!! (and amazing too ;-) I'm flying with ya! Sassy
first of all, i do know a rough period, just got out of a couple rough years = I WOULD NEVER SUE OVER A DEBT I DIDN'T PAY! if the debt wasn't yours, paid, etc., then yes it would be legitimate to sue. i do know the fcra and fdcpa - do you? the first word is "fair" not "take advantage of the system". i have read these boards for a long time and that is what prompted me to post that...not for the people who are legitimate, as i said in my post, but for the scammers who are in it for a buck - wasting my tax dollars for the courts system, wasting my consumer dollars on higher fees and rates, and the funny part is - THE OC/CA DON'T CARE, they get to go to court and say "it was in error, they never tried to contact me to fix it"... ever hear the phrase you can kill more flies with honey than you can with vinegar?
You are getting confused on the issue. Read the above objectively and dispassionately. Now apply what is written there to the original poster in this thread (Whom I apologize to for hijacking it). Now he said he had seven accounts reaged, One might be a mistake, but seven constitutes a pattern of abuse. If the CA in question faces absolutely no consequences for breaking the law, they continue to do what is described in the act as abusive practices. Sorry, but your morality arguement doesn't play in this issue. As I said before, civil laws and penalties are what we have to work with. They are to act as a deterent much as jail time acts as a deterent in criminal cases. What you are saying is equivalent to letting someone off the hook who beat the living hell out of you because they said they were sorry. Gib
Please enlighten us and do tell us how much of our tax money actually goes to the things you say it does. I do apologize if you actually know this, but I have found after years of being an acitvist and listening to the rhetroic about "how much my hard-earned tax money is wasted on this," most people haven't a clue what they are even talking about. Please, until you really do know how much of our tax money goes to court cases like this, it's really in everyone's better intersts that you don't "make up" arguments like this. It's doubtful that the bit of tax money that does go to court systems is increased because of the RELATIVELY few people who use the system regarding collection and fair credit reporting. I was a court reporter for a few years, I assure you that these cases are not prevalent comparatively. If you actually have a real problem with increased rates, premiums, please try seeing the forrest through the trees. If we didn't have an unequal system in which people don't have equal access to outrageouly expensive basic neccessities, such as health care, we woulnd't have half the bankruptices we see in America and the amount of people who end up defaulting on loans, etc. Your posts sounds as though you are upset with symptoms and you are scapegoating other symptoms instead of delving deeper into the issue and recognizing what is the real source. Companies will do what they can to get the most money they can out of people. Make no mistake about that. If you want to believe you bear the brunt of defaulted payments through increased premiums, so be it. But realize that means that you are believing that businesses, who soley exist to make money off of you, would out of the goodness of their hearts charge you less if they could. And as for people "making money" off of "bad debts" --- they are forcing businesses to follow the law. Isn't that what business are doing when they try to collect on a debt -- forcing consumers to follow the law? The reality is we live in a (mostly) capitalist country, where morality is functionally worth nothing and money drives all. It means nothing to these companies if you nicely tell them to follow the law. What means something to them, is a LAWSUIT and a LOSS of money. Until they learn that it costs them more money to not follow the law, they will continue to break the law. Why do you think a large number of companies have enacted anti-discrimiation polices? I assure you, it's not because most people find discrimiation immoral -- it's because companies realized it wasn't econmical to keep discriminating againt people. tboy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Multiple CA FDCPA violations I am new to this, so experts please correct if wrong. I read on this board somewhere that sometimes the date opened doesn't actually reflect a re-aging of the account. it sounded like they were saying in the other thread that you might want to call the CRA and ask them when this is due to fall off your credit report (or look on the report if it that is noted). If THAT date is correct, then the account actually hasn't been re-aged. right guys? tboy
