NCO Falsifying Last Payment Date

Be aware that NCO was caught illegally "re-aging" reported information, and as part of their consent decree, they agreed to stop doing that. Perhaps you should bring this to the attention of the FTC.

See the FTC complaint:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/9923012/040513ncocmp9923012.pdf

Here is the consent decree:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/9923012/040513ncoco9923012.pdf

Here is the press release:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/05/ncogroup.htm

"For Release: May 13, 2004

NCO Group to Pay Largest FCRA Civil Penalty to Date

One of the nation�s largest debt-collection firms will pay $1.5 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by reporting inaccurate information about consumer accounts to credit bureaus. The civil penalty against Pennsylvania-based NCO Group, Inc. is the largest civil penalty ever obtained in a FCRA case.

According to the FTCââ?¬â?¢s complaint, defendants NCO Group, Inc.; NCO Financial Systems, Inc.; and NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. violated Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA, which specifies that any entity that reports information to credit bureaus about a delinquent consumer account that has been placed for collection or written off must report the actual month and year the account first became delinquent. In turn, this date is used by the credit bureaus to measure the maximum seven-year reporting period the FCRA mandates. The provision helps ensure that outdated debts ââ?¬â?? debts that are beyond this seven-year reporting period ââ?¬â?? do not appear on a consumerââ?¬â?¢s credit report. Violations of this provision of the FCRA are subject to civil penalties of $2,500 per violation.

The FTC charges that NCO reported accounts using later-than-actual delinquency dates. Reporting later-than-actual dates may cause negative information to remain in a consumer�s credit file beyond the seven-year reporting period permitted by the FCRA for most information. When this occurs, consumers� credit scores may be lowered, possibly resulting in their rejection for credit or their having to pay a higher interest rate.

The proposed consent decree orders the defendants to pay civil penalties of $1.5 million and permanently bars them from reporting later-than-actual delinquency dates to credit bureaus in the future. Additionally, NCO is required to implement a program to monitor all complaints received to ensure that reporting errors are corrected quickly. The consent agreement also contains standard recordkeeping and other requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants� compliance.
..."

 

Falsifying the last payment date could hypothetically work to the advantage of a CA in several ways:

1) It could be used to convince a debtor that the debt is within SOL, to make a threat to sue appear both legal and credible. That also has the advantage of discouraging disputes, even if the consumer has the legal right to dispute, since disputing may appear likely to provoke a lawsuit if the debt appears to be within SOL.

2) It could affect FICO scores more negatively than the actual accurate last payment date, since it shows recent activity associated with a collection account.

3) It could make a debt appear within SOL, and therefore more valuable to a new debt buyer.

4) It could possibly accomplish the above, while sidestepping any specific agreement terms not to re-age based on the first date of delinquency. ("We didn't know you meant THAT field. It was just an accident." Ollie North's old "plausible deniability".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

 

They are supposed to be maintaining compliance and monitoring systems to prevent this sort of error. You can't know for sure what they are up to, but you don't have to wait until they spring it. It may come off in a year, but if they are monkeying with the dates, how can you count on it?

Because of the past record of illegally reporting dates, you should probably both dispute thru the CRAs as inaccurate, and simultaneously file complaints with your state AG, and the FTC. That puts their actions on record, and visible to the appropriate regulatory agencies responsible for enforcing both law and settlement agreements. It is possible the CA might then find it in their best interest to notify you they are "closing" your account and removing the TL, just to make the issue go away.

If you see people casing your house day after day, you call the police. You don't wait until they break in. And knowing they have a record of burglary only tips your decision toward taking action before they succeed.

 

If you were not served, that may be a reason to void the judgement.

SOL may, or may not, be as the attorney said. If they sued, and obtained a judgement, knowing it was past SOL, that may be an additional FDCPA violation.

If so, you might be able to void the judgement, assert a defense of SOL, and possibly collect damages and attorney fees to cover your costs.

If they obtained a judgement without proper service, you can't trust anything else they tell you. The "recent payments" on your credit report might reflect what the real SOL was. It might have actually expired, and the CA might have thought it necessary to allege that the SOL was reset, in order to support filing suit, which implies it might have actually passed. Yet this attorney claims he knew the actual last payment date.

SOL defense has to be raised by you, so suing after SOL is most effective if you have no way to raise it. If then you believe you could not have raised that defense anyway, game over.

This attorney does not represent you. You need to talk to one who does.

You should run this by an FDCPA attorney.

 

That is why you need to see an attorney.

You have 2 paths:

1) Pay the judgement, and have it on your reports for a number of years.
2) Possibly vacating the judgement, and if it is SOL, they can't sue. It falls off your reports in about a year.

Is the difference between these 2 outcomes worth seeing an attorney?