A follow up to a previous post. I have a CC that was SOL in California (4yrs) and closed in 2006. Previous DC gave up after I wrote a letter saying it was SOL. Now a new DC who bought the debt. I wrote credit bureau for that particular card to make sure it was 2006 and this new DC got wind of it. Do I just write the same SOL letter again?
While I'm still 'new-again' and relearning the ropes with the help of very knowledgeable people here, I'll try answer your question the best I can....I believe that SOL only prevents them from successfully suing you on this debt, just as long as you raise the SOL as the defense if it came to that point. The debt can still be reported up to 7.5 years from the first payment you missed that ultimately led to the charge-off. Here is the specific language: § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. §1681c] (c) Running of Reporting Period (1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)6 of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action. So, writing a letter only indicating that the SOL is up would probably only only keep them from continuing to attempt to collect, but would do nothing as far as keeping them from reporting it to the CRA's. Depending on what part of 2006 your account was charged-off, you could be very close to the end of the reporting period. If you have copies of your credit reports, it should be listed as 'Date of First Delinquency' I believe, or you could look at your payment history for the account, and the first time the account went late for the last time (meaning what ultimately led to the account being closed/charged-off) is the date you use to count forward 7.5 years. Depending on how quick you want/need this off your report, you may just want to wait out the remaining months if this all started in early 2006 as it would fall off mid-2013. On the other hand, you could start the validation process; there are some great sample letters here to use/modify; it's a process, but one that could pay off in more ways than one as some of our members have shown us.
Well, this is a matter of personal preference. If you are just looking for them to go away, tell them to pound sand with the same letter, they'll sell it to another company... you'll have to tell them to pound sand with the same letter, they'll sell it to another company... (See the never-ending cycle starting.) Now, I prefer to be more aggressive to try to nip things in the bud before they get to the never-ending cycle. Have you requested validation from the new DC? Reason I ask for validation, it gets them on the record that the age of the debt is truely time-barred. Did their letter specifically mention that the debt could be time-barred? (If, not, that's a false and misleading representation of the amount, character, and LEGAL STATUS of the debt. - AFTER they provide the validation, I send them a nice invoice for $1,000.00 with a copy of the drafted complaint for violating the FDCPA. - and do you think they want to sell the account after the account has already cost them $1,000.00 plus what they've already paid for it? Not usually.)
Jam, Wow, I didn't know this! that if the 'attempt to collect' letter from CA has to mention that the debt could be time-barred. The issue I had with getting a LTR from a CA (which is now 30 days past the date they signed for my validation LTR) is connected with an old debt that charged-of somewhere around 7 - 9 years ago, and SOL in my state is 4yrs. What section of the FDCPA or FCRA refers to a CA being required to include that information in their collection letters?
You'll typically see the notice on a "create a new credit card to pay off this debt" solicitation, but if it doesn't say something about the non-collectable status, it would be a misrepresentation... An attempt to collect a debt is a representation that the account has a legal status which is valid. Think about it, if you receive a dunning letter, the intent is to tell you that you owe a debt, and that you should pay that debt. If the debt is time-barred, while the debt itself may have a legitimate character, it may not have a legitimate legal status. 15 USC § 1692e - False or misleading representations (2) The false representation of— (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or Telling them to pound sand because it's SOL, works (partially) because the only communications options allowed past that are to tell you that they intend to sue you (you've already told them you will be using the affirmative defense that their claim is time-barred, so they are on notice that they'll be wasting their money if they choose this option), sue you, or tell you "we're not going to contact you any more." But it doesn't preclude them from selling the account to someone else to continue collecting.
If they knowingly sell the debt to someone else who more likely than not will also try to collect (another JDB), shouldn't they be liable for "continued collection efforts"? Wouldn't they be guilty by association, knowing the intent of the one they sold the debt to?
Only if validation is requested, 809 only ceases collection activity if validation is requested, and until validation is provided. If you only tell them that it is time-barred, you didn't request validation, so 809 doesn't apply. IF you request validation, and they don't provide it, and they sell it or reassign it, then it would be a violation of 809, and 807(6)(B).
