I recently requested validation for a debt from Arrow Financial and they after about two months just now contacted me. Instead of validation they instead sent me a settlement of 35% of the original bill. What should my next action be?
The debt is from 1999 and it was in South Carolina. I am not sure how to check for the SoL and what to do if it has expired.
Was your validation request sent within 30 days of receiving their initial contact letter, or did they even send you an initial letter before your request for validation?
I sent the validation letter then they sent the settlment letter 2 months later. So I assume they used the letter to get my new address because I had just moved.
If the settlement letter was sent shortly after your validation letter (you did send it CRRR, I presume), they may just claim they crossed in the mail, although that is unlikely 2 months later. What does your proof of delivery give as their date of receipt, and how long after that did they send their next letter? Have they sent you any response to your validation, or any additional letters following their receipt of your request for validation?
The confirmation of them recieving the letter for validation is post marked for the 18th of Oct. 2005. There is no way it crossed in the mail lol.
Yes they are reporting on my credit report. TL? I recieved their settlement offer on the 18 of Dec. 05
The TL looks correct but the date they have listed as being opened is not the date the account went derogatory. Also if I settle this for $50 can they sell or transfer the account to another CA to collect the balance?
If you just pay them $50 based on their "settlement" offer, without pinning down in writing that the debt is "settled in full", they might do just that. It has been known to happen, but since to the consumer "settled" means "paid with no further claim", why this should be considered anything but breach of contract, fraud, and an FDCPA violation for use of deception to collect is beyond me. An agreement is no better than the intent of the parties to honor it. Check on their "integrity": Call the CRA to find out what date they are reporting as date of first delinquency, which determines when it should fall off your reports. Any DF, including CAs, are required to provide this date to the CRAs, who are responsible for removing negative information from reports based on it. Providing a false newer date to extend the time a negative item is on a report is "re-aging", a violation of FCRA for reporting erroneous information, and a violation of FDCPA for misrepresenting the legal status of the debt. If this were the case, you would need to dispute this thru the CRA, and have the CA "verify" before proceeding.
I was going to send them the Letter from this here http://credit.about.com/cs/consumeraction/a/blltrval1.htm with the $50 settlement offer. Do you feel this should do the trick. Or should I make them verify the debt before even bothering with the settlement because I think the SoL has expired but I'm not sure do to the TL probably not being acurate.
The date they list as opened may be just the date they bought the debt. Credit reports from some CRAs do not show the first date of delinquency clearly or at all, so check with the CRA to find out what date they have reported. Also, does your report show a TL from the original creditor?
Whether the OC's TL shows dates, they would be legally required to report the original date of delinquency to the CRA. Some CRAs do not include this in CRs. Call the CRA to determine what was reported.
