Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation 1. I am almost 100% sure this isnt mine. DH and I paid off everything listed on our reports about 2 years ago before we started looking for a home loan. This TL wasnt on our reports back then. Neither of us knows what it is, so we each called this OC and gave them the truncated account # from our reports, and they couldnt even find the account in their system. so naturally, we dispute w CRAs and, i know this might sound shocking but, the TL was verified. I have written two letters to the OC, both of which have been ignored. 2. This is where i get confused. this TL says it was charged off, and has a "Recent balance - $0 as of 6-01". But, it also says "status - $209 past due as of 6-01". HUH? Oh and heres another weird thing...under "account history" it says: Charge Off as of 6-99, 5-99, 4-99, 3-99.......all the way down to 11-97!! So, when exactly was it charged off??? I It also says "120 days as of 9-97, 8-97".. well, which is it? how can something be 120 days late in august AND sept? wow, i didnt mean for this post to get so involved, lol, but ANYWAY.... This OC pulled a hard inquiry on DHs reports a coupld of days ago. Can I use that as any leverage here? Basically what I'm asking is: If an OC believes someone owes them money, even tho they are aware that this person does not believe they owe, does the OC have PP? They were notified in writing twice before the PP that we disputed this TL. thanks.
1*I sent my validation letter to the OC (a university) for an unpaid bill of $764. DOLA was 1/1996 (past 7 years); however, they are reporting it as 1/1998 being the 1 OLA (not past 7 years). 2* I actually intend on paying this debt because I want my transcripts Well, I checked my credit report today and they pulled my credit report from ALL THREE CRAs. Can they do this? Even if this debt is BEYOND 7 years? 3*This whole credit repair thing is a frustrating thing.... 4*Hi Lisae! Let everyone else jump in... but I don't think they can do that! I think that constitutes trying to collect on a debt, which they are not allowed to do while you are disputing it, until they have provided you with validation. I know this is the case for CA's, but I think this also applies to OC's. Anyone???NervousNuB 5*FDCPA does not apply, therefore the rule "no collection activity after a request for validation" does not apply either.vghost Dlisae ===================== """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1*HOW DO YOU get 96 when they say it was 98? 2*Why pay it if you don't owe it and they can't collect it? I don't think it's legal to withhold your transcripts. 3*Most customer bilking is. 4*It's also extortion to blackmail one by with holding the transcripts to effect payment of an un owed debt. 5*But the fair billing and FCR acts do. ===================== """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation 1*I sent my validation letter to the OC (a university) for an unpaid bill of $764. DOLA was 1/1996 (past 7 years); however, they are reporting it as 1/1998 being the 1 OLA (not past 7 years). 2* I actually intend on paying this debt because I want my transcripts Well, I checked my credit report today and they pulled my credit report from ALL THREE CRAs. Can they do this? Even if this debt is BEYOND 7 years? 3*This whole credit repair thing is a frustrating thing.... 4*Hi Lisae! Let everyone else jump in... but I don't think they can do that! I think that constitutes trying to collect on a debt, which they are not allowed to do while you are disputing it, until they have provided you with validation. I know this is the case for CA's, but I think this also applies to OC's. Anyone???color=pink]NervousNuB[/color] 5*FDCPA does not apply, therefore the rule "no collection activity after a request for validation" does not apply either.vghost Dlisae 1*HOW DO YOU get 96 when they say it was 98? 2*Why pay it if you don't owe it and they can't collect it? I don't think it's legal to withhold your transcripts. 3*Most customer bilking is. 4*It's also extortion to blackmail one by with holding the transcripts to effect payment of an un owed debt. 5*But the fair billing and FCR acts do. =====================
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation Let say, for the sake of the argument, that you do have an open acccount with the OC. No matter how many letters you send telling them you do not believe you have an account with them, they will still have their PP. So simply writing them a letter will not do it. As I said before - dispute it with the CRA, they must validate with the OC. If, as you said, the OC cannot find this account, most likely they would not verify and the CRA will delete it. Or, if you can get in writing from the OC that they don't have a record for this account, then send this info to the CRA. Otherwise, I'm afraid you have to send the OC at least the ITS letter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation oh if only it was that easy. I have disputed w the CRAs already twice. It was verified twice. The OC ignores my letters requesting proof that this is mine. So, I guess its time for an ITS. I just hate that this is the only way. Why is there no law addressing this?? I'm going to go read the part about 'data furnishers' and 'accuracy' again. *sigh*
I hear ya, it's a pain in the neck ... Do not forget to read § 623 (c) and § 623 (d) - they set some limitations on enforcement and liability regarding violations under § 623 (a). BTW, which is the OC? Have you tried the PFB? Some OCs react very fast on PFB letters ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation vghost, That is really misleading, CRA's don't validate with OC's. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation Wow ... what do you mean by that, Sassy??? FCRA does not use the word "validate", but obligates the CRA to reinvestigate and the only way to do that is to verify with the OC ... You got me all confused here ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation I meant just what you typed, vghost, now I'm flying with ya!!!!!!! You aren't confused, it is the use of the word "validate" in the context that you used it that was misleading. On any other board where the subject matter wasn't credit, the differences and implications of the word "verify" versus "validate" would be semantics. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation Yeah, it has been discussed many, many times. The funny thing is, the FCDPA Section 809 is called "Validation of debts", but inside the section only the word "verification" is used ...
so FDCPA does not apply, therefore the rule "no collection activity after a request for validation" does not apply either. vghost =========== This applies instead: When you dispute an amount with an oc they are not allowed to report said amount to a CRA. Also you do not have to pay the amount disputed while it is in dispute.
so FDCPA does not apply, therefore the rule "no collection activity after a request for validation" does not apply either. vghost =========== This applies instead: When you dispute an amount with an oc they are not allowed to report said amount to a CRA. Also you do not have to pay the amount disputed while it is in dispute. *********** Sorry this posted again due to the following Web Site Not Responding The web site you have requested may be experiencing technical difficulties due to a busy or broken server. Please try again by clicking the Reload icon on your navigation bar or, if that doesn't work, you may want to return to the site at a later time. 504 Connection Timed Out
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation 1*I don't have an original copy with date on it, 2*but it is money owed for tuition due 1/96 3*that hasn't been paid on since. 4*As this is a very large, reputable university, I can't imagine they would change the records, 5*my transcripts would even prove that I wasn't a student there since that time. lisae1================== ========================== 1* 2*Why was there tuition due 1/96 3*Why hasn't there been any payments on it since 96? 4* 5*What does your not being there since 1/96 have to do with wither or not you owe the money????
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC Investigation 1. I'll repeat the question Nervous asked - do you have a copy of the original agreement with the date on it? 2*Here is an idea of a letter (it's one of the CN's letters): vghost 3*Are you sure that the university cannot legally withhold my transcripts until this debt is paid?lisae1 4*The school informed me she couldn't send transcripts until I paid off the amount. 5*I believe this is SOP. legal? almostther ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1*I don't see the connection between the prior 1996 contract and the post 1996 debt claimed by the school. 2*Why send this letter for a debt the poster never owed and even if they did it's way past sol? 3*No they can not withhold them in order to collect a bogus debt. 4* 5*Don't sound legal to me to extort unwed money from someone this way. --------------->> -------------->>
Basically what I'm asking is: If an OC believes someone owes them money, even tho they are aware that this person does not believe they owe, does the OC have PP? They were notified in writing twice before the PP that we disputed this TL. crowmom | ================ They don't have the right to pull simply because you disputed it. --------------->> --------------->> --------------->>
Re: Re: OC Investigation Its Bank of America. I haven't tried PFB yet. I have been reading a LOT of OC threads, and these have lots of info about how to handle OCs: (hey, they might even help the OP, who i never aplogized to for hijacking the thread, lol. sorry!) http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...php?s=&threadid=35243&perpage=20&pagenumber=1 http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46135& btw Butch, if you read this...I've read several of your posts concerning how to handle an OC, but I have a very slow dial up connection, and I'm about halfway thru my search results. I'm learning a lot, but before I sit here again all day, could you (or anyone else) tell me: 1)did you ever come up with an answer for the question from Sunhawk from the post above (46135): "So, since B mentions nothing about being required to update your account as disputed, regardless of whether or not you dispute directly or through a CRA, the account does not have to be marked as being in dispute if listed by the original creditor (in regards to suing them)?" 2)is the general consensus around here that the estoppel is generally used in the hopes that the creditor is just not very knowlegable about the concept? 3) Would the only solid way to get rid of an OC TL (the one i described above) be to go after the inaccurate reporting by the CRA? sorry, but there is SO MUCH grey area as far as the laws are concerned, not to mention all the opinions here.
