Newbie here I am in the process on buying a new home. The loan officer has given me my credit report and there was an open account/debt ( $728 ) on it that had me confused. I called the CA listed in the credit report And it comes to find out that it was for an old apartment I had rented in 2000. The bill was for incidentals such as cleaning of the carpet, and cleaning and something got hauled off to the dump. This didnâ??t make sense so I asked the lady on the phone if she had the rental agreement or check-in list. She said â??no, I did not. Donâ??t YOU? I said no. and she said it is my word against theirs and they arenâ??t removing it because I couldnâ??t proof I didnâ??t owe this because I didnâ??t have the old rental agreement in my possession and I was too late to dispute. And she basically hung up on me. So I fired off a letter (certified) stating she had 30 days to proof it with a rental agreement. or a check in sheet telling them to remove this debt. What happens if she just sends me a bill with these bogus charges? Can I sue or am I to late to dispute. Thanks I have a copy of the letter if it helps.
"So I fired off a letter (certified) stating she had 30 days to proof it with a rental agreement. or a check in sheet telling them to remove this debt." -As a consumer, you cannot "demand" something be deleted -Assuming this was the 1st contact the you, you can request "validaiton" of the debt in writing within 40 days. "What happens if she just sends me a bill with these bogus charges?" -Then that is their "verification" IT may or may not be "sufficiant". BUT thats debateable. "Can I sue or am I to late to dispute." -THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT for a dispute. -And what would you sue for?
ive never dealt with this situation directly... however, be advised the "furnisher of information" is responsible to provide accurate and verifiable information to the cra's. if not, of course- it must be deleted. validation letter is your best bet....also a "not mine" challenge to the CRA's after your CA receives the Validation request will create your papertrail and trap.... good luck! bugman
"however, be advised the "furnisher of information" is responsible to provide accurate and verifiable information to the cra's. if not, of course- it must be deleted." -True in theory "validation letter is your best bet....also a "not mine" challenge to the CRA's after your CA receives the Validation request will create your papertrail and trap" -Trap? Disputing an account as "not mine" when in fact it is, and is easily verified (its on his credit report) IS NOT a good idea. THe collection agency will simply look at the account, see the posters name on the account and YUP, its verified! (i am aware of validation definition theories so dont post it lol ) -A dispute relating to details is more effective and harder to comply with. The status, balance, payments etc. -Additionally, in some states a landlord has to get a judgment against a tenent for this kind of expense.
btw you can request validation of the debt at anytime not 30, 40, or whatever they try to tell you....it is the law that you have this right and the law does not prohibit you EVER from asking for validation, it only prohibits the CA's or OC's from "continuing collection activity" within the 30 days....ie the trap, i spoke of... search here for more in depth discussion on the 30 day issue.... ALWAYS VALIDATE
hiding said "oops" thats all you have to offer for this person in this situation. you are trying to start a weak philosphical argument irregardless of the real-world situation the OP is trying to deal with. For the OP: what i said is true, valid, and uncontested. FOR hiding: I question your motivation. you seem to imply your need for accountability and accuracy... yet you question when someone will question accuracy of cra's, furnishers of info, etc.! why do you think these laws were written? because the credit reporting concept is so perfect? tell me how great it is....i beg you....
just a piece of advice when disputing for the first time (contrary to HIDING) if you dispute anything other than NOT MINE you may be admitting to the debt, thereby making it harder, if not impossible to delete.. never late... CRA oh ok so it is yours but we dont believe you were never late ....Remains.... Validation is your first step
"btw you can request validation of the debt at anytime not 30, 40, or whatever they try to tell you....it is the law that you have this right and the law does not prohibit you EVER from asking for validation," -yeah, never said you couldnt. THe "40" was a typo. BUT my POINT was that it may be USELESS beacuse it DOES NOT cease collection efforts and there are MUCH stronger statutes other than making the "what is proper validation" arguement. THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF "validation" "it only prohibits the CA's or OC's from "continuing collection activity" within the 30 days....ie the trap, i spoke of..." -I still dont get the trap? the "cease collection" IS ONLY DURING THE FIRST 30 DAYS OF THE FIRST VALIDATION REQUEST. NOT after EVERY validation.Subsequent validation requests DO NOT FORCE the collection agency to cease collection activity. " you are trying to start a weak philosphical argument irregardless of the real-world situation the OP is trying to deal with." -IRREGARDLESS is NOT a word check HERE http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=IRREGARDLESS And I posted "oops" because the server posted my reply TWICE...thought Id delete it "For the OP: what i said is true, valid, and uncontested." - It is contested now. Prove your posts "FOR hiding: I question your motivation. you seem to imply your need for accountability and accuracy... yet you question when someone will question accuracy of cra's, furnishers of info, etc.! " -My motivation, as a VERY succesfull plaintiff in over 20 lawsuits, is to help other "unsophisticaed consumers" avoid the same MISTAKES and relying on "theories" of self proclaimed experts, which I did. -Saying "For the OP: what i said is true, valid, and uncontested" without backup documentation or case cite only goes to further prove my point. "why do you think these laws were written? because the credit reporting concept is so perfect? tell me how great it is....i beg you...." -The laws were written to protect the "least sophisticated consumer" you should be quite familiar with lack of sophistication
"just a piece of advice when disputing for the first time (contrary to HIDING) if you dispute anything other than NOT MINE you may be admitting to the debt, thereby making it harder, if not impossible to delete" -To clarify, if it wasnt clear, DISPUTING an account THAT IS IN FACT YOURS, as "not mine" creates a situation that the collection agency CAN EASILY verify the account as yours. Then any further "not mine" disputes are frivolous. -The account IS ALREADY on the credit report as the poster's and presumed to be his by the collector. -Sending a dispute "other than not mine" DOES IN NO WAY "ADMIT" liability. AND, even if in some way it did, ANY ACTION TO RECOVER THE DEBT IN COURT, THE COLLECTION AGENCY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THE DEBT WAS THE POSTERS TO THE JUDGE. A disoute letter from the debtor TO THE REPORTING AGENCY would never make it into court. The debt collector would only have a "digital form" where it received info from the reporting agency that "the debt is disputed" and a "reason". SO the collector would come to court and say "your honor, we tried to collect this debt, and the debtor told us "something" was wrong with the debt." We didnt do anything about it, but we want to win anyways NOT a clear win for the collector is it The courts have made it clear that the FCRA and FDCPA protect the consumer from "unfair" etc collection practices REGARDLESS OF DEBT LIABILITY.
Thank you for all of the helpful replies. I really do not want to sue. Rather, just as a threat. It is on my credit report, and is affecting my ability to improve on my loan. The CA was very defensive with the "you canâ??t prove it either" approach. I just hope they know what they are doing on any response I get from them.
"IRREGARDLESS is NOT a word check HERE http://dictionary.reference.com/sea...IRREGARDLESS its so pathetic to see aholes who are so beaten as to stoop to correcting grammar or spelling i go back to my original post which was to help the OP as it lays today. everything ive said is true and correct. I'll try to be specific: HIDING SAYS: -yeah, never said you couldnt. THe "40" was a typo. BUT my POINT was that it may be USELESS beacuse it DOES NOT cease collection efforts and there are MUCH stronger statutes other than making the "what is proper validation" arguement. THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF "validation" there are Letters that are accepted and can be used in a legal argument. but this poster is not even near that level right now, nor are most of us. the HIDDEN Story............. Bad "HIDDEN" has a collection agency calling him and writing him because he forgot to pay his $94 cable bill from his last address(that was 1 year ago?) he moved out and forgot! HIDDEN, after coming out of hiding, receives a nasty phone call: Yo HIDDEN your a deadbeat loser and single handedly are the reason for the demise of our whole society......BUT....if you pay the measly $194 the world will be renewed and you are the immortal GOD of it all!!!!!!!!!!!!! HIDDEN: huh, i never even lived in that state A-hole!!! CA: look, we have already raped your Credit reports, so dont get cute. H: Ok ill pay Hidden 2 months later (after realizing his rights: Man i wish i knew what validation was then!!! too bad im such a pompous ass spewing negative energy).....
FOR THE POSTER. HERE IS A BREAK DOWN of the "validaiton" statute. FCRA 809 http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- ...... (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. ... Section (b) refers to the time period described in section (a). Section (a) describes a time period "after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt," So, lets discuss
"its so pathetic to see aholes who are so beaten as to stoop to correcting grammar or spelling" -Agreed. Almost as bad as changing the subject when confronted with the possibility you are wrong -I liked my story by the way. Post more will you?
the site email page stalls on me...Butch email me at hiding90@hotmail.com and ill send that PDF if you are intersted
"This didnâ??t make sense so I asked the lady on the phone if she had the rental agreement or check-in list. She said â??no, I did not. Donâ??t YOU? I said no. and she said it is my word against theirs and they arenâ??t" this, from the OP says it all. this is why you have the power to dispute this very simply. and, in the end you should be ok
Thank you for all of the helpful replies. I really do not want to sue. again, from the OP. the way most of us feel and operate he/she has options that dont constitute a court of law. most of us do not want to be involved in the judicial system. we'd like to get results without argueing the details of law. im offering real life advice....your picking fights on philosophical unknowns.... i want known results....time, money, and so forth..
You failed to see the "what ifs" in the event NO one "Verifies" "validates" blah blah etc. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE OUT OF VALIDATONS and DISPUTES? IF there are no consequences, WHY START THE FIGHT ? THE FCRA/FDCPA PROTECT the consumers BY THREATENING THE COLLECTION AGENCIES AND DEBT COLLECTORS WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING TAKEN TO COURT BY THE CONSUMER.(and States/fedeal agencies) "ITS"(intent to sue) letters, along with most the other "real world" tactics you refer to, DO NOT OFFER ANY "WEIGHT" if they are "violated" YES, THEY CAN WORK. BUT it is NOT beacuse they carry any weight or somehow "Scare" the collection agencies/reporting agencies. THEY work because the collection agencies are tired of reading blah blah blah....and would rather focus on debtors who "cough up" $$ easier. If you had to collect from someone, a small amount, would you rather read a bunch of meaningless letters, or find another person with a greater amount or that is EVEN LESS knowledgable?? Its like a fishing lure. Sure ur favorite lure (letter) may work everytime you use it. BUT on the day your family is hungry and you need to catch fish for supper, your lure (letter) MAY NOT WORK because the fishies have become aware of the lure (letter) and have decided to look for other means of food (sueing the debtor) WHY NOT study ichtheology (fish know how), and find out what the fishes (collection agencies) CANNOT resist (the federal statutes) Dont sound like philosophical to me
"i want known results....time, money, and so forth" -I guess 1000's of cases where a judge had made rulings are not known results -How does one get "time, money, and so forth? CAN ANYONE TELL ME THEY HAVE EVER GOTTEN $$$ from one of these "other" tactics like the "ITS" letters???
