Here is what the trade line shows. In my state(s) SOL is 4 years. The lease was 3 and 1/2 years, so the SOL should be expired in the next few months considering these "issues" were at the end of the term compared to today's date. Never knew of this until seeing the credit report. No CAs on file for it, only this. Called them, and they claim the bulk of the fees are from "damages/excesiive ware" and one missed payment. However when I turned the car in at the dealer, all was fine, and I never signed any excessive damage report or anything like this. I wanted to send something to them asking how they can prove this is even a valid debt, but I know its different for an OCs comared to a CA account, and wasn't sure what my next step should be? Account Name Manufacturer Auto Lease Company Account # XXXX Account Type Auto Lease Balance $2K! Date Opened 6/^/2005 Account Status Closed Mo. Payment Close Account Details Past Due Payment Status Charge-off High Balance Limit Terms 42 Months Comments
You're correct in that you can't technically send the OC a DV letter. However, you could certainly still send them a letter asking for an explanation since you never received any information regarding the debt and were not made aware of any issues when the car was turned in. Did you miss the last payment on the lease or something?
Hmmmm, the best strategy will depend greatly on the exact circumstances of the trade line. Caselaw says the CRA must perform a reasonable investigation, and caselaw says that the extent of the investigation that is reasonable depends on whether or not the data furnisher is reliable, and whether they've been notified (or should have known) that the data furnisher is unreliable. Is there a specific factual error that YOU KNOW about? If you send a SPECIFIC dispute to the CRA, and the data furnisher furnishes incomplete, inaccurate, or unverifiable information to that SPECIFIC dispute, you would have an argument to make to the CRA that the data furnisher is unreliable, that they need to demand that a more thorough investigation is done.
If I just dispute it with the CRAs, I see that they mostly just say verified, and then they may just parrot each other, so I don't know if that should be the first step. I haven't tried this yet, just going by what I've read. I did in fact have a lease with them, so that is not in dispute and the date is accurate from when it was started. However, when I left the car at the dealership at the end of the term, all was fine and I never heard from them after that, years later discovering this. The only other info on the tradeline is 24 month payment history. Starts with 2010 Sept, and Oct, has ND (No Data) and then from Nov all the way through Aug 2012 (or now basically has) KD (Key derogatory.) What's strange about that is the car would have been already turned in when 2009 started, why ND until Sept 2010? Report doesnt let me look back further to see actual payments. Do I send them a 623 letter? DO I wait until Jan 2013 for the SOL before contacting them again? What should be the informed consumer's next step?
Why almost 2 years later to start reporting KD even, which sort of fits them never telling me about a problem any time around turning the car in. From this it seems like they were not even reporting a problem until long after I had the car, HOWEVER, how do I see longer history on the reporting to see how messed up it is? Never any car loan or lease troubles before this.
Mark: That's what they'll always say, which is why you use proven unreliability to force the CRA to verify the reliability of the data furnisher. So, this is how I would attack the dispute. Standard disclaimer #1... I am not an attorney, and I never played one on TV... This is not legal advice... You'll want to view the suits Johnson v. MBNA, and Cushman v. TransUnion to find relevant quotes to educate the adversary. (What makes my letters so successful is that they are not form letters that are mass distributed, each legal quote is specially selected for the purpose that I intend, and they work wonders... If you only quote the portions that everyone else uses, they'll see form letter a mile away...) Remember that as Josh said, there is no documentation requirement under the FCRA for DFs as there is for CAs under the FDCPA through validation; my work-around for that is the litigation mindset. If you speak in enough eminence of litigation, hopefully they'll see that the minutes of effort to search for the documentation, and provide it to you, will save them time down the road. I would send a letter to XYZ Lease Company, either CMRRR or FAX, saying the nature of the dispute... From what you're posting that: In the past 3 1/2 years, there has not been a delinquency in the lease, and I have never been notified of the same, therefore unless they immediately provide substantial documentation thereof proving said alleged delinquency in the lease which they've just recently began reporting, AND proof that they've notified me IN WRITING before said alleged delinquency in the lease was reported to the credit reporting agencies, I will file suit against them in federal court for reporting incomplete, inaccurate, and unverifiable credit information to the credit reporting agencies. I further demand in accordance with Johnson v. MBNA, that they CONCLUSIVELY VERIFY the disputes that you will be submitting to the credit reporting agencies, tomorrow, not from a cursory review of your records, but from the original account documentation which you've obtained from this review of my account. (The CRA disputes is what makes the CRA liable civilly for reporting the incomplete, inaccurate, and unverifiable account information.) The day after you know that they've received it, either from the FAX transmittal or the tracking of the green card from the post office, send the CRA disputes to the applicable CRAs, challenging the reliability of the data furnisher's reporting on the same grounds, that in the 3 1/2 years from the closing of the lease, the lease wasn't delinquent, and they have never notified me of any alleged delinquencies. Therefore, I can only presume that the data furnisher is unreliable, and demand conclusive verification of the data, and the data furnisher's reliability.
Thank you, that sounds great. However, few key issues I'm looking at to resolve before doing this 1) it only shows last 24 month history on my report, and 2 on those month's are showing ND and the rest KD several years later like you stated. I can't see if prior to 2010 Sept, and Oct all the way back to the end of the lease are also all No Data or anything else showing on it to know that Nov 2010 is the first derogatory mark (almost 2 years after lease end). And if there are other marks in the bast, but then many months of ND then back to KD, do we still have the same argument? 2) Where can I review these cases online for free? Why did you select these specific cases and do you see any particular relevance I should look into? Am I only citing these items for the OC or also for the CRA disputes? Thanks.
Any other feedback, I want to prepare a letter for them and try to get this corrected or removed as soon as possible.
Any help or feedback on those 3 questions? I want to get them a letter fired off by next week unless answer to number 3 is wait.
If you're not under the gun to try and clean this up right now and they're not badgering you to collect, then you might want to consider waiting a bit longer on this since the SOL is so close.
They never even contacted me, even after I called to see WTF? I'm tempted to wait 3-4 months but at the same time its such BS and would like to have it off within the next few weeks. Any info on my other 2 questions?
I can understand why you feel that way, but I would still consider holding off a bit longer given the situation. Jam- do you have some further insight to share based on the OP's questions?
You just contacted them, if that was the initial contact, they need to provide the requisite written notices within 5 days. If you want to lay low for the SOL to run out, you have a couple of months to draft a simple suit. On xx/xx/xxxx, I noticed them on my CR. On xx/xx/xxxx, I called them to find out who they were. Within 5 days of the initial communication, they are required to send... Remember that I am not an attorney, and I don't play one on TV. This is just the two second suit I would whip up if it were my issue. I will have to flip back a page to see the other questions, but putting cash in your pocket for an account that is SOL is better than putting cash in their pocket.
1) if it says there was no derog before Nov 2010, my arguement would be why it took almost two years to see the 'damage' they are claiming. 2) if you google the case names they'll come up really easily. These are fairly well published cases.
It only shows 24 months history on my online report, so I don't know if there were any other derogs before that.
