I have a collection account that is showing up on my TU report (only on TU). I disputed with TU, but it came back verified. It turns out that the collection agency is also a TU affiliate (no wonder it was verified!). Anyway, it is from 1997 and is for apparent rent and other charges that I owe to an apartment complex I was living at. I never received anything from the CA, but called them this morning to argue this. My wife and I are going for a mortgage so this account needs to be cleared up (don't worry, I did not tell the CA that). I called the CA at 9:00 this morning and was told someone would call me back in 15 mins. I finally got a call back an hour later. While waiting for their call, I checked my TU report on Worthknowing just sort of by chance. It turns out that after I called them at 9:00, they pulled an inquiry on my report. The lady at the CA ended up faxing me a payment history and copy of the lease. I asked her to also fax me a copy of the agreement between them and the apartment complex that allows them to collect and she said they don't have one. She also said that if they did, that is between them and not my business. Anyway, according to their printout, they charged me $234 for my last month in which my lease ended on the 12th. The lease states this month would cost $53. They also have no record on this sheet of either returning or applying my security deposit of $150. There are also cleaning and random little damage charges (screen, etc.). Anyway, on to my questions. 1) Do they HAVE to provide me with a copy of an agreement between them and the apartment complex? 2) Can I make them provide me with receipts proving they "fixed" what they claim to have fixed? 3) How does the statute of limitations apply to them putting an inquiry on my report? Is this considered continued collection activity? The tradeline has not been reported since 8/2000. Thanks! Dan
They did not properly validate the debt. They must provide your signature when the validate. They do not properly explain why the rent was charged not pro rata. The issue of the deposit is one for the landlord. I would send the apt complex a list of your issues and demand the collection agency stop its collection and delete the record from your bureau. Then, depending upon your state, I would inform the apt complex that they did not meet the 30 day criteria to charge damages/cleaning against your deposit and therefore, you want it refunded immediately. See where that takes you on this derrog.
1)I have never seen a statute requiring them to provide you with a copy of their contract with the creditor. However, if you do go to court, they will need to prove the original bill (validation) and that they have an agreement with the creditor to collect the amount. Perhaps someone else can chime in one this one. Maybe there is an FTC opinion about the contract. 2)This would be called validation. Read the FAQ's about it. A computerized print out is not enough, however, I am not sure that they would even have the receipts. 3)They have permissable purpose to pull an inquiry. You owe them an alleged debt. The SOL doesn't bar them from the inquiry. The SOL for reporting this on your credit is the day that the amount was due from the apartment + 180 days. After this time, they cannot report it on your credit. The SOL for them to sue you to recover the $ is set by your state. This is different than the reporting SOL. You need to look it up in the UCC for your state.
.1* I asked her to also fax me a copy of the agreement between them and the apartment complex that allows them to collect and she said they don't have one. She also said that if they did, that is between them and not my business. DMurphy76 2* I have never seen a statute requiring them to provide you with a copy of their contract with the creditor. However, if you do go to court, they will need to prove the original bill (validation) and that they have an agreement with the creditor to collect the amount. Perhaps someone else can chime in one this one. Maybe there is an FTC opinion about the contract. quasar27 ==================== 1*She is full of it: It most certainly is your business because if you pay some one who does not have the authority to collect you could very well find yourself paying the debt twice because the creditor did not get the payment. LB59 2*SEE REPLY 1.
