I have a CA that purchased a 6 year old 8000.00 repo they are now trying to collect my sol is 3 years for written contract not under seal. I asked for validation and they sent it. But I belive I have them on violations they are posing as the original creditor on the credit report. Since they BOUGHT it are they the original creditor? They date of last activity with the original creditor is 3/1997 they are showing 7/2003 CAN THEY DO THIS OR CAN I SUE. Section 605 reaging a account. and Posing as original creditor.
Is it for just the deficiency, or was a deficiency judgement obtained on it? If there was no judgement, you have nothing to worry about. They are not the OC, they are third party debt collectors no matter what they tell you. No they can't legally re-age the debt. The original dola remains. Send them a letter stating they re-aged the debt, then dispute it with the CRA. If it remains unchanged nail their butts in court. Gib
No def judgement was ever issued it was sold to ca 6 years later I guess they could not locate me until now.
On the TU credit report on the collections info they list there name as the original creditor and they are not and the dol the day they bought it not the oc charged off date.
They own the debt. I don't get what you're looking for here. The thing is, they still have to abide by the FDCPA and FCRA. They re-aged the debt, that is illegal. Start there. You said they sent validation, what did they send you? Gib
Here is what Im looking for since they paid and bought the debt can they report as original creditor. Can they re start the clock. Does this restart sol again since they bought it.
Now, is the name of the Original Creditor listed anywhere on the trade line? It should be listed as similar to: >COLLECTION RECORD< XYZ COLLECTIONS #53636336 OPEN ACCOUNT >PLACED FOR COLLECTIONS< UPDATED: 04/2003 INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OPENED: 04/1993 ORIGINAL CREDITOR CLOSED: 05/1999 PAY TERMS $50 Also, if the OPENED isn't there, it could be replaced with a PLACED: date, chances are the date of last activity is being reported correctly, but isn't showing on the reports (TU doesn't show it), however you have no way or knowing that. The first step would be to dispute the trade line with the CRAs, then if they verify the inaccurate dates, then you have a FCRA/FDCPA violation, both of which are sueable for $1,000.00 FDCPA for threatening to report, or reporting knowingly false credit information, and FCRA for verifying the false information in response to a verification request. If you do this right after telling them that their validation response wasn't sufficient, and they still verify the account before providing the complete validation, then its another violation for collection activity following a validation request. I've seen some tradelines which reported the OPENED date as when they received the account, but the CLOSED date was reported correctly, so theoretically, they didn't opne the account until years after the account was closed, there is no logic to what the CRAs will accept as logical data, see my BRAIN TEASER thread for a laugh... http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...ad.php?s=&goto=newpost&threadid=52943&pgnum=1 Yes, if they are maintaining adequite safeguards there would be no way that these idiotic errors would be able to occur, you would think that they could do a SIMPLE SQL IF OPENED > CLOSED != !ERROR! and similar simple error checks for all the different types of information errors that they are prone to.
Re: Re: Quick Help CA Sent Valadtion Please Hmmm... Yeah, but if they get a landslide of suits over it, it could cost them even more money... Especially when they verify the incorrect items...
Re: Re: Quick Help CA Sent Valadtion Please After talking with the Ca today they said oh we did not list us as the original creditor must be Tu mistake, Tu says this is what was entered. Oh the date of first deliquency does not show up but it is 6/97 will be removed next June OC and CA Hey how about a settlement he asked. Yea right. Also he said yea this is out of sol in your state but can haunt you for long time sweet talking by this point Would you go after for violations. Who should I go after would not care but its been reinserted. Tu removed but reinserted a few days later Hummm!
Re: Re: Re: Quick Help CA Sent Vala Are you planning on any major purchases soon (house, car) What validation did they send you? In the case of a non judgement repo, I believe this should be the original contract for the loan (which would have to contain any and all pertinant information as to what fees if any they can charge to you for the deficiency, repo fees, and any interest), the data on when and where the car was sold, and for what price, showing the deficiency value on the repo and then an itemized listing of all the fees that were legally allowed under the original contract. If they only sent partial validation but don't have all the info, send them a letter back letting them know they didn't validate and demand validation again. I know you can go sue happy and try and catch them breaking the law and sue them, but the honest truth is that in this day and age it is becoming harder to find a judge that won't think you're just a deadbeat trying to get out of paying a debt ruling in favor of the CA. If they never provided proper validation and you keep disputing it with them, then the reporting clock runs out, and who gives a rats behind if they want to continue sending you letters asking for payment. If they did manage to provide you with full validation, I would send them a letter offering them $50 as payment in full with them agreeing to not re-sell the debt. It's way past SOL, and their barganing chip of "It'll trash your credit" falls off next June. They just might agree to mark paid, and get off your back for a small cash prize. Otherwise just wait around, it'll fall off. Most people say that you can often dispute 3-4 months before something is supposed to fall off as "The account is past the 7 year reporting period" and have the CRA remove it quite easily. Can you live with it for a little bit? ChrisB
Re: Re: Quick Help CA Sent Valadtion Please 1*Yes, if they are maintaining adequite safeguards there would be no way that these idiotic errors would be able to occur, you would think that they could do a SIMPLE SQL IF OPENED > CLOSED != !ERROR! 2*and similar simple error checks for all the different types of information errors that they are prone to. jam237 ====================== 1*Who says they're errors ? 2*I don't see how they can be so accident prone. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
