Okay. Find this site and learned the first step is validation. Sent five validation letters. Two-page variety in which 1st asks for validation and 2nd is a form indicating proof needed. Send them out November 1st and just received my first response. It's from Dillards and it reads as follows: Thank you for your inquiry regarding the referenced account. During my research..I found the following. You were offered a settlement on 10/24/2001, this is now void. 1. The account charged off in 6/95. 2. Last payment was 11/94. 3. Account is currently being managed by Dillards Nat. Bank. You may contact us for payment. Per our agreement with the CRAs to which we subscribe, we have an obligation to provide an accurate reporting of our customer's payment history. Our records indicate your account has a zero balance. This account will come off completely in 2002. If I may be of further....yada, yada, yada. Okay. Is this a legitimate response? Should I send a follow letter demanding the proof I asked for? Doesn't the 7 yrs. start from the date of the payment that initiated the chargeoff? That would mean this should fall of next month, not next year. Any advice would be appreciated.
Why are you sending validation to Dillards? I thought validation was for collection agencies...not original creditors. Did someone fraudulently open up the Dillards account or something?
I personally would continue to dispute this with the CRA's. The usually delete earlier than the stated month and year. How much in advance, I do not know. I had a paid collection from 1995, that was deleted last month after I believe my 4th/5th try. So dont give up.
While I'm not particularly fond of that letter, it works very well and that's all that counts whether I'm fond of it or not. Don't make no never mind. That's nice of them. I guess. I'm sure you are really greatful for that answer. Now you can add it to your collection of life's useless little factoids. Except for one little gem. Last payment was in 11/94. Give it another month and you have 12/94 meaning the lawful date it has to come off is 12/01, not 06/02. And it's outside the SOL so they can't sue you for it and win. What has their contract with somebody else got to do with you? That makes you a party to an unlawful contract because you were forced to be bound by it's terms without compensation or consideration. They cannot force you into a contract with a 3rd party without your knowledge and consent. Now you know the facts of the matter, you can also add that to your collection of life's useless little facts for all the good it's going to do you. That's also useless information to add to your collection. It's supposed to come off in December this year. It needs to be disputed with the credit bureaus in early December. Like the 5th of December and then watch it come off. Yeah! That too. No, but then they didn't have to give you a response at all. That depends on if it's all worth fighting over with it falling off in 2002. Depends on what your goals are in the meantime. That's about close enough for government work. is that worth fighting over? They didn't have to even bother to answer you. You can fight with them over it if you want to, If you go at it right you can probably irritate them enough to make them send the debt to a collection agency and you can then start the fight from there and probably win it in the end. Personally, I wouldn't want to flutz with it if it's going to fall of anyway in early December. Why bother? Just dispute it anytime in early December and that should do the trick. But hey! It's your decision and you have to make it. Maybe you just like to fight with them. Here is another useless factiod. I hope you get a chuckle out of it. What do you get when you cross a turkey with an octopus? Enough drumsticks for Thanksgiving And you have a nice one Best wishes. Although I might not have been able to be all that helpful, hope I at least gave you a chuckle or two.
