K-i-s-s I really think you are over-thinking this. Why would you ask for more validation? I would send a letter stating this isn't even applicable accounting of the debt nor is this validation. If this is not off of my credit report in 10 days for erroneus information, I will seek further action. I will not let this lie still, I will call everyday until I get this resolve. Nuff said. In 10 days, file a suit in small claims for violations of the FDCPA and at which point serve their butts. You don't even need to be specific on which violations until they ask for discovery. 9 out of 10 times they settle before going to court, and thats even if they show. Everyone used to tell me to consult an attorney, but you know what? I know more than they do, I lost a case because I used one. The rest I won as a Pro Se. Tis is simple process, Validation... wait 15 days... any disputes by CA on all 3 cras? (Print out as evidence) ....wait 7 days dispute information (print out again), in a week you should be getting results. If successful, Print out reports again to save, in case they are relisted or sold. (if they are sold, that is considered continued collection activity) If unsuccessful, Print out reports again anyways (more evidence). Remember 30 days has passed at this point, therefore ample time for the CA to have disputed this item that is supposedly to be getting verification. (this would be noted on your credit report). If you have gotten to this point, you should have at least 2, up to 6 violations against this CA. 2 for each listing on the 3 CRAs. If you have time, use another letter to the CRAs and ask for how this information was verified and do it in a written form, don't call, calling is not verifiable, it gives you no leg to stand on, in a court of law. Wait for a response. If you are a little more bold and have nothing to lose, (time & money, no job = me LOL), go to court and sue their butts. Small claims is the way to go. File for violations of the FDCPA and FCRA, no need to list the statutes until the discovery stage. If you even get his far, the rest is, document what transpired, Don't list evidence until you go into court, just dates, times and whom you sent what to whom. Just be simple about it.
Good advice, but she said she wants to avoid litigation. So I suggest sending the legal info and asking for a itemized listing and contract, or a delete. I have had mixed results with this , some cleaned it up, some deleted , some ignored me. Thanks for the info, I am to that point on the ones who have ignored me and continue to violate the FCRA/FDCPA..I am considering filing suit against the CRA's (Exp.) for allowing the reporting of obvious violations, and re-dating of old accounts. Suzie, read all advice and make a decision soon, dont let them have time to rest and forget who you are. They should be saying Oh No, not Her again!
Suzie46 and owe2much, you are both coming up with good ideas that may work to remove this and I seek out your posts because I enjoy seeing you go through the process...but I have to go back in the post and agree with ontrack. Validation, is your right. If a collector will not validate they had best not try to collect; but your rights only count if they are exerted and enforced. Each time you request a validation you are saying "I know my rights and I will hold you accountable." As a former collector let me stress that this is a numbers game. For every 100 validation requests received only one or two will end up forcing their rights. That means that even if the collectors loose every single lawsuit, they are still making money hand over fist. You must make them respect you and your legal rights--unfortunately most collection staff including the attorneys are trained to minimize you and your rights...which is exactly what they seem to have done. Suzie46, out of courtesy I would send one more letter to the collector and state that in your reading of the caselaw and the statutes you cannot agree with their position. Inform them that it is your belief that they have effectively refused to validate and that they are already in violation. Tell them that you will wait exactly one week and then begin the process of having an attorney bring them to court. I know that you said it is your goal to avoid this going to court, but I don't think is a reasonable goal...your goal is to use the law to force a system that is inherently against you to treat you with dignity and respect. It follows that from time to time you are going to require someone to step in and make sure that everyone is playing by the rules. While I avoid unnecessary litigation at all costs (worked for too many lawyers to ever want them to be a large part of my life), this falls under the necessary category. If any company is using a lawyer to diminsh your rights or make it more difficult to exert them, then it only makes sense that you use the same advantage to even the playing field. Having worked so hard for years to be completely FDCPA compliant, I have no tolerance at all for any attempt to discourage the expression of your legal rights. When helping someone with credit personally I ask a collector only once for validation. I don't dispute frivously, or dispute accounts I know to be valid (that is what an offer in compromise is for), but I insist that the rights of the FDCPA, FCRA, and all state statues be followed in the spirit they were enacted. If a creditor balks, I call the attorney I've worked with and request that the creditor be sued. That simple. As for the suits, they should cost you nothing as both the FDCPA and FCRA have provisions that allow your attorney to collect legal fees. In all the cases I've refered to the attorney for review, exactly none have made it as far as a hearing date. Preliminary date, settlement and clean credit--but as I mentioned I only use this when in the right and the collectors won't listen. There should be no shame in insisting that you be treated legally, even if that requires that you hire an attorney to do so. You don't seem to be trying to milk the system, or even seem interested in the potential payoff of a lawsuit--this is why that right was included in the laws. Sadly, this process sometimes is very simmilar to child rearing; if you tell the CA that you better validate or so help me God I'll pull this car over, you have to be ready to pull over and use an attorney to put them in timeout. /Rant
Remember, all 3 of the items I am dealing with now have been paid. I am reading everything, and there is great information here for everyone and for me, so i thank everyone for their input. Today I got a response back from CA #2. It is just a leeter, and it's short: "This letter confirms that the above referenced account has been paid in full. Notification will be sent to the three major credit reporting agencies requesting that the account be reported as paid in full, charged-off account." The rest of the letter says If I have any questions, callXXXXX and then the part "This communication is from a debt collector...etc" On this one, I think there may be errors, but I need to know for sure before I acuse. Even though I know I can use the stratgy of telling them there are errors, whether there is or isn't, because they won't know - they can't pull a CR or it's a violation, I don't want to do that unless I really do have something, just in case. I can procedd with more confidence that way. I have a CR dated 9/2/06. CA #2 has these things listed that I think are errors, but please tell me if they really are: 1. Date Opened: 12/04 (probably true) 2. Reported since: 7/2006 (this was reported before this date - this is the date of my 1st dispute) 3. Creditor's statement: Account legally paid in full for less than full balance. (not true. This was the amount listed on my CR dated 8/05, and this is the amt. I pd, in 12/05) 4. Account History: Collection as of July, 2006 (it is not in collections anymore - it was paid 12/05) 5. Status: Paid in settlement (wrong - I paid what was listed on CR - no settlement) I have several copies of my CR over time: a few in the last few months, and the one from 8/05. After my dispute in july, 06, it was "updated" and moved to another part of my CR for 1 CRA, "unchanged" by another CRA, and "deleted" by the 3rd CRA - I have all of those dispute results as well as those CR's I mentioned. This should be enough to proff to show errors, correct? Now, back to the 1st one we talked about in the past few posts. Let's pretend for a moment...pretend that everything is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Pretend CR looks like no mistakes on this one. Though I think it's accurate, maybe it's not, I don't know for sure until I check with their validation. But what if...? What if it all checks out, and I threaten to sue, and I have to "disclose" and I've got nothing? Or what if it actually comes down to court and I've got nothing? Even if usually they don't show or settle out of court, what if? I have to cover all my bases. I disputed once, I asked for validation once. If I go directly to ITS, I need to be sure I can cover my bases, just in case. CA may not have to validate in 30 days from my request, but because of the Spears v Brennan case, it sounds like they do have to validate at any point I ask, is this correct? If that is correct, and they did not validate when I asked, is that a violation that I can cover my bases with, to write an ITS letter? (I think ishmal just answered this) I don't mind taking it to court if I know I'm right. In CA #1 case, I'm not sure (that's the one most of this thread was about) But maybe I can be sure now, if their refusal to validate was a violation. Please let me know. (cont'd)
(Contn'd from above) I just read this link in this forum. maybe i should try this now too. Maybe I should call the BBB and complain - these issues are very similar. http://consumers.creditnet.com/Disc...plaint-vs-applied-card-bank-worked-64496.html Also, i should mention that I got 2 other things in today's mail on this topic. Last week I called FTC and filed a complaint on EX. She took the info, but i still have no results. I complained about a few things, but my big difference in my score with them vs the other 2 CRA was my biggest complaint. Today I got a brochure from FTC about Credit scoring. (no big news here, but wanted to let you know what actions I've taken and the results, so far) The other thing is I got a letter from EX. It just explained about how they verify when an item is disputed, and that soon i will get my results and if I have any questions, call... It explaine what they are obligated to do under the FCRA. I'm not sure if this is their response to my FTC complaint, or to my dispute phone call that wasn't nice, or something else. Anyway, more documents. Hopefully I am at least sending messages that "I will not go quietly into the night" So, I'm making some noise - considering everything, what might be an effective next step? maybe calling BBB, after reading the post i lkinked to here?
Oh, one more point... CA #1....signed their CM/RRR on Wed. 9/6/06. I had their "letter" in my mailbox on Sat. 9/9/06. They made no effort to validate. They put that letter out immediately.
I would also call the FTC on the telephone and file a complaint for re-dating the account to the date of your dispute. Get the complaint number, inform CRA and the creditor about the complaint. (re-dating is serious, it is now a recent negative and destroys yout FICO) Include this with your other info, it will get their attention, and they will stop the re-dating on your reports. They may take you more seriously on other matters.
I have prepared a 2nd letter to send to these 3 CRA's. But I have 1 additional thing to consider: With CRA #1 (the one this thread is promarily about), I had sent a goodwill letter to the CRA back in May, 2006. It was brief, but I wonder if that may hurt me now. I will paste some of the pertinent info here: "I am writing in regards to an account that existed with your service. It was an account that I paid in full once I had knowledge of it. I paid it over the phone with (customer service rep), who has been most helpful and pleasant to work with. I appreciate working with someone who treats me with such courtesy. I am requesting that as a gesture of good faith, that this information be deleted from my credit report, with all reporting companies that you work with, with the agreement to not be placed on my credit reports at any time in the future. I thank you in advance for your assistance. Feel free to contact me if any further information is needed." Will that have a negative effect on what I am trying to do now? Here is a copy of the letter I want to send now. Remember, I have already asked for validation (CM,RRR) and I got a response that was not proper validation. After reading advise in this post, here is what I developed. To whom it may concern: I am writing in response I received from your office dated September ?, 2006 to my request for validation of the account listed above. In my reading of case law, I cannot agree with your response. In Spears v. Brennan: "In deciding that consumers cannot waive the protections afforded by 15 USC 1692i, the Illinois district court concluded that requiring an unsophisticated consumer to 'exercise his rights under the FDCPA immediately or lose them' is contrary to the basic premise of the Act, which is to protect unsophisticated debtors from debt collectors who may use the legal system, about which the consumer has little knowledge, to bludgeon them into submission." The response I received from you does not meet the definition of validation. It is my belief you have effectively refused to validate and are already in violation. In addition, let this letter serve as notice that I believe you are reporting in error. If this is not removed from my credit report within 10 days of the signed certified mail, I will seek further action. So I have 2 questions now. 1. How does this new letter sound to experts? 2. Will my previous goodwill letter have a negative effect on my case now? Thank you.
"Here is a copy of the letter I want to send now. Remember, I have already asked for validation (CM,RRR) and I got a response that was not proper validation." What was their response? What was in their letter?
Ontrack, I sent out the 1st DV and got their response - I postedthis in post #13 of this thread, but here it is: You responded, and so did others, and I put everything together and came up with the 2nd letter to send them - that is the one in my post before this one, the one that responded to. I have not sent it out yet today, but I want to. The letter is dated today, and I don't want to have to re-print everything unless I need to upon advise that I should re-write. So I hope you or anyone else is able to respond quickly. (I came here to see if there was a response before heading out the door to mail - glad i did) The 2nd CA responded to my 1st DV - see post #24. Actually, I am sending one version to one CA and a slightly different version the other CA. One version does not mention the Spears v Brennan thing, but it has everything else. One CA who got the version with Spears V brennan was because they cited in their letter that they did not have to validate now.
I know I said I was paraphrasing, so here is the letter exactly: (after an intorduction saying they received my letter) "The Fair Collection Practices Act does allow you to request validation of the debt by us, but only within the first thrity (30) days after you receive our initial statement that sets forth the amount of the debt, the original creditor, and other disclosure information. While we believe that your request now for validation of the debt is not timely pursuant to Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection practices Act, we will nevertheless validate the debt as you requested by enclosing herewith a copy of the statement from the creditor." (it closes with standard "if you need additional info, call us.." They sent a 1-page statement like the kind of stement you would get in the mail from a doctor. I planned to send this CA the version that has the Spears v Brenna case cited. The other CA only sent a "letter to confirm that I owe this debt" - they did not state that I didn't have a right to ask for validation, so I took the case law out of their 2nd letter - their letter will everything but that case law cited.
Although they claim they don't have to validate, they claim what they sent was validation obtained from the OC and forwarded to you. That makes their claim that they don't have to validate moot. What is missing is any indication on the statement that the OC directly produced it and sent it to them. Taking it at face value, as they represent it to be from the OC, does it appear accurate, and does it document a debt that you owed, for services actually provided, on the dates they were provided, whether or not you chose to pay it? Does it agree with what the OC claims you owed, if you contact them directly, to indicate it was actually obtained from the OC, as claimed by the CA? The second CA's letter is not validation, regardless of if it "confirms" the debt, if it did not include validation obtained from the OC and forwarded to you. Their own confirmation of the debt is not the same as validation and confirmation of the debt obtained from the OC, and it could be use of deception to collect a debt for them to claim it is.
yes, everything looks acurate, even the spelling of my name, which is not often correct - they have that correct. It even lists my "self-pay" date and amount. Also info on CR looks accurate, even all dates listed there and all comments (which are few). But does it meet validation? As I understood validation it must include certain things and this did not, such as a signed contract by me (this was a medical thing, an ER visit) Even if it is accurate (which I'm not absolutely sure of, since i don't have a full validation), they don't know if they or the OC made errors. That was another "strategy" from here, if you get what I mean by that. Also, I wrote my letter based on advise in this thread. Also, RE: The itemized list they provided as validation was on the medical facility's letterhead. Would that be the indicator need from the OC?
"Validation" is whatever you will accept, and ultimately what a judge would accept, if you chose to push it. If they break the law, engage in deceptive validation or collection, or fail to verify dispute or send validation, you may be able to use that against them. If the debt was legitimate, and the reporting was legitimate, and they have records of that, and the validation they sent was obtained from the OC, and is accurate, you may run out of options, short of bluffing. The other approach that can work particularly with medical collections, is where the billing got screwed up, or claims weren't properly submitted to insurance, it was sent to collection due to those errors, and you paid promptly after that was straightened out and you got a correct bill. In that case, you are basically demanding that they properly perform the services they were responsible for, including proper billing, and that it was not "late" until they corrected their errors. The CA will probably not be responsive, but they work for the provider. Complaints to the hospital administration, or even to the individual doctors whose services they billed for, may be where to put the pressure, to get the TL removed. It is their job as professionals to do the right thing and not damage your credit for their own correctable errors, as part of delivering high quality medical services.
This was a medical bill, and we know that medical bills go to collections quickly. This date of service was April and on my credit report by Nov. of the same year. It was on my CR for 1 month, and I stepped up to pay it without any pressure - I just paid my bill a little late. For this, i should have to have a 7 year sentence of a negative item on my report? I don't think that the punishment fits the crime here. It would be nice if there was something I could do. Goodwill letter to OC? BBB? I read this thread and I think BBB might help - what do you think? http://consumers.creditnet.com/Disc...plaint-vs-applied-card-bank-worked-64496.html So, to be clear, I should NOT send my 2nd letter to CA #1? What about to CA #2, who only sent a letter "confirming" with no other document of any kind?
The date of service may have been April, but when did you get the bill? If you never got a bill until you saw a CR TL, and called them, that may be your strongest arguement. You went to them for medical care, not to get your credit trashed. Billing is part of their responsibility. If you can make some case for timely payment based on their actual billing, which was the cause of any delay, then BBB, or administration, or doctor complaints may sway their decision. On the other hand, if they were sending you bill for months, and you made no arrangements for payment, even partial payment, you would be in a weak position. You are not in court, and persuasive arguements are not just legal, but also moral, particularly in business transactions where the other party see themselves as acting morally. You choose the venue, and make your case, in the manner that best achieves your goal.
I'd have to double check, but I probably did get a bill before it ended up on my CR. The problem is, for medical things, there are often more than 1 bill for different services. Among other things, I had an x-ray, so I get a seperate bill from the radiologist. There was a different bill for the "fascilty charge" and a different bill for the ER Dr. Trying to keep it all straight is a lot to do, and they rush bills to collections so fast. I wasn't 2 yrs late, I was only a couple/few months late. I think perhaps a goodwill letter to OC is worth a try. I like your statement that I went them for help, not a trashed CR (though I won't be that harsh, I may say something to that effect, that I sought them for help, and because I was a little late in paying, after trying to keep straight all those parts to that one service, my result shouldn't be a negative CR. They are in the customer service business, and there are choices where i live. I think I will not send this 2nd letter to validate them, but I will try the goodwill, and if that doesn't work, the BBB. Should I send the 2nd request to the 2nd CA? I do beleive there are errors in their reporting, and they sent nothing to validate.
What do you know about the account with the 2nd CA? Is there something obviously erroneous with it, that if you took them to court, you could claim, say, both erroneous reporting, and sending deceptive and erroneous "validation", that they clearly never obtained from the OC?
I posted this in Post #24 about CA #2: (these are what I think are errors) 1. Date Opened: 12/04 (probably true) 2. Reported since: 7/2006 (this was reported before this date - this is the date of my 1st dispute) 3. Creditor's statement: Account legally paid in full for less than full balance. (not true. This was the amount listed on my CR dated 8/05, and this is the amt. I pd, in 12/05) 4. Account History: Collection as of July, 2006 (it is not in collections anymore - it was paid 12/05) 5. Status: Paid in settlement (wrong - I paid what was listed on CR - no settlement) Owe2Much had this response to this account reporting: This billis an elec bill from a place I moved away from in Fall, 2001. I paid in Dec, 2005 (before I knew better - now I think it may have been out of SOL and I may have been able to get it reomved then) Now I may have updated the date to 2005. What is interesting in this case is that it was reported on all 3 CRA's and I disputed all 3 in July, 2006. I got 3 different results: 1, deleted, 1 remained the same, and 1 "updated". How did they report this 3 different ways? I have more hope in getting this one removed for errors.
"Now I may have updated the date to 2005. " It should still come off your reports in 2 years. Check with the CRA to find out for sure. "I got 3 different results: 1, deleted, 1 remained the same, and 1 "updated"." The CA probably failed to respond to one of your CRA disputes. Was the original electric bill legitimate? Or were they billing for a period after you had moved out and notified them to turn off utilities?
