stubborn CA

Did you send the CA the VL
If you haven't
I don't see how you will get any where with this.

 

I second lb

If you would have sent the CA the validation letter, then they would have had their hands tied when you disputed with EX, unless they could have provided the validation to you within the 30 days that they have to investigate the account.

With EX, you usually only get one shot, and you've more than likely lost that shot.

I had originally read that they couldn't confirm the account in their answer.

BUT what they said afte re-re-reading it is that THEY CAN'T CONFIRM THAT THIS ACCOUNT IS EITHER NOT YOURS, OR IN ERROR.

Now, they have a $1,000 Section 623(b) violation for verifying the account without the notice of dispute, and that is also a $1,000 Section 807(8) violation for reporting or threatening to report false and misleading credit information, including the fact that the account is disputed.

Do a search for BUTCH's DEMAND PROCEDURES thread, and you may be able to salvage it, once you've sent the CA the validation letter; but there is no guarantee with EX, unless you've developed a great paper-trail.

 

Well, while I was writing this post in this thread, I realized that this may just be the stick of dynamite to come through the 'PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED' notation.

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=431812#post431812

The question is, do you know who the OC is, and have their address so that the OC could be asked to verify this account?

As a preventive measure, I would make sure that you put into writing a dispute of the account with the OC, and demand that the OC CONCLUSIVELY VERIFIES the account with the CRA, under Johnson v. MBNA, from the original account information, and not just a cursorary review of their files.

In some other threads I have about three quotes from Johnson v. MBNA which are designed to subtly scare the bejezus out of them. i.e. put the fear of a $90,300 judgement against them if they DO verify, without the supporting original account information.

 

CA Settlement Question...

Sorry for inserting this in the middle of a discussion, couldn't find a relevant thread on the site

Recieved a letter from a CA (Arrow Financial) for 75% settlement. Never had a CA correspondence before but they seem like they're pretty with it (list state-relevant license #, OC name, current balance, and rather "friendly" notice of collection with contact name, number and website. I'm sending the DV letter out just to be safe. Three questions:

1. Can I reasonably expect to negotiate a settlement amount lower than the amount offered in the CA letter? For instance, I suspect very large interest charges and late fees have been lumped into the total amount listed - the 75% amount sounds closer to the original debt owed.

2. Once debt is validated, I've read that a settlement is worse than paying in full.

3. If I take the settlement, CA letter states that "credit bureaus will be notfied that the account has been settled". How does this reflect compared to any other option with the CA on my CR.

Thanks in advance ...

 

If the account is not yours, from this point proceed with validation demands to both OC and CA, along with disputing with CRA, on the assumption that they may fail to remove the account, and you will need to take legal action. Make all requests in writing, CRRR, to gather your paper trail. Include clearly in validation requests to each that the account is not yours, and request all information that might make clear that it is not your account:

Address to which original offer was sent, or store address at which original application was made, and date.
Copy of original contract, showing signature.
Date of original contract.
Full name, address, phone number, SSN, DOB, and all other identifying information submitted with original contract.
All statements.
Address to which first statement was sent.
Amount, address last paid statement was sent to, date of last payment, copy of last payment check.

At this point you do not know if you have been negligently misidentified, or if identity theft is involved. Request all information applicable to determining both. If the problem appears to just disappear from your credit report, still insist in confirmation in writing from all parties that the account has been determined to not be yours. If it was on your report once, it can come back. Be a pain in the a**; they were, and they deserve it.

If any information they provide shows evidence of identity theft, file a police report. This gives you additional rights in getting complete information on the account to assist you in preventing additional identity theft, as well as removing all negative information due to it.

If they do not respond, follow up promptly with a new request until they do. You want to build the case, if necessary, that you exhausted all remedies short of litigation, and that all damage to you is due to their negligence, incompetence, and delay. Furthermore you want to cover all parties possibly liable, since if you don't, the ones you go after will try to point the finger at the ones you never notified. If this account causes you to be turned down for credit elsewhere, or denied a home loan, document that to show damages.

If a month or two passes with no correction, start complaints to your state AG, and FTC. If they are unresponsive after that, see an attorney.

 

1*Sorry for inserting this in the middle of a discussion, couldn't find a relevant thread on the site
hotepamen
=========================
1*See these today post search buttons at the top of the page,

What you do when you can't find a relevant thread on the site is click on the post button and start your own thread.


***************
GET THE BASICS HERE.
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243
*****************
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I second ontrack.

You want to start to create a documentation landslide, showing that you've done everything in your power to resolve this, and that they are the ones who refuse to resolve it.

It can be a pain, but I would start mailing both monthly, on the same date of the month, until you hear from them, if the second month ends without a response.

Then I would move it one step higher to the Better Business Bureau for each company; this gives them approx a month to respond, if they don't respond, now you'll have two letters from yourself to each, a complaint letter to the Better Business Burau for each company, and more than likely a follow-up on that, the BBB will send you their 'answer' if they 'answer', and you have a chance to respond.

Then I would move one more rung up the ladder to the AG's office for both, as well as your state AG's office.

If they still don't budge, then the highest step you can go to is the FTC (although they won't do anything until they have a large number of complaints against the same company), but then you'll still have one extra piece of documentation for your files when you decide that litigation is the only answer.

 

It also appears to be "old" and probably past SOL, if the 1998 status "sent to collection" indicates when it went delinquent. You may be dealing with a CA who bought the account from the OC, for pennies on the dollar because of past SOL, and is trying to bluff you, or anyone with a similar name to the account, into paying whether you owe or not. Their language on verifying the account is "yours" (they found no information to indicate it is not yours; i.e. maybe they did nothing at all) may be a clue. They may be too lazy to even determine whether you are the debtor, preferring to damage a few random misidentified people and claim it was a mistake, if push comes to shove, to save money.

With your validation request to the OC, you might just also ask for "all information sent to the CA". The CA might have never even contacted them, and the OC, since they can confirm you are a current paid customer different from this account, might just tell you that.

Who is the CA? They may have a record of similar behavior.

 

The SOL and the interest is, of course, irrelevant if it is not your account. Nor is just marking the account "in dispute" an adequate response, even if they eventually do it. The TL is erroneous and you want it off permanently. I was just looking at how sloppy and blatant they are likely to be, and how far over the line they are likely to go from innocent mistake to willful FDCPA and FCRA violations which you may need to get compliance and compensation. In other words, are they competent or not, sloppy, bluffing, lying, etc. Do they claim they have "verified" that the account is yours, when they have done nothing of the sort. Do they "act in good faith" or with deception?

 

When was this TL put on your CR? Have you had interest rate increases, or other new accounts turned down recently? Has any current creditor sent you an adverse action notice indicating they took action based on your CR?

 

You might want to look at complaints against American Agencies on ripoffreport.com. They appear to be collecting on a lot of old SBC debt from around 1998 or earlier.

 

1*Unbelievable that the CRA's still put bad info on peoples reports when they know what kind of rep this company has...NOW I'M going to dig in and go the distance.
2*This is unbelievable....
========================
1*The CRAs know All CAs have this same reputation.
Low scores and bad credit makes the CRAs clients money is why they place bad info on peoples reports when they know this.
You can't tell me that the CRAs don't know 95 to 99 percent of what CAs report can't be validated.
The CRAs are just as guilt of reporting fictitious slander as the CAs.
2*I've known this from the start so don't find it unbelievable....