Stupid Question

Premeno, please remember: There are no such things as stupid questions, only stupid people. (Just kidding.)

BofA stands for Bank of America.

Doc

 

What, like BM???

 

I'm no lawyer, nor am I an expert, but here's my best shot at this:

1) I agree that the FDCPA does not require original creditors to validate. On the other hand, we have seen board members get great mileage out of the standard validation sequence (validation 1, validation 2, estoppel letter, intent to sue letter) regardless. I don't know if it's because they don't know the law, or because they think you're a wacko who's about to cost them some legal expenses they'd rather not spend. Irrespective of the reason, people here have succeeded occasionally in having their way with original creditors. You might consider continuing with the sequence; I'm assuming you've sent the first validation letter, so your next step would be to send the second one in the series.

2) If your goal with the original creditor is simply to get them to erase the past derogatory marks on your credit reports (assuming you are now current with them, but you believe that the past derogs were too horrible to go with the friendly "goodwill adjustment" approach), you might try the "nutcase" letter sequence. Here's a link describing that: Nutcase rationale. Here are a few testimonials that spell out how people have used and altered the approach successfully to suit their particular situations: nquisitive's work with two paid collections, missy73's success with three accounts, Killer's success with a bad check, a paid telephone bill, and a collection agency, Gillian's two CAs, betacredit's UDF form after he used nutcase and a followup he devised called the "Son of Nutcase letter" (click here for Betacredit's Son of Nutcase, and click here for his Nutcase Followup #3), wolverine's two successes and a recommendation to pair nutcase with Christi's 48-hour intent-to-sue fax (search the board), another wolverine success using the nutcase/Christi combo, Gib's recommended variation that resulted in one deletion, and dfwgt's success and suggestion that nutcase be paired with a standard estoppel letter.

3) I've not worked on anything related to this, but the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) -- not something usually relied upon here -- stipulates that consumers will be billed correctly and that original creditors are obligated to provide sufficient detail regarding such billing. Of course, this is my casual paraphrasing, so I'd love to see someone research this further with the aim of developing a great letter based upon the FCBA which would obligate an original creditor to do some work resurrecting old bills, contracts, substantiating data, etc.

Hope something here helps you!

Doc

 

I'm trying it right now with JC Pennys (Chargeoff 97) and Sears (180, 150 day lates 99, 1/2000).

I'll let you know the results. The "nice" guy approach hasn't worked with Sears. They even rejected PFB. Hopefully this will yield different results...

 

Good post Doc, thanks for the information.

FAQ worthy

-Peace, Dave

 

Thanks, Nave. Actually, I'm demonstrating an ability to procrastinate on stuff I'm supposed to be doing -- that's when I start writing really useful Creditnet posts, lol.

Premeno, the two times I used the nutcase letter, both were successful and were with fully-paid creditors with REALLY BAD tradelines. On the other hand, your mileage may vary. Like just about everything else, the nutcase letter isn't 100% effective. Good luck to you!

Doc