I just read on another message board about the factoring effect: when a debt keeps getting resold to another collection agency who then lists that account with a new date, thus, extending the 7 year period of reporting. Any thoughts on this and how to combat it, if you don't have proof of the original date of delinquency? Sounds like a nightmare to me!
Actually, my dear Ms. Penguin, there is an answer. Duplicate entries of the same account are not allowed on credit reports, unless they are listed by the original creditor and one collection agency. If a CA sells the debt to another CA, they lose the authorization to enter a derog on your credit. So, the thing to do is to look at your report carefully for duplicates and dispute them with the credit reporting agencies as such. They will remove them. If the account numbers have been changed, but the debt is the same, then you will have to validate with the collection agencies. Roni, Erica and company.....am I on the right track here?
Getting in that shape in the first place is usually the aftermath of a collection agency's terrorist attack and a debtor's having covered his head and ran for a hidey-hole and pulled it in after him, only daring to peep out months or years later to see if the coast is clear yet. Proper use of the validation letter puts a stop to this and helps put the collection agency between the rock and the hard place. All collection agency letters should be immediately met with some kind of validation letter. I just sent off a validation letter which consisted of nothing more than a penciled note scribbled over the top of the agency's demand for payment and all I said was "I think you got the wrong person" I never signed it, nothing more than that. I sent it certified mail with only the return address and no name in the upper left hand corner of the enveolope and on the certified receipt, only the initial B. Bauer. Why? There are two B. Bauers living here. Husband and wife. It was the wife's bill and they used a middle initial in her name and she don't have a middle name. Her mommy never gave her one. Why not? Most Mexican citizens don't need one. They all have a ton of names anyway so why add 1 more to the confusion. You wouldn't believe their official system if you weren't used to it! They start off at birth with their whole family tree tied on behind their first name and then they get married and tack on "Maria de Hernandez" "of-de" meaning that she has married and now becomes the official legal property of her husband and one of the latter day dead ancestors gets dropped off the end. Wow! Unbelievable. So this dumbo collection agency gives her a middle initial she never had and sure don't want. But they know they got the right person and so that stupid looking reply coming in a certified letter is likely to get them hot and they will most likely make the near fatal mistake of not accepting it as a validation or dispute letter and come back with some stupid reply and that's when the fun will begin. The proper response would be for them to immediately treat it as a dispute and investigate to see what kind of mistake if any might be present and correct that simple little mistake and go on with life? Not likely. What's more likely is that they will make one or more of however many mistakes they might possibly make and then I will step up to the plate and smack them right between the eyeballs with a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act complaint. By the time they wake up from that one, who knows where they will stagger off to? By the time they are done with it, the whole deal will probably have a nice pungent odor of burnt-to-a-crisp roast beef all over it. Validation letters can take many forms, and are nothing more than a tool. There's an old C&W song, I think by Kenny Rogers, that tells about the Gamblin Man. "You have to know when to hold 'em you have to know when to fold 'me. You have to know when to lay 'em and you have to know when to play 'em and you have to know when to cash in your chips." Bill Bauer bbauer1@netzero.net
Please don't disparage people that come to this board with their credit questions. I'm sure plenty of people have made mistakes in managing their credit and/or had a major unexpected financial hardship that has caused them to be in their current situation. I already feel like a fool for letting my credit deterioate to the point that it has. Getting salt rubbed into open wounds, so to speak, does't help matters any. I have learned a lot about my legal rights regarding credit since I recently started surfing the web. Bill, I really enjoyed reading your comments on the validation letter debate where you were picking apart the letter and offering counter points and warnings. That type of input, along with numerous other informative posts from many other generous people, is helping to build my confidence to the point where I finally am beginning to feel comfortable about being proactive with my credit issues.
Maybe this subject should be changed to THE FALSIFACTION EFFECT : Seems like they deal more in fictitious informantion than they do in Facts!
I think that Toothman is correct in some ways. I have disputed duplicate entries, and they were deleted. However, one CA changed the account number and a year later it popped back up. The original creditor has not updated my file in forever because they sold the debt. The CA has updated my file just this last month. So, to sum it all up, from my experience, I have found that when someone SELLS the debt to someone else, they forfeit the right to continur reporting. BUT if someone transferrs a debt to be collected, in other words the debt is NOT SOLD, both creditor and collection agency have the right to report. Are you able to follow this? Hope this helps,
Does this mean that when an original creditor sells the account then it can be disputed as "a sold account" and the credit bureau would have to delete it? This whole thing confuses me because I just recently had a disputed account verified and updated to include a comment that it was sold to another company. Not only that but it still includes an outstanding balance. How can I still owe them a balance when they sold it. Don't I instead owe the new owner of the account??
You should dispute the account as incorrect balance. That should change it. Also, just because the debt is SOLD doesn't mean that the tradeline shouldn't appear on your report. You sure can come up with creative ways to get it deleted, but if it keeps coming back verified, I would call the original creditor and see what they say. Couldn't hurt, right? They can't update your report anymore,so see what they 'have on you'.
I don't know about collection agencies and duplications, but I am still fighting a duplication for a credit card that was sold to another bank. The stupid first bank admits they have no info, but still have verified it 3 times. I GAVE UP. I just disputed it the 4th time to just change it to read... transferred/sold with a $0 zero balance. Oh, it's only Experian that continues to list it. The others deleted it right away. Keep up the fight. I gave up. judy
Hey Erica, I'll dispute the balance and see if that'll get it changed to a zero. Maybe that part was supposed to have been updated as well and the credit bureau agent just overlooked it when they edited my account. Thanks for the feedback.
Yes, Erica is correct. The plan of attack should be to validate all CA entries and work with the original creditor to either change or delete their entry. Gee, Erica.....since our change to "reg" status, don't we seem so much smarter?
Toothman You said to try to work with the original creditor--does this apply to an account where the debt is in the hands of a collection agency? I've called the original creditor, but they're always quick to shut me down with "we don't handle this acct. anymore" or "we sent this to a collection agency". I guess what I'm wondering is, if the debt has been sold, does the creditor still have enough interest in it to work with you?
Judy, Have the original creditor give you something in writing saying that they have no information on you. Then send a copy of it to the CRA, asking how they can "verify" something that does not exist. Could work to your advantage. Good Luck.
Re: Toothman Sometimes they can work with you. Just blatantly tell them that if they have sent it to a CA, that they need to provide you proof that the debt is yours. Then tell the CA the same thing. PERIOD. you are not going to pay on a debt that they can't verify is yours. If they need more information, then the debt is obviously not yours. For example, you give them your name and SSN, and they can't find any records of you in their system and they tell you they need more information. IMHO, the name and SSN should be enough. You don't have to provide them with additional info to prove that it is in fact yours.
Multiple Duplications Penguin: For what itâ??s worth, considering I usually get paid for similar matters? Iâ??d suggest correlating dates using the original creditor trade as a reference, against the last known transfer. Anything between those is subject to deletion as being irrelevant and inappropriate information, clearly duplications of the first issue. Also, a legitimate restart of the seven (7) year rule â?? per FCRA amendment guidelines â?? would only take place if the debt were originated prior to a certain date. Anything outside that scope is subject to challenge (dispute), and should be consequently deleted or amended to accuracy. My suggestion, again for what itâ??s worth, would be to dispute with the CRAs before attempting to tangle directly with the collection agent. Youâ??ll gain far more leverage by doing so, and perhaps a greater degree of satisfaction too.
