Some of you may have seen the posts I wrote previously to Anthony regarding my repo from 6/95. Yesterday I received the standard first notice from the collection agency. Today I checked me credit report (experian) online. Those miserable creeps pulled a hard inquiry on me on June 4. Now, if I am correct in my assumption that the SOL has passed, or is up this month, what right do they have to pull my credit? The letter says the debt was assigned to them, it does not say they purchased it. So, if the original creditor still owns the debt, do they have the right to pull my credit?
What state do you live in? In my state (California), the SOL is 4 years. Since your repo is 6 years old this month, why not just wait it out for the next year and it will fall off on it's own. I wouldnt even respond to this C.A. at all at this point. Sounds like they're banking on the chance you know nothing about your rights. Show them otherwise. Good luck!
I'm not worried about it falling off my reports. It actually has already been deleted from Transunion and is in dispute with equifax thru Junum. My question is. can they pull my report. What gives them the right to pull my report - they don't own the debt and I certainly didn't give them permission to pull it. Also, being the date of last activity has been reaged, from 6/95 to 4/96 when Compass Bank assumed the loan from Arizona Bank, can they sue me based on that date?
Well, LKH, let me set the record straight before another silly fight gets started. I don't have the expertise to help you any, so I'm looking for info on this one too for the very simple reason that some day I'm most likely going to have to answer the question either for myself or someone else. So let it hereby be forever known that any thing I say here is said for the sole purpose of learning that which I do not now know. *********************************** LKH, I'm wondering if the part in FDCA or maybe FCRA that says that there must be some legitimate credit related need for the info. One sees lots of examples just like the ones you are talking about posted here on the forum from time to time. Is there any way at all that one could claim that debt collection has no valid claim under the "need for the informaton" clauses? The fact that the CAs have been doing it forever may not mean that they have the actual right to do so. And the way I would look at it is to see if there is any way possible to put a stop to it or claim that it is an illegal practice. Yes, I do think I'm probably making a stretch here, but then I'm not claiming I have any argument either. Maybe a closer scrutiny of that section of the law might just expose some new insights. Never hurts to think in those terms even if it leads one exactly nowhere. If you come up with something, it might be a big help for many people now plagued with those birds and their inquiries. Even if it is perfectly legal, it sure isn't right.
I have been looking at those laws, but so far I have found exactly 0 info pertaining to this question. If i do, of course, I will post the answer.
Well then, let me make a suggestion born out of sheer desperation. (probably yours and mine both). Why not file a formal complaint with the FTC and hope for one of those opinion letters you see posted on their website? In fact, you might even mosey over there first and see if there might already be an opinion letter dealing with that subject. Never thought of that one till I started typing this message. Might be worth a try.
LKH, Based on your prior posts, this is the sequence of events: 1. Re-aging of the account when the bank changed control. 2. Compass Bank turning the account over for collection based on that date (they are assuming they have 1 year to collect this), rather than the actual date. 3. Actions of the collection agency i.e. - contacting you, and inquiry on your credit report. So the real issue appears to be the re-aging of the debt. Assuming they are telling the truth when they say the account has been assigned to them, I think they probably have the legal right to pull your report - like you, I can't find anything in FDCPA or FCRA saying they don't. I don't think it's fair, but I don't think it's illegal either. I think if your want the inquiry removed, you should deal with the re-aging of the account first. The bank can take the account back from the CA, and have them remove the inquiry. ...just my 2 cents breeze
LKH & Breeze. Smart gal! You went back and looked up his prior posts. I suppose you had a rememberance of what he had posted. Good thinking all the way along your post, Breeze. Good logic and good thinking. BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********************************< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< like you, I can't find anything in FDCPA or FCRA saying they don't. ********************************* But there is one tiny little thing here that I want to point out. Let me use a story about a biker friend of mine who looked at the Oklahoma Motorcycle helmet law that he hated so much several years. He often related that he had studied that law till he was blue in the face trying to find a way out of it, but could not. He was restating that one evening when his face suddenly lit up like a xmas tree and he got a big smile on his face and said "Damn! Why didn't I think of that before? That damned law says I have to wear the helmet but it don't say where I have to wear it!" So he strapped on two helmets, one on each knee. and roared off down the street. Well, it wasn't all that long before some cop stopped him and gave him a ticket for failure to wear a helmet. He went to court and beat the ticket in a heartbeat. I won't bother you with the rest of the story, but what he looked at was not only what the law said he had to do, but what the law didn't say. Lots of times, what the law don't say can end up being more important than what it does say. That kind of thinking can sometimes bring far greater rewards than knowing what the law does say. Now then, I have not the foggiest idea whether or not what I have just said may or may not turn out to be of value in this particular instance, but what I wanted to point out is that maybe, just maybe going back and looking at the law with a different perspective just might possibly save the day for you. After all, what have you got to lose?
Hi Breeze, Thanks for the response. Actually as I posted above, the entries from both banks have been removed from my Transunion report and I may be off as I'm a little tired right now but I believe it was also deleted from experian, courtesy of Junum. I'm not really worried about the inquiry, it just ticks me off as they really have no reason to do this. So, I assume it's your opinion and others that the date of last activity should be the date from Arizona Bank, not the latter one from Compass Bank? Being the date of last activity actually is 6/95, maybe I should write back to the collection agency asking for proof of the debt. I have 30 days to respond, so I'll wait 20 days and then send it certified mail r/r. By the time they get me the info it should be into July and the statute will have expired and they can go fly a kite. What do you think?
Exactly my thoughts. You do want to make this go away - these debts get sold over and over again, regardless of the SOL, and this can just keep turing up with a different CA every time. I really think that when a CA is looking for you, that's the first place they look: current activity on CR = current address. It is bad that almost anybody who subscribes to the CRA's can put a an inquiry on your report for just about any reason. This is something that should be attacked from every angle, just like the scoring, and the idiotic inaccuracies, and stonewalling. But - I don't think you can do anything to these guys at this point. If they don't take it off after you're done - that's another matter altogether. breeze
Actually, as far as I can tell, this collection agency doesn't own the debt. Their letter said it was assigned to them and they represent Compass Bank.
I didn't say it had been sold - I'm saying it probably will be sold if you don't put it to rest. breeze
Breeze - so you agree with my strategy to drag it out another 2-3 weeks? I guess if they do file suit after June 30, all I would have to do to defend this would be to show the judge my credit report showing 6/95 as the original date of last activity. Thanks for your input.
Youâ??re correct, Compass seldom culls assets unless theyâ??ve been non-performing for some time; and usually they do so sooner than laterâ?¦ Just thought Iâ??d butt in here with a few cents worth. [;-)
LKH: This is one point that I feel that I can make a strong statement in this thread. ************** Don't leave anything to chance. Not anything whatsoever. **************** If anything can go wrong, it probably will simply based on the law of averages. So apply that logic to this situation, and you can easily see that the latter date could easily be used against you rather than the former date as you hope. I'd advise that you assume the worst and go to the source and demand to know the actual date of your last payment or whatever might constitute "date of last activity" according to the law. I realize that they will likely understand why you want this information, but that knowledge or realization would not be useful to them in any way that I can think of. I'm not so sure you would want to send them a "standard" validation letter (don't think such a thing exists anyway). I would just want the letter to demand a total accounting and nothing more. If they send it to you, you would then have proof of the last activity date. You would then know for sure how to proceed and what to expect. Don't leave anything to chance if you can help it
