OK, so after disputing 2 JDB tradelines with a CRA, we got 2 packets in the mail today. One contained the original, signed cc agreement and the other contained a couple of original statements on the other cc. The original limits were in the low hundreds but the debt has ballooned now up to approx 1K each. SOL doesn't hit until next year. I'm concerned about a lawsuit and if one happens, now it may be hard to call the chain of custody into question. What steps should we take next? I know this was purchased for pennies on the dollar. Probably less than $75 each. I don't think I can DV them, since they sent info. Even though this was during a time period when we went through id fraud it could? be ours. I'm not eager to pay a JDB, but I don't want to go through a lawsuit either. Thoughts? Advice? I would only consider a PFD and settlement if I couldn't wait it out until SOL. Keep in mind, this isn't absolutely urgent; we aren't buying a new house or car. But the bear is awake and they know we just bought a brand new vehicle so they might think we have cash flow (not really). I do have a successes but I'll post in another thread. Thanks again everyone.
So, you disputed with the CRA (not the JDB?) The JDB responds by sending the documentation, unsolicited? Did the JDB contact you at all before? Did the JDB's communication include validation/mini-miranda?
Jam, Yes. We disputed just disputed the tradelines with the CRA b/c we didn't recognize it. Yes. Then, the JDB just sent us this stuff! Kind of. The only contact the JDB had was calling my cellphone (debt is husband's only) but never left any messages. JDB never sent any letters or called husband. I only know it was them due to reverse lookup. I think ... There is a mini-miranda on the first page of each letter and it also says the letter was sent in response to the dispute that was made and the debt has now been verified I'm thinking after talking to a friend and reading some other posts, that it might be good to send a follow-up letter disputing the amounts (which I have no idea how they got to those) and limiting contact to US mail and electing arb. Then if they file a lawsuit, so be it. At least we already elected arb per the cardholder agreements. I mean, why would they pay thousands of dollars in arb fees on a debt they probably paid $50 for? That doesn't sound like a smart business decision. What do you think? I don't want to get sued and I keep reading about people getting summons over 800-900 debts. I also really, REALLY don't want to pay a JDB. I think that perpetuates this slimy, scumball business. If it were up to me, the economy wouldn't have crashed, jobs wouldn't have been lost and I wouldn't have had serious medical problems and we would've just paid the OC (or never been late in the first place), but that's wishful thinking.
Well, would you much rather them pay you money, than versa vice? Again, this is just my way of thinking and how I would handle this solution.
Jam, I absolutely love that option! I just hate the fact I am so freaking scared (which is what they want) and afraid they will just file a suit against the husband. I wish I had a way to post the stupid letters so you could pick them apart with me piece by piece. I think they are also violating the TCPA by calling my cell phone and I am NOT on the debt plus I filed a complaint with the FTC about them calling me AND I am on the DNC list. This may sound like a naive question, but do letters like that usually work? I'm dealing with stupid Portfolio and it seems like they are sue happy and that makes me so stupidly nervous (which again, is what I know they want).
Well, I wish I could officially confirm or deny how well these letters work. Unfortunately, when they work, they usually have a little piece of paper attached to them saying that one can not confirm how well it worked.
Hmm...can you say if, in general terms, they work more often than not? Also, I want to pick your brain about a letter from a CA! I know you can help me on this: They responded to a DV where the OC was already paid and this CA had nothing to do with it whatsoever. (Mini miranda included on both pages) It says: As of the date above of this letter, our records indicate that accounts xxxxxxx are paid. In the event we are notified in the future that your payment was returned due to non-sufficient funds or was otherwise reversed or unpaid by your financial institution this letter will be void. In addition please be advised we have contacted the credit bureaus, with which we do business, with our request to delete our listings of accounts xxxxxx from your credit profile; however, because your social security number was not provided to us we will be uncertain as to whether or not our request will be accurately processed by the agencies notified. NCO cannot effect a change to how any other company or entity may have listed the account on your credit profile. Should you have any information to assist us further, please contact the undersigned. Then it says Federal and State law prohibit certain methods of debt collection and require we treat you fairly. If you have a complaint about the way we are collecting your debt please visit our website, (XXX.xxx - Official .XXX Directory), contact the FTC (website, phone and address) I thought this letter was really odd bc I never provided a social on DV letters and all the other ones came back saying, Sorry we bothered you, we deleted. Do you have any thoughts on this? If this is a totally legit letter, great! I am glad they aren't being slimeballs. If it isn't, well then, I think I should let them know. If you're too busy to look, I understand. I just thought you might like picking it apart if there was anything good in there.
NCO got dinged $1.5 mill for debt collection and credit reporting violations. Then they just got dinged for $3.2 mill more, yes that was THIS MONTH... NCO Group to Pay Largest FCRA Civil Penalty to Date World's Largest Debt Collection Operation Settles FTC Charges, Will Pay $3.2 Million Penalty Here's a bit about how the dispute process work. You send a letter to the CRA disputing the trade lines, they send a message electronically to DSDA Collections to please verify with us what you got on your end. If the dispute was a simple "not mine", then they are asked only to parrot back (ANY TWO) of the following: Name, Address, DOB, SSN. So, if DSDA Collections at any time pulled your credit report, or skip-traced to find YOUR contact information, they will most likely have updated the information on their system to reflect at least the NAME and ADDRESS on the credit report, if not 'repaired' any other data errors. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523133/120130assetcmpt.pdf Check out page 5 for a good example of that. Keep reading because it gets better.
Lizzy: Did you notice the relevant portion of Dunham? Even if they provided validation with the initial communication, they are required to comply with the validation provisions because of the potential for misidentification, and in fact, in this case, they misidentified your cell phone number as your husbands, and caused charges to be incurred by you, for their collection efforts against your husband.
Jam I am SO GLAD you pointed that out because I read Dunham in the exact opposite way. Meaning, Dunham had no standing since he knew he was not the debtor. I thought that meant I essentially had no grounds to complain. Funnily enough (not really) they called again, this afternoon. My cellphone of course. I finally answered it and I had to say hello 3x before someone finally got on and asked for my husband. I explained they had the wrong number and the guy hung up on me before I could go into a speil about removing my number blah blah blah. I looked up the number (since it was a new one) and it was from their "litigation department." So I think I have to start getting super serious about this. I did shoot off a fax as soon as I got home for a DV, disputing the debt, limiting communication to US mail only and electing arb. I found a memo/letter to the FTC from P.R.A. and while I can see right through the slimy BS, it is pretty clear they do NOT like dealing with arbitration. http://ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectroundtable1/542930-00022.pdf Now I need to prepare for counter-claims and do whatever I can to mitigate this debt (and by mitigate I mean only lawfully through their screw-ups of course). Also, if *I* call a CA after limiting their communication, does that revoke the limited c&d? Are they allowed to start calling again or are they still bound by that?
The ruling was a mixed bag. He was defined as a consumer by the court. The place where he fell short was in continuing to demand production of evidence once, he (as an attorney, or an unsophisticated consumer) would have known he was NOT the correct consumer. The last 4 digits of the wrong social security number PROVED that he was not the CORRECT CONSUMER. He then had all the evidence he needed to rebut the allegations of Portfolio. Had he replied with a simple letter stating. The matter could have been closed promptly. Also, apparently there was an SoL issue as well, he brought the case a little over a year after the correspondence from the CA. The SoL for the FDCPA is one year, so the action may have been time-barred as well, it just never needed to go into that part of the issue.
