Validation!!help Next Step

Where did you get the idea that paying on a charged off acct would allow it to be reported for another 7 years?

 

Let this be a lesson to never believe what a cra customer service rep says. LOL
Read this letter from the ftc staff. Pay attention to #2 which states exactly the opposite of what you were told. Then, call back to Equifax and ask for a supervisor and then ask why they are giving out false info.

February 15, 2000

Ms. Alaina K. Amason
14155 Shire Oak
San Antonio, TX 78247

Dear Ms. Amason:

This responds to your letter concerning the time limitations imposed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") on the reporting of chargeoff accounts by a consumer reporting agency ("CRA," usually a credit bureau). We list your inquiries on this topic below in italics, with our replies immediately following each item.

1. What reporting limits does the FCRA provide with respect to chargeoffs, and how long have they been in effect?

Section 605(a)(4), which has been in effect since the FCRA became effective in April 1971, has always prohibited CRAs from reporting chargeoffs that are more than seven years old.(1) Section 623(a)(5), which became law in September 1997, requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency (within 90 days of reporting the account) of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605(c)(1) provides that the seven year period begins 180 days from that date. Both provisions were part of the major revision to the FCRA that were enacted in 1996.(2)

2. Is the reporting period extended if (A) the original creditor sells or transfers the account to another creditor, (B) the consumer responds to post-chargeoff collection efforts by making a payment on the debt, or (C) the consumer disputes the account with a CRA? Does it matter whether the 7-year period has expired when any of these events occurs?

No. In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff.

3. Since Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1) provide new rules for calculating the 7-year period that became effective in 1997, do chargeoff accounts now have different obsolescence periods depending on when the chargeoff occurred?

Yes. Section 605(c)(2) states that the section "shall apply only to items of information added to the (CRA) file of a consumer on or after" 455 days after enactment, or December 29, 1997. Therefore, a chargeoff reported to a CRA on or after that date is subject to the new commencement-of-the-delinquency method of calculating the obsolescence period set forth in Sections 623(a)(5) and 605(c)(1). On the other hand, a chargeoff reported to a CRA before December 29, 1997, is not covered by the new provisions, as discussed in one of the enclosed letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99). If a credit account was reported as a chargeoff before that date, the Commission's view has been that it can be reported for seven years from the date the creditor actually charged it off.(3)
The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

Clarke W. Brinckerhoff


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Section 605(b) provides that there is no time limit applicable to a report made in connection with credit involving a principal amount (or insurance with a face amount) of $150,000 or more, or employment for a salary of $75,000 or more. Prior to September 1997, those amounts were $50,000 and $20,000, respectively.

2. The Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (Title II, Subchapter D, of Public Law 104-280, signed into law on September 30, 1996), made many other changes to the FCRA.

3. Commentary on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 16 CFR Part 600 Appendix, comment 605(a)(4)-2. 55 Fed. Reg. 18804, 18818 (May 4, 1990).

 

This is the way to challenge her....

MARLIN never validated ANYTHING. Point out that she probably contacted NCO not Marlin. Point out that Marlin is listed with a PA address yet is not licensed to do business in PA.

Tell her that this company's affiliate is under investigation by the compliance department at EQ and unless they contact and validate with MARLIN directly, then it is a lie!

BTW, NCO is violating the law by using the names Medclr, Marlin, et al! Check out the FTC opinion letters on collection agencies using their own name! By listing Medclr and Marlin, et al, they are masquerading as another collection company.

NCO may tell you that Marlin owns your account, but since your account was most likely past due when Marlin bought it, they are still held accountable to the FDCPA.

If you look at website www.medclr.com you will see: If this is about your consumer account, call 1-888-xxx-xxxx ONLY! And you get, guess who? NCO

DUH!

Tell EQ rep that You know that Robin Holland is investigating Medclr and you need Marlin included in that same investigation.


Good luck

 

For Megasun

What was the result of your letter? Just curious as I am about to send validation letters to these people.

 

MARLIN never validated ANYTHING
SCMomof5
=====================
You can't tell me that Equifax don't know that nco is doing this .
Since Equifax is reporting info they know or should know is inaccurate they are in willful violation of the law.
LB 59

 

Why would you pay it if it was discharged in BK??