I sent a validation letter to United Credit National Bank about 6 weeks ago. Although I did not hear back from them I noted a week after receipt Genesis Financial Solutions placed a collection on my report. I contested the UCNB on my report believing it should fall off as it was being reported twice. Today, I received a letter from Geneis stating they were the new owners of my account and that they purchased it from UCNB. They stated as the account was opened 24 months ago there was no copy of my application available per UCNB. They noted a last payment in 2/99. They went on to indicate although no application could be found correspondence was located with UCNB which they believed indicated I acknowledged responsibility for the debt. They gave the date of my validation letter to UCNB -THIS WAS NOT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT! Genesis went on to say: "However, there is no indication further correspondence ensued either from you or UCNB. As such, as a gesture of goodwill, Genesis Financial Solutions will relieve your responsibility of the remaining balance on the account, and will send notification to the credit bureaus requesting that the tradeline be deleted from your profile." This letter was dated 8/28. I also received an updated credit report from Equifax today stating the account WAS VERIFIED with UCNB. Experian also indicated verification in an online update today! Should I write asking the method of verification or should I include this letter indicating Genesis acknowledged owning the debt so it could not have been verified with UCNB? I am afraid if I send this letter, they will then pressure Genesis into leaving the debt on my credit profile. I need to get UCNB off, and I have a written acknowledgement they DO NOT own the debt. I feel like I am building a very good paper trail for an eventual suit against the CRA's. Any tips would be appreciated.
Well, I wouldn't send them a copy of that letter. I would ask for the "process description" and maybe hint that you have proof that UCNB no longer has the account, and you don't believe they actually did verify it, since they couldn't have - but don't ever tell them who has it. I agree with you, they notify collectors of any activity on your reports, so who's to say they don't do more. Sounds like the new guys don't want to bother with you, tee hee.
Hal, I have a very similar situation going on right now. I had a charge off that was sold in June to OSI Portfolio Services. They were and are both reporting this. I disputed this with Experian and the original came back verified even though the original creditor told me they sold it. I even sent a copy of the letter showing that OSI owns the account to Experian. They told me they couldn't accept my copy and I would have to get the original creditor to write a letter to them. Then, I got my Experian report back and they say they will not dispute the entry again as it was already verified once. I then called Experian again, and told them the FCRA says if I have proof of this then you must consider it. I was again told no. At this point it doesn't matter as they were served my lawsuit yesterday. Now we'll see if what the FCRA says matters or not.
Breeze: I agree with your post completely. LKH: You are kind of between the rock & the hardplace on that deal of yours. I have an awful tendency to think that they may be right in telling you that you have to get the sign off of the original creditor in order to force them to take it off. They might very well come up winners on that point. But I think that all boils down to splitting fine legal hairs and that no matter what, you did the right thing in filing the lawsuit on them. I mean, let's look at it logically. The court must decide on the basis of the least sophisticated consumer. What would the least sophisticated consumer think or do in the given situation? That is what is actually going to be before the court. And so I must ask you, what in the H&** WOULD the least sophisticated consumer do when he can't get nothing but a d@#$ed run-around? I say he files suit just like you did. He either does that or just give up on it and forgets about it. I bet they don't want to go to court over the issue. Go Get 'em
Hal, I've got a similar situation going on. Could you email me a copy of the letter you used in your val process. kittw1@aol.com
Re: Validation Letter works kind of I have a similar situation. I had a charge off account with Discover who sold it to First Select (Providian). Discover is the only one reporting it to Equifax and continues to verify it to Equifax. I have sent 3 dispute letters to Discover and they have not replied. I finally called them and they told me they couldn't remove the account because they didn't own it any more and that I had to contact First Select to get Discover to remove it. This has proven to be a real headache.
Re: Validation Letter works kind of Well, they may have a problem or two depending upon the actual situation. Let us use a hypothetical example which at first will not apply, only serve to illustrate. You perform a contract with PARTY A. PARTY A transfers the debt to PARTY B. PARTY A can transfer the debt to PARTY B who has just bought himself a big problem IF 1. the original contract did not have a transfer clause in it and/or (2) if PARTY A did not notify you in writing prior to the transfer. In either case, PARTY B has just bought a worthless and uncollectable debt. Now then, bringing that a bit more into line with reality, the above does apply to credit card debts as well, but your use of the card after the transfer would negate any and all of the above because your use of the card after the transfer obligates you to having accepted the transfer. If you were not notified of the transfer prior to it's occurrance, you might be able to build a case on that, but I would sure hate to bet any money that you would be successful in raising the question. I'm not an attorney, but I don't think I have to be any more than a fairly well educated person to come up with the conclusion that you could not use the card and enjoy it's benefits, default on the new creditor and hope to win on the argument that you didn't know about the transfer.
