In my reading I believe this doesnt count as proper validation, correct?? 1. computer print out from computer print screen from their "Inquire/Update account". Has variation of old address but not correct. Different account number than reported on CRA. 2. computer print out of itemized services with total due $0 3. A signature on my emergency room discharge. The signature if for "I hearby achnowledge and understand the instructions indicated above. This is a $50 paid collection. No where does this say I owe anything...in fact the total due $0 should prove that right?? I wish I had known about the validation process before I paid this 2 and half years ago. I disputed with equifax and they deleted; experian still shows indispute and TU as of 8/2 shows it but not in dispute. Also they sent back my original letter and stamped everything with the mini meranda So the next step should be 2nd validation + Wollman Letter correct??
Did you send a standard validation or a nutcase letter? Sorry not to answer your question directly, but a little more information might help members help you decide what to do next. Sending another validation may not be your best route to take. Please give so more details. Also, if you feel comfortable revealing the name of the CA, I would do so. Many people know hwo to deal with certain CA's.
This was a paid collection of $50. The CA is: Collection Associates, INc 766 W Main Street Greensbury, IN 47240 I sent this letter to them: To Whom It May Concern: This letter is being sent to you in response to a listing on my credit report. I hereby lawfully request that you validate all tradeline notations you have submitted to the three major credit reporting agencies by Collection Associates for me, Jennifer for account number XXXXXX. Due to inaccuracies in these credit reports, I have attached a request for complete validation (not verification) on this alleged account and you are instructed to fill it out, attach copies of all requested documentation and return it to me. Please be advised that I am not requesting a verification that you have my mailing address; rather, I am requesting validation, i.e., competent evidence that I had some contractual obligation with the creditor with whom incurred the original claims associated with this tradeline. Please attach a copy of the agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt. Please attach a copy of any agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he/she agreed to pay the creditor. Please attach copies of all statements while this account was open. I have sent a form for convenience. Be advised that the description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information is hereby requested as well, to be provided within fifteen (15) days of the completion of your re-investigation. Please know that you have 30 days from the tracked and confirmed delivery of this lawful notice to either answer these demands or if you cannot provide complete validation as provided by law, then your offices are instructed to immediately request full deletion of this account from my master credit file and all 3 major credit bureauâ??s. You are also instructed to send me a copy of such request for deletion via US Mail. Any other action may constitute evidence of your intent to abridge one or more civil or other constitutional rights. Please be further advised that continued unsubstantiated reporting of possible inaccuracies to third parties may provide a basis for criminal complaints being filed in accordance with Fair Debt Collections Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other federal statutes. . I look forward to a timely and amicable resolution to this matter. p.s also I think I was mistaken on the $0 balance thing as i was reading a past post and this must be an AR solution thing. The total bill was 132.70. Thank you for responding
She is doing this right even if its a paid collection. If they can't validate the debt even paid, it should be removed. Don't even send anything else. Send them Delete the incorrect tradeline or get sued.
Whew i hope I was doing this right....I also had hope my "newbieness" would not show to them. So is this delete or be sued letter the "nutcase letter"?? I have gotten four deletions of paid collections using that letter that I sent and waiting for responsed for a couple more. So far (knock on wood) this was the only one to send back anything other than we cannot validate so we will delete. Have letters still waiting on updated CR and score boosts
Well, the next question is what are the instructions indicated above? Even though the Wollman letter states that a computer printout is not sufficient, that signature on the emergency room release may be the one piece of "evidence" you will have to watch out for. That's why I'm asking you exactly what were the terms of this release. Hmmmm~ this is kind of sticky. Their validation is actually pretty good, and that fact that you paid it lends some sort of credibility to the debt. I'm not saying that we lose our right to verify and validate after we pay, but that it is much harder. Think about if you went in front of a judge and said, "Well, your honor, I did pay this at the time." Judge: "Why did you pay it? Were you under some kind of duress?" You: "No." or "Yes". Either way, you are going to really prove why you paid this debt and are concerned about it now. Any experts willing to chime in on this...
I definitely agree with you there Kiyi. If they can't validate that the debt is paid, they should remove. I think she was looking for some kind of contractual obligation that she had to pay them... I'm getting all turned around. lol. I'm just free writing at this point. I'm going to take a seat back from this one and let the expert loose on this one lol
The instructions were how to take the medicine and how to tend to my knee wound and to return to the hospital in 7 - 10 days if no improvement was seen. It was to make sure I understood what to do after I was discharged. I truely dont remember all the details since this happened 2/7/98..The only thing I can think of the $50 being was maybe the deductible for the hospital room visit. I had Aetna at the time (and many confrontations with them on numberous coverages) but the paperwork shows Conniticut General Life as the paying insurance (dont know if that was an affliate or something I am in Indiana) I went in for hurting my knee on the ski slope and the bill is for leg xrays and a urinalysis junk. What the two have to do with one another I surely dont know as I am not a doctor...but i would guess nothing.
BTW I would like to thank DOC very much for the original letter...I should have stated that before but at times I am a bit of a scatterbrain when I focus on a task and for that I apologize. Anyone have any suggestions when they actually validated...what would round two be??
rblues, I have to disagree with you that the printouts are pretty good validation in this case. The printouts described aren't detailing what the $50 was for and now what was sent, the printouts, should serve as proof that they can't validate. They need to account for the $50, if they can't it doesn't matter what they send. Sassy
Jenasea, That paper they gave you is part of your discharge order and is put in your chart then sent to medical records. There is nothing in there that has anything at all related to billing . What they need to send you is the papers you signed after they triage you.it usually goes along the lines of....you will be responsible for payment of all related bills that are not covered by your insurance...Then there is usually a second one just for the doctors saying the same. hope this helps!
That is what I thought that this did NOT validate this debt. I am just not sure what the second step is...I was thinking something along the lines of the Estoppel letter and maybe modify it to delete you have not responded to this is not validation and attach the Wollman Letter. Any opinions on this strategy or any other opinions on a different approach??
Not an expert, but in answer to the above question:"Your honor, I paid this under the belief that it was to be removed from my credit report. It was paid in a good faith effort to expidite the removal of this item from my credit report. I was never informed of right under the FDCPA that I may dispute all or any part of the alledged debt." Gib
Good reply Gib! Well, I agree with the posters that a letter stating that you were in the hospital isn't proper validation. Send follow up validation.
Dear Jennifer, Do you think there are any violations from the furnisher of information, whomever placed the item on your report? I assume it's the CA? If so ... what? "Due to inaccuracies in these credit reports, I have attached a request for complete validation (not verification) on this alleged account and you are instructed to fill it out." Specifically what inaccuracies are you talking about? Violations may be the only ammo you have at this late point. Please Advise,
Correct me if I'm wrong but, don't you have to sign a release and/or give someone written permission to obtain your medical records?. How the hell did they get access to your medical records without your consent? And if the hospital gave them to the CA, let me say there is a HUGE problem for them.
You have an extremely good point, ESPECIALLY with HIPAA regulations. I work for a hospital and I can tell you that in order to be in compliance with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) regulations, you pretty much cannot give ANY information about a patient to anyone. This might be a very good subject for further discussion/debate concerning the collection of medical accounts. I will see if I can't dig up a good site about HIPAA.
Ah, An issue which I am working on, albeit slowly. lol The Fee Agreement we sign when requesting medical attention states that you consent to info forwarding to any party needing to know in order to administer or collect the acct., the assignee. That agreement seems to progress thoughout the chain clear up to the CRA, regardless of how many CA's may be involved. There may however be a problem with the CRA making this information available to an inquirer. Since I found this stuff out I kinda put the whole thing on the back burner for now. By all means examine the HIPAA and GLBA. Let us know what you find out. I am especially interested in medical collections.
From http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/part1.html Section 1176 of the Act establishes civil monetary penalties for violation of the provisions in part C of title XI of the Act, subject to several limitations. Penalties may not be more than $100 per person per violation and not more than $25,000 per person for violations of a single standard for a calendar year. The procedural provisions of section 1128A of the Act apply to actions taken to obtain civil monetary penalties under this section. Section 1177 establishes penalties for any person that knowingly uses a unique health identifier, or obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the part. The penalties include: (1) a fine of not more than $50,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than 1 year; (2) if the offense is "under false pretenses," a fine of not more than $100,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than 5 years; and (3) if the offense is with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of not more than $250,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than 10 years. Under section 1178 of the Act, the requirements of part C, as well as any standards or implementation specifications adopted thereunder, preempt contrary state law. There are three exceptions to this general rule of preemption: state laws that the Secretary determines are necessary for certain purposes set forth in the statute; state laws that the Secretary determines address controlled substances; and state laws relating to the privacy of individually identifiable health information that are contrary to and more stringent than the federal requirements. There also are certain areas of state law (generally relating to public health and oversight of health plans) that are explicitly carved out of the general rule of preemption and addressed separately. Section 1179 of the Act makes the above provisions inapplicable to financial institutions (as defined by section 1101 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978) or anyone acting on behalf of a financial institution when "authorizing, processing, clearing, settling, billing, transferring, reconciling, or collecting payments for a financial institution." ____________________________ Ok, so section 1179 is what begs the question here. Is a hospital considered a financial institution?? I will check some more.
No CaliGirl but a Collection Agency is. Exemptions are provided for the collection of accts. The last paragraph was one of the ones I was referring to. as defined by section 1101 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978. The next step would be to find this and see if Collection Agencies are listed. I saw that they were listed somewhere but not in this provision.
