No billing Statements/validation - two debt collectors
Date: Mon, 12/03/2007 - 19:50
Is it legal for a credit card company to send you to a debt collector after missing a couple of payments. Then, after the debt collector doesn't verify or validate your dispute, is it legal for the credit card company to continue to report your account as delinquent without sending you any billing statements after sending you to the debt collector? Furthermore, charging you off when your account is suppose to be with the debt collector? Then without any notice to you send you to another debt collector (law firm) threatening to sue you after they have charged off.
This is what happened to me. I sent the first debt collector my dispute letter. I was new to the collection agency and laws, so I didn't know how long it took for them to verify or validate the debt. Well, I waited to hear back from them and months passed by and before I knew it, seven months later, a letter is in the mail from an attorney debt collector threatening to sue me over a the debt that the first debt collector was suppose to have from the original creditor. But, here's the catch --- the credit card company charged me off in December 2006. I received the letter from the debt attorney in March of 2007. The debt they were referring to was the same debt the first debt collector was referring to, the same debt that the first debt collector never validated.
I think the credit card company purposely held onto my account or received my account again (without my knowledge) and charged me off just so that they could send me to an attorney debt collector. Because the first debt collector received my account in August 2006, they wrote me in September 2006. I mailed the dispute letter - never received an answer. Before I knew it, during the month of March 2007 an attorney debt collector was sending me a notice concerning a possible lawsuit. What happened during all those months of 2006 to 2007? I checked my credit report after receiving the attorney debt collector notice and saw that Citibank apparently still had my account and they had charged me off in December 2006 without any knowledge to me, without any billing statements being sent to me, nothing. Yet, I was sent to the first debt collector in August/September of 2006. I don't understand what happened. How could Citibank charge me off in December when they never sent me any bills?
Plus, the reason why I missed a monthly payment was because my monthly payment was around 300 dollars. Well, one month I paid a partial payment. So, the month after that partial payment, Citibank had me paying over $1,000 dollars for a monthly payment. So, yes I did miss a month. I went from paying 300 dollars to $1,000 dollars. That's when they sent me to the first debt collector. After, I missed the $1,000 minimum payment. Is all of this legal? Can Citibank just miss all of those months August to December 2006 then charge me off in December 2006 without notifying me especially since they sent me to a debt collector. Then after charging me off (without any billing statements) send me to an attorney in MARCH 2007?
I couldn't believe the notice when I read it. I kept asking myself how in the world did they get my account and how did I charge off when I was never sent any bills or anything from either the first debt collector or Citibank.
It's as though Citibank acted as though the first debt collector never existed and they had contacted the second debt collector from the start. Which is wrong. They contacted the second debt collector after they charged me off without my knowledge and without the proper billing statements and without the first debt collector's validation.
What makes me so mad is that I've been a loyal customer and paid my bills all the time. But, that 1,000 dollars monthly bill was too much. I missed one or two payments at the most and now all of this is happening. It's just crazy. I keep asking the second debt collector when did they receive my account from Citibank, but they refuse to answer.
Also is it illegal for a credit card company to charge you higher then the default apr? They were charging me 31.9% to 32.24% as the default APR. But, that wasn't the default APR they placed in their terms. The default APR is lower then what they charged me.
If anyone could help and give me some advice.
I hope it wasn't too confusing. I was confused myself just thinking about it. Thanks for your response.
Charge-off - but no billing statements
If a credit card company charges you off, but hadn't sent you any billing statements for five months have they violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act? Since, the credit company sent you to a debt collector who decided not to pursue further (though you didn't know it at the time) and apparently the credit card company kept the account or continued the account without your knowledge, but didn't send you any billing statements have they violated the law?
The credit card charged me off, but never sent me any billing statements after sending me to the debt collector that never validated my dispute; therefore, the debt collector ceased communication and collection. I didn't realize that at the time, but the credit card company did and continued to report my account as delinquent/charge-off without providing me with my statements. So, I thought my account was still with the debt collector.
Thanks!
I may be confused, but here goes- The original creditor can char
I may be confused, but here goes- The original creditor can charge you off if you fail to meet the terms, or they can send you to a collection agency to re-cup.My original creditor-Sears charged us off and sold the account to a CA. The CA sent letters, I sent debt validation requests- with no response-they then pased it on to one of their many agencies- again more validation letters with no response. I then got a letter from an attorney/collector-DVd them-no response-and so on and so on-this has gone on almost two years.
They don't have to send statements- you should know that you owe them-this is what I was told.
They can charge interst according to your states laws.
Depending on what CA, they may never respond- just keep notes of everything and copies of anything you get or send. Unless you live in Texas or some of the few states, there is no set time limit on when they have to validate.
I hope this answers your questions, if I got it wrong-let me know!!..Karen
still confused
Okay.
I still think it's wrong.
Original creditor sent me to a CA in August/September 06. Then the original creditor charged me off in December 06.
During those months I should have been receiving my billing statements if my account was still with the creditor. But, when they sent me to the CA, my account was said to be with them - the CA. So, if my account was returned to the original creditor - I do believe I had a right to know that I could still pay on my monthly bill instead of thinking I had to pay the whole amount or 80% of the amount all at once. If I would have known, I would have continued to pay the monthly billing statement and worked something out with the original creditor. But, I didn't know my account had been returned to the original creditor until the original creditor charged me off in December 2006. They didn't charge me off in Aug/Sept. They charged me off after sending my account to the CA. I didn't receive any billing statements before the charge-off (Dec 06). I just received a CA notice stating my account had been referred to them in Aug. 06.
So between the months of the CA and the charge-off, The original creditor had been reporting my monthly payments as late. How is that? When they referred me to the CA asking for the full amount or settling for the 80% of the amount in Aug 06/Sept.06? Then later charging me off in December 06 - as if they had never sent me to the CA in the first place and had been sending me my billing statements the whole time.
I just don't get it. The only reason why I was referred to the second collector was because of the charge off that happened in December 06. Basically the original creditor was acting as though my account was never sent to the first CA and continued to report my account as late during the same month they sent me to the CA and the months afterwards.
The second CA, after receiving my account due to the charge-off, asked for the same amount from when I was sent to the first CA --- they were asking for the amount from August. Not the amount from when I was charged off - December. Yet, that is the only reason why I was sent to the second agency (law firm) in the first place - due to the charge off in December 06.
So, what happened between CA (August) and the charge-off (December)?
I know it's confusing.