Next Step after sending DV letter?
Date: Tue, 02/12/2008 - 09:30
The acct was an old AT&T wireless acct. It was created in 2/03 and ended about 6 or 8/03. (Tried calling att to get the last payment date and/or verify whether it had been paid off or not.. they had zero information on the acct as it had been sold off) Palisades placed the entry on my CR with a date of 8/06, obviously a fraudulent attempt to extend the SOL.
My question is this. Should I immediately dispute the entry with all 3 CRA's based on the false date? Or should I wait for the green card to come back, and send a copy of the DV letter and card along with the dispute form?
Sad thing is, if they hadn't misrepresented the dates, I probably would have forked over the measly 80 bucks, assuming I had actually forgotten to PIF the acct before moving. Now, after reading about all their dirty practices, I am motivated to press for everything I am legally entitled to. They are now sol since the SOL has expired.
james
hi James-- A couple things....first, it is against federal law
hi James--
A couple things....first, it is against federal law to place a negative entry on your credit file without notifying you within 5 days to provide the necessary consumer rights disclosure. If they never contacted you, they owe you $1000....and yes, I am serious. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is the law that governs debt collection by third party collectors. This law defines communication as:
????
Placing a negative entry on your credit file most definitely fits this. Here's what the law says about the disclosure of your rights:
??
In other words, this company appears to have just violated the fdcpa by engaging in communication to collect a debt, without notifying you of your rights under the law. Every FDCPA violation is worth $1000 paid to you from the CA, if you choose to sue them over it.
I would dispute the account with every credit bureau they listed it with, because they were required to contact you by federal law and they blew it. And since you dont have any info at all about what this debt is, if its really yours, etc etc etc, then by all means, dispute it with any credit bureau that they placed it with. You need to do this in order to make the next violation actionable--in other words, you disputed the debt with the creditor by sending a DV letter. They are not allowed to take any further collection effort until they provide you with a copy of the validation. If, during that time, you also dispute the credit bureau entry, they will then send the dispute to the CA as well. But they send a different dispute--its called verification, not validation. Two different things....but anyways, if they report back to the credit bureau that the debt is in fact legitimately yours, they are making a negative credit report against you. And, continuing to report a debt on a credit file has already been determined to be collection effort. I think you see where I am going with this. So, since you sent the DV, send a certified letter to the three credit bureaus, or get your credit reports and dispute it online. Online disputes provide a printable written record that you can use as evidence of their actions.
Case in point, I just got my Experian report today. on that report, there is an entry from RJM Acquisitions. They claimed that the account in question was opened in December 2006. However, I have a letter they sent me, claiming that the debt was first opened in April 2004, and date of last payment was June 2004. Statute of limitations for this debt in my state is 3 years. If they used the correct dates, then it is outside the SOL and the SOL is expired. So, they changed it to 12/2006, so that it would appear that it was still within the SOL. I disputed this debt last year, and they never answered my DV letter. So, up to this point, they have done the following:
1--continued reporting to collection bureau while ignoring DV request(their last update was 2/2008)
2--they hired a collection agency to collect on their behalf--this is also collection activity, because they still own the debt.
3--continued collection effort in the form of dunning letters, asking for payment, while ignoring a DV request.
These are 3 violations of the FDCPA, which I can now sue them over. It is worth $3000 in my pocket, plus any actual damages....and all for a $250 debt that they proposed a $116.95 settlement on! How stupid can they be, to risk $3K in penalties plus court costs over $116?!? But thats how they play.
Definately silly on their part. When I spoke with Palisades, the
Definately silly on their part. When I spoke with Palisades, they claimed to have sent mail to an old address that was returned to them. Does this count as an infraction against them? They tried to communicate.. yet they know the mail did not arrive. .and still added the hit to the CR. Also, they are updating it regularly. One of the CRA's is showing the debt as only 1 month old! So are they still in trouble for hitting the CR when they knew their mail was returned?
It sounds like it would put them in a pickle if the DV and CRA dispute were timed correctly? The DV creating a freeze and the CRA dispute requiring them to respond in a similar timeframe? So if they do verify, it counts as a negative infraction during the freeze period? IF so. that sounds like an awful nice loophole.
James
They assume that people won't sue and play the law of averages.
They assume that people won't sue and play the law of averages. The average person does not know the law. The average person in collections will not get an attorney because they think they can't afford one. The average person will not persue over a small amount of money. Don't be average!! They hate that and will usually cease collecting! Truth. You know the law, the attorney from the NACA will take the case on a contingency and it is no longer a small amount of money. It is money that they owe you now. Go after what is rightfully yours.
Are there any form letters floating around to send to the CRA's
Are there any form letters floating around to send to the CRA's disputing the "re-aging"?