Trying to clean up wifes collections
Date: Mon, 07/04/2011 - 16:03
Submitted by Adam Foxworthy
on
Mon, 07/04/2011 - 16:03
Total Replies: 10
- The first is about a student loan that she has. It got behind for whatever reason, and we are getting it caught back up. All 3 bureaus have it reported on 5/2011. TransUnion also has an older collection (reported 9/2006), for the same debt, they are the only ones reporting this info. Can I have them delete that trade line from ’06? They are reporting twice for the same debt, and the 06 entry is inaccurate on the amount of the debt. I sent a dispute to TransUnion, but as of yet, I haven’t even received the return receipt from them. I sent 5 certified letters out, and TU is the only one I have not gotten the return receipt back.
- The second is about a report by Asset Acceptance LLC. It is for a credit card that my wife does not remember ever having, since she never had a credit card with Washington Mutual. I sent a DV letter to AA LLC, and got a response back that was just a form letter. It had no proof of validation, just the OC Name, acct #, balance, and a statement that “they did an investigation and the information is accurate, now pay up.†After looking at the credit report again, I noticed AA LLC reported the debt to the bureaus on 5/2011, but the last date of acct activity is reported as 4/2005. That is outside of Oregon’s 6 year SOL. My question is this, do I send them an updated DV letter, or do I send a different letter telling them to get bent because they are violating the SOL? And can I have the trade line removed because they reported the debt after the SOL expired?
- There is a report from a Chase account that states that it has been charged off and sold to another lender (reported 12/2006), and it is listed under current collection accounts. My wife states that she has never had an account with Chase. I sent a DV letter to Chase, is that going to do any good? Is there anything we can do about it?
I sent copies of my DV’s and dispute letters to each of the 3 bureaus for these two collections. So far, Asset Acceptance is the only one to respond back. I’m just wondering where to go from here.
Here???s the situation. We went and got a copy of our credi
Here???s the situation. We went and got a copy of our credit report from an agency that helps people get ready for home ownership. Anyhow there are some collections on my wife???s credit that I am trying to get cleaned up. I have a few questions here, so here they are.
- The first is about a student loan that she has. It got behind for whatever reason, and we are getting it caught back up. All 3 bureaus have it reported on 5/2011. TransUnion also has an older collection (reported 9/2006), for the same debt, they are the only ones reporting this info. Can I have them delete that trade line from ???06? They are reporting twice for the same debt, and the 06 entry is inaccurate on the amount of the debt. I sent a dispute to TransUnion, but as of yet, I haven???t even received the return receipt from them. I sent 5 certified letters out, and TU is the only one I have not gotten the return receipt back.
Student loans are difficult to dispute. Often loans are reported seperately... if they are sold or transfered you can legally have two lenders reporting.
Who is reporting?
- Washington Mutual. I sent a DV letter to AA LLC, and got a response back that was just a form letter. It had no proof of validation, just the OC Name, acct #, balance, and a statement that ???they did an investigation and the information is accurate, now pay up.??? After looking at the credit report again, I noticed AA LLC reported the debt to the bureaus on 5/2011, but the last date of acct activity is reported as 4/2005. That is outside of Oregon???s 6 year SOL. My question is this, do I send them an updated DV letter, or do I send a different letter telling them to get bent because they are violating the SOL? And can I have the trade line removed because they reported the debt after the SOL expired?
Oregons SOL and reporting SOL are two different things. Accounts can be reported for 7 years. The state SOL is different....in OR you cannot be sued after 6 years...the debt would be time barred.
The CA did not validate. Send them a cease and desist letter telling them they did not validate and that the debt is now time barred.
- There is a report from a Chase account that states that it has been charged off and sold to another lender (reported 12/2006), and it is listed under current collection accounts. My wife states that she has never had an account with Chase. I sent a DV letter to Chase, is that going to do any good? Is there anything we can do about it?
You cannot DV an original creditor, especially if it was sold off. I believe Washington Mutual/Providian accounts were sold off to Chase. Since they purchased the debt, they can report it.
Student loans are difficult to dispute. Often loans are reported
Student loans are difficult to dispute. Often loans are reported seperately... if they are sold or transfered you can legally have two lenders reporting.
Who is reporting?
- It is the same entity reporting on both (US Department of Education). She only has one loan through them. We paid off all of her other student loans last year. They have the same open date. They do have different account numbers, but like I said, they are the same loan. The one that is older is for $9700, and says ???placed for collections.??? It has no list of past due dates or any past due info. The newer, and correct one is for$6000, and lists past due dates. Right now, she only owes the $6000, and it is one loan, not a bunch of broken up loans with the same company (like my loans).
Oregons SOL and reporting SOL are two different things. Accounts can be reported for 7 years. The state SOL is different....in OR you cannot be sued after 6 years...the debt would be time barred.
The CA did not validate. Send them a cease and desist letter telling them they did not validate and that the debt is now time barred.
- Thanks for the info. But what about forcing them to take it off since they reported it without validating? Anything I can do there? And this debt may be even older than that. My wife was married once before, and their reply letter was under her previous married name. We???ve been married almost 9 years. I would surmise that they were actually past the reporting SOL if they are going off of that info. Of course without the info from them, there is no real way to prove that.
You cannot DV an original creditor, especially if it was sold off. I believe Washington Mutual/Providian accounts were sold off to Chase. Since they purchased the debt, they can report it.
- I think I may have figured this one out. The acct number on the credit report matches the acct number on the letter I got from Asset Acceptance. So it looks like they sold it to asset Acceptance. So I guess we have to just live with this Item until if falls off in 2 more years?
Thanks SOAPLADY
The debt with an OC will, as long as they have not sold it, cont
- The debt with an OC will, as long as they have not sold it, continue to be reportable by them as the debt owed. A debt collector assigned collection authority on that same debt may then report the debt under their collection account. That is not double-reporting of the same debt. The reporting by the debt collector reflects their collection authority for that amount, and the reporting by the OC reflects continued ownership and owing of the debt to them. Older reportings by the OC are often not updated to reflect the current amount of the debt. If inaccurate in amount, you can dispute the reported amount and force its correction. However, that is only grounds for correction of their reporting, and for requiring deletion of the account.
- When you DV a debt collector, they must obtain verification from the OC that the debt is owed. The statute (FDCPA 809(b)) does not define how they must do that, and does not require that any verifcation must include documentary proof. If they state that the debt has been verified as accurate, provide the name of the OC that affirmed this, and state the amount of the debt, that is usually considered adequate verification.
As for when they reported to the CRA, SOL has nothing to do with it. Expiration or non-expiration of state SOL relates only to whether or not you have a defense against legal action in court. Expiration of the credit report exclusion period also does not limit their credit reporting. That limits how long a CRA may continue to include a reported collection in credit reports they issue, and does not limit reporting to a CRA after that date. It is a limitation on the CRA, and not on the debt collector.
- If an account is asserted as "not mine," the procedure is to dispute its accuracy, such as by filing a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8). If the OC has reported it to a CRA, your direct dispute should be directed to them, as they are the party where the records reside. If the OC never reported to a CRA, then recourse is to file the dispute with the reporting debt collector. An "account not mine" assertion requires some documentation. I would suggest filing of a police report, which the FCRA recognizes as some support for such an assertion on the basis of probable identity theft. You need to get the issue of "account not mine" resolved before you can compel any deletion of the reporting from your CR.
The debt with an OC will, as long as they have not sold it, con
- The debt with an OC will, as long as they have not sold it, continue to be reportable by them as the debt owed. A debt collector assigned collection authority on that same debt may then report the debt under their collection account. That is not double-reporting of the same debt. The reporting by the debt collector reflects their collection authority for that amount, and the reporting by the OC reflects continued ownership and owing of the debt to them. Older reportings by the OC are often not updated to reflect the current amount of the debt. If inaccurate in amount, you can dispute the reported amount and force its correction. However, that is only grounds for correction of their reporting, and for requiring deletion of the account.
**It's not a debt collector reporting. The old report is from US dept of Edu. The current report is by US dept of Edu. they didn't sell it to anyone, send it to collections or anything else. It is just an old report that happens to state that they are going to refer it to collections, and only ONE of the CRA's is reporting it, the other two have it correct. I did dispute it, and will see what happens.
- When you DV a debt collector, they must obtain verification from the OC that the debt is owed. The statute (FDCPA 809(b)) does not define how they must do that, and does not require that any verifcation must include documentary proof. If they state that the debt has been verified as accurate, provide the name of the OC that affirmed this, and state the amount of the debt, that is usually considered adequate verification.
**So they don't have to have any proof? What is to stop them from just sending us a letter saying that they verified it, and they never really did. The statute can kiss my ass, we WILL NOT PAY without proof. Especially not after the experiences that I have had with collection agencies that lied about my debts, and all of the information i have looked up on Asset Acceptance on here.
As for when they reported to the CRA, SOL has nothing to do with it. Expiration or non-expiration of state SOL relates only to whether or not you have a defense against legal action in court. Expiration of the credit report exclusion period also does not limit their credit reporting. That limits how long a CRA may continue to include a reported collection in credit reports they issue, and does not limit reporting to a CRA after that date. It is a limitation on the CRA, and not on the debt collector.
** So from what you say here, they can report us negatively from here to eternity. Doesn't sound right, maybe I am reading what you wrote wrong. I understand that the 6 year Oregon SOL is only for legal action. So, Chase can report it, and then sell it off, then Asset Acceptance can report the same debt, without the old one coming off? What is to stop them from continuously selling it off and each new place reporting it? Theoretically, they could sell it and report it hundreds of times, and a persons credit would be completely hosed.
- If an account is asserted as "not mine," the procedure is to dispute its accuracy, such as by filing a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(:cool:. If the OC has reported it to a CRA, your direct dispute should be directed to them, as they are the party where the records reside. If the OC never reported to a CRA, then recourse is to file the dispute with the reporting debt collector. An "account not mine" assertion requires some documentation. I would suggest filing of a police report, which the FCRA recognizes as some support for such an assertion on the basis of probable identity theft. You need to get the issue of "account not mine" resolved before you can compel any deletion of the reporting from your CR.
**So, if what I am reading here is correct, If i want to prove an account is "not mine," I need documentation? Other than a police report, how would we have any documentation? If the account isn't hers, the only documentation we would ever have, is the police report. And my wife doesn't know, It's been 9 years since she has gone by her married name. She has not, in the entire time we have been married, received anything from Chase, Washington Mutual or Asset Acceptance (who says they bought it from WaMu). But it may be hers, she just doesn't know, she has no recollection of an account with Chase. What would happen if we say it isn't hers, and then it turns out to be hers?
So an update on what has happened so far, as well as a couple of
So an update on what has happened so far, as well as a couple of questions.
So far, TransUnion has deleted the duplicate student loan report, and the Chase Bank report. They marked Asset Acceptance as disputed. Experian did the same, minus the student loan, since TU was the only one reporting that. Equifax refused to remove Chase, but marked AA as disputed? I have written a new letter to equifax requesting removal of both accounts again. Chase because obviously the information was incomplete, since 2 of the 3 bureaus removed it. I'm also writing to the other two requesting removal of AA due to reasons that will be listed below.
As far as Asset Acceptance goes, I have requested validation twice, and they have not provided it either time. I know they don't have to send me the frilly stuff that I asked for. However, they did not send what is required by FDCPA 809(b) (copy of the verification of the debt that they received or copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the OC.) All that they have sent me is a statement, printed out by them, that shows name only of the prior creditor (not the OC), the amount of the debt (and that they did not tack any fees or interest), and some of my wife's personal info, as well as a request to pay the debt to the address provided. That is not what the FDCPA says that they must send me. Also, more fun to find out, they are not licensed to collect in my state. I looked for their license on the states website for licensed collectors. Out of over 800 collectors, they are not there.
So here is my question. I have written them a 3rd letter (more strongly worded. Basically calling them idiots in the nicest words possible) giving them 10 more days to provide proper debt validation. I have not told them that I know that they have not fulfilled the exact requirements of the FDCPA, nor that I know that they are not licensed to collect in my state. This info is not included in my letter either. Do I send them the letter, or do I just go ahead and report the information that i have to the state and federal agencies? Also, can I use this information to make the 3 bureaus take that report off? And can I make Equifax take off the Chase Bank report, since the other two did?
Asset Acceptance
Asset Acceptance isn't necessarily a bill collector, so them not being licensed in your state is a non-issue. Asset Acceptance purchased the debt, so they are now the creditor.
[COLOR=Red]---this is false. there is only one creditor on an old debt, and that is the original creditor. Asset Acceptance is 100% obligated to follow the FDCPA like any other debt collector or junk debt buyer is. The fact that they have different offices within the same organization to collect than the ones that buy the debt makes no difference, this has been shown in court cases time and again. If you need further clarification on this one, consider the fact that AA is contacting you, trying to collect a debt. Look at the FDCPA's definition of creditor:
The term ???creditor??? means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.[/COLOR]
There it is, folks...AA and others claim that their debt buying company is a different entity than their collection company. According to the FDCPA itseldf, one who is assigned or transferred a debt to collect it for someone else is not a creditor. In addition to that, courts all over the land have upheld that a junk debt buyer is in fact a debt collector and fully subject to the FDCPA as such.
Please once again clarify what it is you received from Asset Acceptance regarding validation of this debt. Unless I misunderstood, it sounds as though they did indeed provide what is required by law. And, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's right - it's just what's required. As a matter of fact, when I became employed in this industry, I was shocked by how little is required to validate a debt.
--again, already addressed. I have been involved first hand in cases in courts where they tried to pass off flimsy internally produced "affidavits" and so on....and there has not been one single time in any of those cases where those documents were not thrown out as hearsay because they do not at all show proper validation. I already addressed this, and I already showed both the specific wording of the law and the FTC's stand on the matter, so there is no ambiguity here. Not only have I beaten a CA myself with this fact, I have beaten other CAs for many people here on this forum with this fact.
I have a feeling that the Chase and Washington Mutual accounts are duplicates, since Chase purchased Washington Mutual's credit card portfolio some years back.
As far as the SOL and the credit reports are concerned, another poster accurately addressed this issue for you.
OK, lets clear up a few points... Quote:When you DV a debt co
OK, lets clear up a few points...
- Quote:When you DV a debt collector, they must obtain verification from the OC that the debt is owed. The statute (FDCPA 809(b)) does not define how they must do that, and does not require that any verifcation must include documentary proof. If they state that the debt has been verified as accurate, provide the name of the OC that affirmed this, and state the amount of the debt, that is usually considered adequate verification.
This is false. While the law does not necessarily dictate the actual form that the validation must be in, the FTC has written plenty of staff letters to handle this point. Simply sending you a letter on the CA's letterhead saying "we checked, you owe this much" is NOT acceptable validation because the law is designed to protect consumers from CA's that would practice unfair collection methods. Look at the law again:
[QUOTE]If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.[/QUOTE]
Note that it is clear that a COPY of the verification is to be provided to the consumer. A copy does not typically mean "I write this on my own letterhead and call it good enough". The law does make it reasonably clear that a copy of the verification that came from the OC is what is to be sent to the consumer. For backup on this, here is a link to an FTC staff letter that illustrates the clear purpose of the law:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm
It is perfectly clear in that letter that "mere itemization of what the CA has is not enough", and that proper validation must be proven to come from the OC. They sent you a document on their letterhead. This is not validation.
Quote:
** So from what you say here, they can report us negatively from here to eternity. Doesn't sound right, maybe I am reading what you wrote wrong. I understand that the 6 year Oregon SOL is only for legal action. So, Chase can report it, and then sell it off, then Asset Acceptance can report the same debt, without the old one coming off? What is to stop them from continuously selling it off and each new place reporting it? Theoretically, they could sell it and report it hundreds of times, and a persons credit would be completely hosed. |
In a nutshell, it works like this. Negative reports can only remain on your report for a total of 7.5 years. The time starts ticking on that 7.5 years when the account first became delinquent. It CANNOT stay on your report forever. The OC can report it for that long. Even if it is sold, their original report is still legal up to the end of that 7.5 years. The only other party that can report the same debt is a CA who is legally authorized to collect it. So, if you had three CA's reporting the same debt, the one with authority to collect should stay on and the other two should be removed, since they no longer have the legal authority to take any collection effort against you, and reporting is collection effort. Often we see cases where people here post a thread about a very old debt--sometimes 20 years old or even more--that a junk debt buyer purchased, and suddenly reported on their credit. This is not legal and we tell them to dispute the debt as having passed the federally-mandated statute of limitations for reporting. Now, if you have, say, a mortgage, and you get behind in it, naturally your mortgage company can continue to report your debt because the debt itself still is ongoing. But in the case of a collection account, the account is already closed and usually charged off after some time, so it cannot be reported forever.
Quote:
If an account is asserted as "not mine," the procedure is to dispute its accuracy, such as by filing a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(:cool:. If the OC has reported it to a CRA, your direct dispute should be directed to them, as they are the party where the records reside. If the OC never reported to a CRA, then recourse is to file the dispute with the reporting debt collector. An "account not mine" assertion requires some documentation. I would suggest filing of a police report, which the FCRA recognizes as some support for such an assertion on the basis of probable identity theft. You need to get the issue of "account not mine" resolved before you can compel any deletion of the reporting from your CR. |
This is also false. Remember this--the law places 100% of the burden of proof on the debt collector. This means you do not have to prove your innocence, they have to prove your obligation instead. So, if you send a certified letter to a CA saying "I dispute this account, it is not mine", that CA has only one correct option--they must cease collection of the debt, obtain validation, and send it to you. They do NOT, repeat, NOT have the right to determine whether or not they believe you, and adjust their actions accordingly. The law has NO provision that requires you to provide documentary proof of your claim before the CA can take action. The law simply says "if the consumer disputes, then the CA must stop collection and validate". Even if the debt would go to a lawsuit, the burden still falls squarely upon the debt collector to prove their claim against you. There is not any point in time, according to the law, where the consumer must prove their innocence. Now, I know that the letter of the law doesnt always meet reality, but often that is because the letter of the law is not used. Use the law, thats what it is there for! And when these CA's do not follow the law, we need to act. The reason why so many CAs break the law is because they know that out of every 100 consumers they break the law with, MAYBE 1 or 2 will actually sue them for doing so. Think about that....Imagine if every time they broke the law, they would get slapped with a lawsuit for it. It would become far too costly for them to continue breaking the laws, and that is what the laws were designed to do!
- Quote:Thanks for the info. But what about forcing them to take it off since they reported it without validating? Anything I can do there? And this debt may be even older than that. My wife was married once before, and their reply letter was under her previous married name. We???ve been married almost 9 years. I would surmise that they were actually past the reporting SOL if they are going off of that info. Of course without the info from them, there is no real way to prove that.
From what I see here, you are saying that Asset Acceptance is reporting a debt that would be more than 9 years old. If this is the case, then yes, it is definitely past the reporting SOL and you can dispute it as that. But that doesnt mean that they wont try to re-age the debt. AA and others have a record of doing things like that. Re-aging means they simply lie about when the debt was created so that they can continue to report it. In a case like this, it is better to be able to have some kind of documentation on the issue, and it is not easy to have it. Remember, I said that THE LAW doesnt require you to have proof--but also remember, when dealing with a CA that doesnt care about following the law, you will need something to help you out. The name could be helpful, as your wife has not used that name as her legal name in over 9 years. I had a similar deal with a CA with my wife on a supposed credit card, they claimed she used her maiden name after it wasnt her legal name anymore. They claimed to have a driver's license photocopy on file and everything....and when I called their bluff, they ran off with their tail between their legs. Some CAs are so used to lying that they talk themselves right into trouble when dealing with someone who knows the law.
In this case, you could try disputing the AA entry because it is incomplete, because the FCRA requires that any "furnisher of information" must report certain data about the account. If it isnt there, they are in violation. If you do this, though, they may lie and reage the debt. If you dispute it as "to old to be reported" or "past the applicable time frame for reporting", then you might have better luck. But it doesnt matter to one CRA what the other two did, so that really wont help you much. The CRA has to report what the CA gives them to report, no matter what the CA gave the other two CRAs.
I do, however, have info that may help you piece this all together. Look at the two entries for AA and Chase. AA said that this is an old WaMu account. Chase bought WaMu in 2008. So, there's your connection between the two. You said the account number was the same...there is only one way that this debt could legally still be showing up--and that is if the account first became delinquent less than 7.5 years ago. The "first reported" date on the Chase entry is not pertaining to the debt at all, it pertains to when they first claim to have reported it to your CRA.
Finally, RESOLUTION!!! At least I think..
Got this letter in the mail today. This is after I sent them (Asset Acceptance LLC) a 3rd letter telling them that they did not validate the debt, and that they had a final chance to validate it and send me the info I requested (the fluffy stuff they don't have to provide) or take it off of our credit, that I was reporting them to all of the appropriate authorities. I told them they had 10 days from certified receipt to have an answer in my hands. I got their letter and the return receipt today. Return Receipt was dated August 11, 2011
August 11, 2011
RE: Asset Acceptance LLC acct xxxxxxxxx
Washington Mutual Account xxxxxxxxxx
Balance: $0.00
Dear xxxxxx.
Please be advised that this account has been closed due to a recent fraud investigation.
We will report this information to the credit bureaus accordingly.
If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please contact the compliance department between the hours of 8am and 4pm EST.
Sincerely
Dirtbags -R -Us
So now what? Should I write the 3 bureaus to make sure they remove this? I still plan on contacting the appropriate department to report them for trying to collect in my state. I wrote both of my state, and all 3 federal legislators about this, and one has already responded. They said Asset acceptance is a registered business name in Oregon, but not a licensed collector.
Should I turn them in for lying the first two times? They said it was validated twice, now they say it was a fraudulent account and have closed it out and zeroed it.
Thanks for any suggestions.
The first thing I can say here is to look for the next debt coll
The first thing I can say here is to look for the next debt collector that will come calling. Do not be misled on this--AA can close the account because they dont want to deal with the work of fighting you over the account--but they will very likely sell it off to a junk debt buyer, and they will come calling next. Just be ready for it.
They didnt close the account because they found it to be a fraudulent account. They closed the account because many CAs will do this when someone fights back and they cannot prove their claims. Its a win for you, definitely, but it is most likely not the end of this issue. Monitor your credit reports closely on this one, it is possible that the first you hear about the next collector will be when someone reports it to the CRAs.
Thank you for the info skydvr. I will keep an eye out. I guess I
Thank you for the info skydvr. I will keep an eye out. I guess I will go ahead and report them for all of their transgressions. Maybe Oregon will do something about them. And if another CA comes up, at least I have this info that they sent me to fight them with. Theoretically, if AA says it's a fraudulent account, even to just get rid of me, they just hosed the next company that they sell it to.
I'm going to get to work on notifying all of the state and federal agencies. I'll also write the credit bureaus and demand that they make sure to take all of these reports off. And maybe I will get a hold of my lawyer from the last bout with a collection agency that was stupid enough to try to screw me over.