Starting medical collection process - need clarification

[harleychk25]

I spoke too soon - TransUnion and Equifax address deletion letters were delivered according to the USPS.com tracking information. Experian's letter is still saying Departed sort facility on April 4th. I am assuming that nobody was there willing to sign for a certified letter? It was sent to:

 

EXPERIAN - NCAC

PO BOX 9701

ALLEN TX 75013

 

WhyChat, in response to your answer in the last post - The pre HIPPA dispute letters needs to printed in a script (cursive) font correct?

I work for post office when it says departed sort facility that means it left our main sort facility and is heading to local office, most of the time when a business has a po box they (Experian) will send a co worker to po to check mail daily and they will receive notice and go inside the lobby to sign for certs. it will show a arrival at unit scan then a attempt scan once it is arrives to the local office.

[Why Chat]

Wait until you have all results back. You will be sending the medical DV to each CA -one letter for EACH CRA that has not deleted. You mail them in the same envelope. That way when you send the follow up letter to each CRA you can send them a copy of THEIR letter, and a copy of the ONE proof of delivery.

[mariuszh]

I am still awaiting the results from my EX and EQ disputes. I just checked the EX backdoor, and the CA that was reporting only on TU "Commonwealth Fin Systems" and was verified by TU in my dispute, has now appeared on EX. (TU is the only CRA that has completed the disputes thus far).

 

Sooo.... When I receive the dispute results from EX and EQ, do I proceed as planned to remove all of the CA's that were listed on the initial pre hipaa disputes when I started the process, and then circle back to attack this CA that has popped up on EX?

 

I can only send a medical DV to this CA based on the TU dispute since that was the only CRA it was reporting to when I started the HIPAA process, therefore only disputed with TU. It's frustrating that TU verified and now they place themselves on another CRA.

 

Also, if you read back in this thread, there is a VERY similar CA on EQ. Same amount, dates, etc... the only difference is the name of the CA and a different address, although in the same city.

 

Please advise Why Chat

Edited May 18, 2013 by mariuszh

[Why Chat]

I am still awaiting the results from my EX and EQ disputes. I just checked the EX backdoor, and the CA that was reporting only on TU "Commonwealth Fin Systems" and was verified by TU in my dispute, has now appeared on EX. (TU is the only CRA that has completed the disputes thus far).

 

Sooo.... When I receive the dispute results from EX and EQ, do I proceed as planned to remove all of the CA's that were listed on the initial pre hipaa disputes when I started the process, and then circle back to attack this CA that has popped up on EX?

 

I can only send a medical DV to this CA based on the TU dispute since that was the only CRA it was reporting to when I started the HIPAA process, therefore only disputed with TU. It's frustrating that TU verified and now they place themselves on another CRA.

 

Also, if you read back in this thread, there is a VERY similar CA on EQ. Same amount, dates, etc... the only difference is the name of the CA and a different address, although in the same city.

 

Please advise Why Chat

Wait until you have all your responses from all your CRAs.

 

When you send the medical DV to the reporting CAs make sure that you send one for each CRA they are reporting to, even IF you haven't disputed that account with that CRA.

 

That way, when you send the follow up dispute to each CRA it will be treated as an initial dispute by the "new" CRAs

[mariuszh]

That is the response I was hoping for.

 

The wording will not change on the Medical DV or follow-up dispute since it has not been disputed already?

 

For example, on the medical DV normally it would have the following statement: "This letter is being sent to you in response to your recent fraudulent verification of an unknown medical account on my (name of CRA) report". Since the CA has not been disputed on EX, do I modify this statement on the medical DV to the CA that has popped up on EX?

 

And on the follow up dispute to the CRA: "I have disputed this unknown medical account with the reporting Collection Agent,( copy enclosed with proof of their receipt),as per your instructions in your response of xx/xx/xxxx to my dispute of xx/xx/xxxx and have had no valid response." WIll this wording stay the same since again, this CA has not been disputed on EX?

[Why Chat]

That is the response I was hoping for.

 

The wording will not change on the Medical DV or follow-up dispute since it has not been disputed already?

 

For example, on the medical DV normally it would have the following statement: "This letter is being sent to you in response to your recent fraudulent verification of an unknown medical account on my (name of CRA) report". Since the CA has not been disputed on EX, do I modify this statement on the medical DV to the CA that has popped up on EX? You DID dispute it on another CRA account so there is no reason to change anything

 

And on the follow up dispute to the CRA: "I have disputed this unknown medical account with the reporting Collection Agent,( copy enclosed with proof of their receipt),as per your instructions in your response of xx/xx/xxxx to my dispute of xx/xx/xxxx and have had no valid response." WIll this wording stay the same since again, this CA has not been disputed on EX? Again, you did dispute OTHER accounts with that CRA and they DID respond with a letter -- you need to understand that this system is designed for HUMAN CRAs not their computer systems so any slight discrepancy will be overlooked

[mariuszh]

Why Chat,

 

I am still awaiting a written response from EQ and EX (But based on the backdoor, the only CA that remains on them after dispute is the one I will be referencing below). Something interesting I noticed about the CA that verified on TU.

 

When sent the initial dispute they were listed as COMMONWEALTH FIN SYSTEMS. TU verified on May 7th. On May 16th I received a Credit Karma alert that a NEW collection was added to me report. The "new" CA is the one that TU verified that I just mentioned.

 

I checked the TU backdoor today in preparation to get my medical DV letters ready and I see that COMMONWEALTH FIN SYSTEMS is now on my report as COMMONWEALTH FINANCE. Obviously this is the same CA that verified.

 

Will this change anything in reference to the medical DV or follow up disputes? On my medial DV do I list the CA name and address in the letter as it appears on the report that I originally disputed from, or the way it is currently reporting after the CRA verified?

[Why Chat]

If they have the same address, they are the same entity. To be absolutely sure, list them with BOTH names and indicate the report date for each on the follow up dispute.

[mariuszh]

They do have the same address. The follow up dispute is to be written as follows based on your guide:

 

I have no knowledge or records of account # xxxxx on my report # xxxxx.

 

 

 

Based on your advice in your previous post, would something like this be proper?:

 

I have no knowledge or records of the following accounts:

 

# xxxxx on my report # xxxxx reporting as COMMONWEALTH FIN SYSTEMS on 05/07/13.

# xxxxx on my report # xxxxx reporting as COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL as of 05/16/13.

[mariuszh]

Thinking about this further, if I include the account in the follow up dispute as it is stated in your template:

 

I have no knowledge or records of account # xxxxx on my report # xxxxx.

 

Wouldn't this eliminate the need to break it down by how the CA was reporting since in your template I am not to include the name of the CA, just the account # and report #? Since the account # has not changed, wouldn't the statement above as written in your template suffice?

 

Writing it as in my previous post to me seems like I am disputing two entries. And since the account and report #'s are the only thing reference in the follow up dispute, it seems to me that it would be sufficient.

Edited May 27, 2013 by mariuszh

[Why Chat]

You are correct.

However-- what I suggested you do is to put the name of BOTH entities in the address section of the letter and on the envelope .

 

That way when you are sending the FOLLOW UP dispute to the CRAs you will have BOTH NAMES on the medical DV you are sending them a copy of.

 

What I suggested for the sake of clarity was that when you send the FOLLOW UP DISPUTE to the CRAs you indicate that the SAME account was reported by the SAME CA under 2 different names on 2 separate occasions.

[mariuszh]

What I suggested for the sake of clarity was that when you send the FOLLOW UP DISPUTE to the CRAs you indicate that the SAME account was reported by the SAME CA under 2 different names on 2 separate occasions.

 

How would you suggest I modify the follow up dispute in order to reflect this?

[Why Chat]

I have no knowledge or records of account # xxxxx on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxx,previously reported as account #xxxxxx on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxxx. I have disputed this unknown medical account with the reporting Collection Agent,,under both their names( copy enclosed with proof of their receipt),as per your instructions in your response of xx/xx/xxxx to my dispute of xx/xx/xxxx and have had no valid response.

[mariuszh]

 

I have no knowledge or records of account # xxxxx on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxx,previously reported as account #xxxxxx on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxxx.

 

I have disputed this unknown medical account with the reporting Collection Agent,,under both their names( copy enclosed with proof of their receipt),as per your instructions in your response of xx/xx/xxxx to my dispute of xx/xx/xxxx and have had no valid response.

 

The account # remained the same through both variations of the CA name, does that make a difference?

[Why Chat]

No, just make sure you show that the CA used 2 different names on different dated reports.

[mariuszh]

No, just make sure you show that the CA used 2 different names on different dated reports.

 

That's where I am confused. Using this:

 

I have no knowledge or records of account # xxxxx on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxx,previously reported as account #xxxxxx on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxxx.

 

The only things that will vary in that statement is the dates since the account # and report #s are the same. TU has been using the same report # since I pulled my annual report, and went through the address dispute and pre-hipaa dispute.

 

To me it will say "account #1234 previously reported as #1234" with no mention of the name discrepancy.

 

 

 

I have disputed this unknown medical account with the reporting Collection Agent,,under both their names( copy enclosed with proof of their receipt),as per your instructions in your response of xx/xx/xxxx to my dispute of xx/xx/xxxx and have had no valid response.

 

Do you think the "under both their names" statement will spell out the situation sufficiently? I'm probably over thinking this...

Edited May 28, 2013 by mariuszh

[mariuszh]

Essentially I was thinking this:

 

I have no knowledge or records of account # xxxxx from COMMONWEALTH FINANCE on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxx, previously reported as account #xxxxxx from COMMONWEALTH FIN SYSTEMS on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxxx.

[Why Chat]

Essentially I was thinking this:

 

I have no knowledge or records of account # xxxxx from COMMONWEALTH FINANCE on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxx, previously reported as account #xxxxxx from COMMONWEALTH FIN SYSTEMS on my report of xx/xx/xxxx report # xxxxxx.

Excellent

[mariuszh]

After the initial dispute, the following remains:

 

TU - Commonwealth Finance (Reported as Commonwealth Fin Systems before dispute)

EX - Commonwealth Financial Systems (Was not on EX prior to pre-hipaa dispute, appeared as the other CRA's verified)

EQ - Northeast Credit & Collect

 

ALL three of them have the same address listed on my report: All three of them are for $396. All three same the same account #.

 

245 Main St

Dickson City, PA 18519

 

Doing some research, Northeast and Commonwealth is the same CA. So I have the same collection account appearing across the board.

 

For the sake of covering my butt, I sent two DV's - One addressed to Northeast regarding their EQ verification, and one to Commonwealth regarding TU and EX verification. (Letter for each CRA was sent).

 

The DV's were sent CMRR on 05/28 with an expected delivery date of 05/30. The CA is about a 2.5 hour drive from me the quick mailing time makes sense. It is now 06/08 and the green card has not came back yet. USPS.com has this as the most recent status:

 

70121010000334806772

First-Class Mail®

Depart USPS Sort Facility

May 30, 2013

SCRANTON, PA 18505

Expected Delivery By:
May 30, 2013

Certified Mail™

Return Receipt

 

At what point will USPS return the letters to me? And if the CA refuses to sign for the DV's, what will be the next step?

[Why Chat]

I have changed the instructions to suggest that all mail to CAs be sent certified only, without the return receipt.

 

http://whychat.5u.com/ltrcavalhipaa.html

 

 

Use this letter to notify the agency that the debt
is beyond SOL, or is invalid for other reasons, and subject to the HIPAA privacy laws. Keep a copy for your files and send the
letter certified mail.EVEN IF YOU HAVE A STREET ADDRESS DO NOT USE THE RETURN RECEIPT AS THE CAs ARE USING UPS DROP BOXES,
SEND IT CERTIFIED ONLY AND PRINT OUT THE ON LINE PROOF OF DELIVERY FOR THE FOLLOW UP LETTERDo a separate letter for EACH CRA that the
CA is reporting to, make sure the account #'s match the report. You can MAIL them all to each
CA in ONE envelope with one CMRR

 

Send the follow up letters to the CRAs, use the print out for proof of delivery from the PO website.whatever it says.

[mariuszh]

Send the follow up letters now with the USPS page showing that it has not yet been delivered?

 

Or would it be wiser to resend the DV's certified only and use that print out?

Edited June 9, 2013 by mariuszh

[Why Chat]

Send with the USPS page which shows it has been sent to the address provided by the CRA

[mariuszh]

I gave it an extra day, and both DV letters were delivered today. I imagine I will have the green cards in about two days.

[mariuszh]

I mailed the follow up disputes on June 17th, the same day I received the green cards back from the medical DV's.

 

Today I recieved a letter from the CA remaining on my reports. It is offering to settle the balance. Orignal due- $396. They are offering a discounted amount due of $198.13.

 

It says this offer is valid for 30 days, etc.. It also has the following paragraph:

 

Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days after recieving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgement and mail you a copy of such judgement or verification. If you request this office in writing with iin 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will profice you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

 

Since the Freedom Unlimited dispute is already in the CRA's hands, do I send another medical DV to the CA in response to their letter?

[mariuszh]

The more I think about this I think that should not do anything in response to this letter from the CA and just hold tight and let the follow up dispute run its course.

 

I guess this would be what is referred to as the "no valid response" statement in the follow up dispute?

Edited June 22, 2013 by mariuszh