Jump to content




Welcome to CreditBoards!


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to CreditBoards! Like most online communities, you must register to post in our community, but don't worry - this is a simple process requiring minimal information for you to sign up. Be a part of CreditBoards by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Read These Items!

  • If you're getting an Authentication mismatch error: Clear your cache. Log out of CB. Delete your cookie. Close your browser. Open your browser and log back in.

Photo

Security Clearance issues and credit report errors


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 01:14 PM

For those with problems in getting or maintaining security clearances, discuss here!



#2 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 01:35 PM

My credit report was pulled as part of my background investigation and MCM was on my report. I have since been trying to get debt validation from them and they are not responding. I disputed the inaccurate trade line to the CRAs hoping to get it deleted. My question is, with all the JDB accounts appearing on credit reports these days, is there any course of action with the special investigators to allow time for us federal employees to dispute these debts and exercise our rights under FCRA and FDCPA? It appears that the special investigators simply want the debts paid and even go so far as to require that some communication regarding repayment is made with these JDBs. :huh:

Anyone have any experience with this?

#3 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 02:18 PM

How is Midland reporting? Do you know what it is tied to?

Did you ever receive any correspondence in the past from them? Was it a debt incurred prior to entering active duty? Were you deployed during the time of this collection?

#4 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 02:42 PM

Also, has the board given you an SOR (statement of reasons) to submit in relation to this debt yet?

If so, you can submit a response to this debt per the following directives:

Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 1 within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as
amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program,
dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive).

Within those it says:
MC 2 is “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g.,
loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation),
and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”

While I am sure they are pressuring you to just "pay" it to make it go away, the only requirement that *I* am able to find is your burden to present sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns

Edited by DragonFlyer, 12 September 2009 - 02:44 PM.


#5 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 02:50 PM

The communication you've made to the CRA's and Midland are also important to present regarding your application. Did you send these via CMRRR to prove they received it? Could you share a little of what you included in your letter to dispute these?

#6 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 03:25 PM

Here are the guidelines under the DoD Directive 5220.6, "Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program"


GUIDELINE F
Financial Considerations

E2.A6.1.1. The Concern: An individual who is financially overextended is at
risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Unexplained affluence is
often linked to proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.

E2.A6.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying include:

E2.A6.1.2.1. A history of not meeting financial obligations;
E2.A6.1.2.2. Deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement,
employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud, filing
deceptive loan statements, and other intentional financial breaches of trust;
E2.A6.1.2.3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
E2.A6.1.2.4. Unexplained affluence;
E2.A6.1.2.5. Financial problems that are linked to gambling, drug abuse,
alcoholism, or other issues of security concern.

E2.A6.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
E2.A6.1.3.1. The behavior was not recent;
E2.A6.1.3.2. It was an isolated incident;
E2.A6.1.3.3. The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely
beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn,
unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation);
E2.A6.1.3.4. The person has received or is receiving counseling for the
problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control;
E2.A6.1.3.5. The affluence resulted from a legal source; and
E2.A6.1.3.6. The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts.


From this directive, it's clear that if you can prove it is not a disqualifying debt (ie, gambling, embezzlement, fraud, etc.) you can mitigate their concerns by arguing the defenses in the red section. If this is the only debt showing on your reports, and you can show that you've made a good faith effort to resolve the debt and they refuse to comply with the law, you should be able to get the clearance without being forced to pay it.

Let me know more information on the circumstances of the debt as it appears on your report and we can go from there.

#7 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:54 PM

I have been disputing this tradeline and seems it is always being updated differently. How can I attack this? I have DV'd MCM and they have not validated. I get monthly statements from them for payments I have never agreed to, nor made to them. I have received two letters requesting more information from me to help them resolve the debt! The TL was updated recently from a factoring account to an installment account as a result of my dispute with the CRAs

Status:Collection account. $3,418 past due as of Sep 2009.

Date Opened:09/2007

Date of Status:11/2007

Reported Since:11/2007

Last Reported Date:09/2009

Type:Installment

Terms:1 Months

Monthly Payment:$0

Responsibility:Individual

Credit Limit:$2,518

High Balance:N/A

Recent Balance:$3,418

Recent Payment:$0

Account History:Collection as of Oct 2008 to Sep 2009, Aug 2008, Dec 2007, Nov 2007 (I don't understand what this means)
Your Statement:Account information disputed by consumer (Meets requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act). Add a statement

This is the same account that is on my CR from Presidio CM, however, they have not reported since 2006, so I really don't know who owns the debt. I have disputed with them and they always come back verified.

The original creditor is Chase Bank and the DOFD is 8/2005. Doesn't that mean it is SOL?

For clarification, I am not active duty. I am an employee of the Dept of Justice, civilian federal employee.

Dragonflyer, thank you for that section on conditions that could mitigate security concerns.

#8 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 08:48 PM

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I should have remembered that and I apologize. My response will be a bit lengthy, so bear with me here. I want to make sure we cover all the bases.

You'll need to send one more letter to MCM ASAP. I can help you create that letter if you wish, and my suggestions are on the bottom of this post. But first let's go over some basics.

This is the process explained in simple terms:
The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information. Then the Applicant presents evidence to refute, explain, extenuate, or mitigate in order to overcome the doubts raised by the Government, and to demonstrate persuasively that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the clearance.

As long as you mitigate their concerns, you will be okay. Let's go over how to do that. :rolleyes:

Another section of the directive addresses personal conduct, which can be tied to the financial considerations. It is under section E of the directive. I am including it for your review:

GUIDELINE E
PERSONAL CONDUCT

E2.A5.1.1. The Concern: Conduct involving questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information. The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance
action or administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:

E2.A5.1.1.1. Refusal to undergo or cooperate with required security
processing, including medical and psychological testing; or
E2.A5.1.1.2. Refusal to complete required security forms, releases, or
provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security
officials or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or
trustworthiness determination.


E2.A5.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying also include:

E2.A5.1.2.1. Reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates,
employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances;
E2.A5.1.2.2. The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of
relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
E2.A5.1.2.3. Deliberately providing false or misleading information
concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official, competent
medical authority, or other official representative in connection with a personnel
security or trustworthiness determination;
E2.A5.1.2.4. Personal conduct or concealment of information that increases
an individual's vulnerability to coercion, exploitation or duress, such as engaging in
activities which, if known, may affect the person's personal, professional, or
community standing or render the person susceptible to blackmail;
E2.A5.1.2.5. A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of
any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency;
E2.A5.1.2.6. Association with persons involved in criminal activity.

E2.A5.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

E2.A5.1.3.1. The information was unsubstantiated or not pertinent to a
determination of judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability;
E2.A5.1.3.2. The falsification was an isolated incident, was not recent, and
the individual has subsequently provided correct information voluntarily;
E2.A5.1.3.3. The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the
falsification before being confronted with the facts;
E2.A5.1.3.4. Omission of material facts was caused or significantly
contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel, and the
previously omitted information was promptly and fully provided;
E2.A5.1.3.5. The individual has taken positive steps to significantly reduce
or eliminate vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress;
E2.A5.1.3.6. A refusal to cooperate was based on advice from legal counsel
or other officials that the individual was not required to comply with security
processing requirements and, upon being made aware of the requirement, fully and
truthfully provided the requested information;
E2.A5.1.3.7. Association with persons involved in criminal activities has
ceased.

How far into the process are you? Did you submit your SF-86 forms and disclose this information already? Were you given the SOR (statement of reason) form to submit to the review board?

I want to make sure you don't run into problems if it was something they brought to your attention and not the other way around. :rolleyes: I also need to know WHAT you've said so far about this debt.

The correspondence/proof of disputes you've had with the CRA's and CA will need to be included as exhibits.

I am not going to ask for the particulars of the source of how this debt came about, but be prepared to explain (see SOR above) how the debt was incurred and the circumstances in which it went unpaid.

In the meantime, you have a lot of factors in your favor if this is the only thing holding you back from a clearance. It's one of those "good news/bad news" scenarios.

The good news:

The SOL appears to have run out. One of your affirmative defenses on your liability of this account would include the insertion of this statement on your SOR:

"Under the State of California four-year statute of limitations this debt is not enforceable as the creditor failed to file a claim against Applicant."

The bad news:

The board MAY view this as a deliberate avoidance of paying a contractually-obligated debt. The other bad news is they want to know about anything within the last 7 years, and this falls into that category.

For reference:
See Appeal Board ISCR Case No. 01-06776 (July 24, 2003) cited in Applicant's Hearing memorandum on the Effect of the Running of the Statue of Limitations on an Outstanding Claim: even if debts are uncollectible, the judge should consider the facts and circumstances under which the debt was incurred and also decide whether the applicant took reasonable steps to address or otherwise resolve those debts before the statute of limitations expired.

(In this case, The only example of a questionable expenditure is his decision to add personal travel destinations to his overseas business travel. But that is an isolated example.)

What to do:


If you can reasonably argue that this is the ONLY debt you've incurred among many debts that you've fully satisfied, and can produce documentation that you've disagreed with the debt in the past, they may waive the requirement to satisfy the debt before granting your clearance.

The good news:

You can use any or all of the above mitigating factors to assert your right to obtain a clearance despite the collection appearing on your report. Cite them exactly as you see them if they apply.

The bad news:

If they still don't accept your documentation of the disputes as clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control...Then offer a PFD or settlement on the account with MCM and get the terms IN WRITING on the company letterhead. This is a last-case scenario!

The good news:


You will have satisfied the requirement that the debt is satisfied and can get your clearance at that point. In other words...you are not going to lose your clearance because of this one collection.


Now, back to that letter you need to send to MCM. You'll need to address the following with them to establish your good faith effort to resolve the debt and make them prove the debt is yours.

1. Make them prove that they are the correct party in which to submit payment. You will be asking for evidence of ownership of the debt and that they have correctly identified you as the obligated party in which to pay.
2. Make them prove the balance owed does not preclude your right as a consumer under federal and state consumer laws...and to know HOW they came to that balance. All fees, interest, taxes, etc. will need to be fully disclosed by evidence of their records (ie, a full accounting of the debt), and that they had the right to collect that amount in addition to the original debt.
3. If the data has changed multiple times on your reports, ask them what evidence they have to associate the the changes were in compliance with state and federal law, and that you agreed to the terms as they appeared on your reports.
4. Do NOT mention you are undergoing a security clearance. They will use that as ammunition against you to force payment and extort you. Simply stick with the statement that you are suffering actual damages as a result of their erroneous reporting of this debt.
5. Demand a response nicely...and firmly...by stating you have yet to receive a response from letters dated xx/xx/xxxx and/or xx/xx/xxxx and in an act of good faith, you wish to give them ONE last opportunity to submit their reply, and they must do so in writing within 15 business days (or 30 if you can possibly spare it).

If they don't reply, you submit a copy of the letter to the review board and supply an affidavit that you have not received any response to your good faith effort to resolve the dispute.

If they do reply, come back here to this thread and let us know what their response was. Do NOT create a new thread topic. :rolleyes:

Feel free to ask any questions.

#9 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 09:25 PM

I really appreciate all your help and suggestions, DragonFlyer! You have given me alot to think about. I will post tomorrow. Thank you.

#10 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 09:31 PM

You are quite welcome. :rolleyes: I'll check back for updates!

#11 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 13 September 2009 - 03:57 PM

DragonFlyer,

I am not sure I covered all that was necessary in my letter, but here it is for your critique:

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing in response to recent correspondence received from you on September 2, 2009, dated 8/28/2009, requesting payment for an alleged account you say I owe you.

Pursuant to my rights under federal debt collection laws, I am requesting that you provide validation of this debt. Note this is not a refusal to pay, but a request that your offices provide me with evidence that I have a legal obligation to pay you.

Per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, I am requesting written validation of this alleged debt, which includes:

- a copy of the original signed contract with my signature
- validation of the original "Date of Delinquency" for this alleged debt
- validation of the "Date of Last Activity" for this alleged debt
- validation that this alleged debt is within the statute of limitations.
- Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe

A review of my credit report indicates that although the account is marked disputed, you continue to report to the Credit Reporting Agencies every month and your collection activities continue by mailing me monthly payment statements. You are causing me to suffer actual damages as a result of your erroneous reporting of this debt.

It is my intention to resolve your inaccurate reporting of this activity contained in my credit file amicably. However, rest assured I will pursue all legal rights therein to resolve this matter.

I have yet to receive any responses from letters written to you regarding validation of this debt. But, in good faith, I wish to give you ONE last chance to submit your reply to me within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.


Now, I am sure you are going to ask me about the dates of those letters. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to locate them, except for the one that I wrote to the CRA disputing the tradelines. I have moved since they were written, and I may have them boxed up in storage. Is this going to be a hinderance in sending out the letter?

#12 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 02:19 AM

The only hindrance you may find in not having the letters handy is if they will need to be presented as exhibits to your application. If you can demonstrate you've made multiple attempts to dispute the information, the better your case will be.

Normally with a dispute, you would not ask for some of the things I said you should ask for. For instance, the CA is not required to send a copy of the original signed contract, date of first delinquency, etc. BUT...this letter is more for documenting your efforts so that you may get your security clearance. I hope that makes sense. I am trying to build a paper trail to show that you have legitimate concerns about the validity of the debt and that any payments required are going to the proper party.

Your letter is good. Here's a few suggestions:

Don't leave your supervisors under the impression that you've been getting statements every month. Just address the recent contact.

The bullet list of items you are asking for are NOT required by law, so I took out the FDCPA reference.

Make sure you ask them to provide evidence from the ORIGINAL creditor. Otherwise they can fabricate whatever they want within their system and you'd have a tough time refuting their claims. Trust me...I've seen fabricated documents from CA's. Be specific on what documentation you are willing to accept. By law the documents SHOULD come direct from the OC, so let's be sure to make it clear that's what they have to send back. :lol:

Here are a few modifications:

Your name
address

Date

MCM
Address
VIA: Certified Mail Return Receipt Article Number xxxx xxxx xxxx

RE: Account number xxxxxx


Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing in response to recent correspondence dated August 28, 2009 and received by me on September 2, 2009 wherein you requested payment for an alleged account you claim I owe you.

Pursuant to my rights under federal debt collection laws, I am requesting that you provide validation of this debt. Please note that this is not a refusal to pay, but a request that your offices provide me with evidence that I have a legal obligation to pay you.

I am requesting a written response and documentation from the original creditor of this alleged debt, which includes:

- a copy of the original signed contract with my signature
- validation of the original "Date of Delinquency" for this alleged debt
- validation of the "Date of Last Activity" for this alleged debt
- validation that this alleged debt is within the statute of limitations.
- full accounting of the original debt and all fees or interest that may have been added by your company

A review of my credit report indicates that although the account is marked in dispute, you continue to report to the Credit Reporting Agencies every month and your collection activities continue. You are causing me to suffer actual damages as a result of your erroneous reporting of this debt.

It is my intention to resolve your inaccurate reporting of this information contained in my credit file amicably. However, it is rest assured I will pursue all legal remedies available to me to resolve this matter.

I have yet to receive any response to previous letters written to you regarding validation of this debt. But, in good faith, I wish to give you ONE last chance to submit your reply to me within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.

Please respond in writing to my above-listed address within the allotted time so I may take appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Your name, typed and NOT signed.


I hope this is helpful!

#13 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 09:33 AM

I understand. I will edit my letter to include your language and send it out today. As for the previous correspondence, I have it, just have to get it from storage. What I told the special investigator was I had no idea what the bill was for did not ever enter into a contract with them. She gave me the impression that they would investigate that and even went so far to say that when they spoke to them, they would have to prove the debt.

Thank you for all your help. I will keep you posted.

#14 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 09:50 AM

Good luck! I am glad you have the letters if you need them. I think you'll do fine. Just let me know if there are any other concerns they have and how it all develops. :offtopic:

#15 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 16 September 2009 - 09:27 PM

DragonFly,

I received a letter today from MCM....has to be from a previous dispute since I did not mail out my last letter until Monday. Anyway, the letter is requesting a copy of any documentation I may have that supports my dispute! They also indicate that they have changed the status of the account to disputed....it already was marked disputed! They are asking for cancelled checks, paid letters, police reports, etc.

Simple short reply to validate, is all that is needed, correct?

#16 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 16 September 2009 - 10:08 PM

DragonFly,

I received a letter today from MCM....has to be from a previous dispute since I did not mail out my last letter until Monday. Anyway, the letter is requesting a copy of any documentation I may have that supports my dispute! They also indicate that they have changed the status of the account to disputed....it already was marked disputed! They are asking for cancelled checks, paid letters, police reports, etc.

Simple short reply to validate, is all that is needed, correct?


Let me ask you this...when did you receive the dunning letter? That is the letter giving you 30 days to dispute. Did you reply within the 30-day window?

Pending that information, here is an approach you may wish to take in response to their letter. Once I know what has been sent to you thus far, this is what I recommend you say in your next letter:

Use same format as last letter, but put this in the body:

Dear MCM,

I am in receipt of your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx, which I received on xx/xx/xxxx. I am shocked to find you have no documentation on file regarding this debt, and have solicited my assistance in producing documents to fill your empty files.

Apparently there is some confusion about providing documentation regarding this alleged debt. You see, according to federal law, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide ME with any documentation you have in your possession to validate this debt.

I am appalled with the lack of information supplied in your claim that this debt is allegedly mine.

Your response in no way approaches the legal standard for validation. This is unacceptable to me, and likely for any claim you may have within a court of law to collect on this alleged debt.

As the FTC has stated, validation must come from the original creditor:

http://www.ftc.gov/o...ers/wollman.htm


The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer. Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has in their files will not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer. In no way does this statute place the burden on me to provide you with any documentation to support your claims.

Continued reporting of the disputed accounts could easily be construed by the courts as "continued collection activity," which is barred when collection agencies cannot provide proper and legal validation (see FDCPA § 1692g, part b ).

In light of Midland Credit Management's numerous and blatant violations of state and federal law, the mere deletion of every trade line from my credit reports will not be satisfactory to me for much longer.

At this time, I respectfully request that you provide in writing a verification of the following information:

- a copy of the original signed contract with my signature
- validation of the original "Date of Delinquency" for this alleged debt
- validation of the "Date of Last Activity" for this alleged debt
- validation that this alleged debt is within the statute of limitations.
- full accounting of the original debt and all fees or interest that may have been added by your company

Additionally, I need you to verify the account descriptions shown on my account. I already requested this information through my dispute with each of the credit reporting agencies. Now I am demanding such verification directly through you and your company. If you cannot provide this information, I demand a written response from you stating each of the above-listed accounts will be permanently deleted from your files and permanently removed from each credit reporting agency within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter, and you further agree not to sell, assign or transfer any account listed under my name to any other party, firm or company.

I require compliance with the terms and conditions of this letter within 10 days. Please expedite all correspondence concerning this matter in writing to my home address, as provided above.

In the event of noncompliance, I reserve the right to file charges and/or complaints with any appropriate County, State & Federal authorities and the State Bar Association for violations of the FDCPA, FCRA, and Federal and State statutes. Legal counsel is poised and ready to take any legal action I may choose to seek.

I look forward to your prompt attention in this very serious matter.


Sincerely,

Your name, typed and not signed.


Edited by DragonFlyer, 16 September 2009 - 10:10 PM.


#17 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 16 September 2009 - 10:31 PM

Some more helpful information on how others dealt with Midland (netting a permanent deletion) by using the Better Business Bureau AND if your state requires a CA to be bonded, you can also include copies of these letters to Midland's Bond Insurance Underwriter.

Here is the thread discussing it: http://creditboards....s...=410197&hl=

So, if I were you, I would CC that letter to the BBB and to the underwriter. :swoon:

#18 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 16 September 2009 - 11:11 PM

Wow......what a letter writer you are! The first time a dispute went out to them was in September of 2007. No response was ever received. The accounts have been marked in dispute all this time with the exception of Equifax. I confess, I have been very lax about fighting this because of the SOL, but now I believe I am in a better position.

Well, I am in California and it is far to late to get my thoughts into this tonite. I have spent the last 2 hours on the board reading about Midland woes, successes and failures and I am convinced they simply push the line as far as they can. I like your letter.

I will post tomorrow. Thank you so much. I have been reading your post and you certainly give good help. It was my lucky day you responded to me. I don't feel so alone now.

Linda

#19 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 16 September 2009 - 11:41 PM

Wow......what a letter writer you are! The first time a dispute went out to them was in September of 2007. No response was ever received. The accounts have been marked in dispute all this time with the exception of Equifax. I confess, I have been very lax about fighting this because of the SOL, but now I believe I am in a better position.

Well, I am in California and it is far to late to get my thoughts into this tonite. I have spent the last 2 hours on the board reading about Midland woes, successes and failures and I am convinced they simply push the line as far as they can. I like your letter.

I will post tomorrow. Thank you so much. I have been reading your post and you certainly give good help. It was my lucky day you responded to me. I don't feel so alone now.

Linda


Thanks. :lol: It's the least I could do. I believe in "paying it forward". Many have helped me get to where I am today in the learning process. I was CLUELESS when I first got to CB. LOL

Since it appears you have not received a dunning letter, you can choose to add this paragraph after the part that says "I am appalled with the lack of information supplied in your claim that this debt is allegedly mine." This should be your next paragraph:

As you are aware, within 5 days after contacting a debtor about paying a debt, the collector must send written notice that includes the amount of the debt, name of the creditor, a statement that the debt will be assumed to be valid unless disputed within 30 days, and that if disputed, the collector will verify it and send a copy of the verification or judgment against the debtor. I have no record that you have provided this to me in full. It is clear to me that you've completely ignored my rights as a consumer.





Get some rest...I am on the East Coast so it's late for me too. I'll check back tomorrow. :P

#20 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 19 September 2009 - 12:59 PM

Hey DragonFly,

Just letting you know I sent out the letter to MCM in response to their request for documentation today.

I also received the green card back yesterday from the first letter you helped me with in this post. This really is making me nervous, but I am trying to be strong to get thru it!

#21 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 22 September 2009 - 07:52 PM

Hey DragonFly,

Just letting you know I sent out the letter to MCM in response to their request for documentation today.

I also received the green card back yesterday from the first letter you helped me with in this post. This really is making me nervous, but I am trying to be strong to get thru it!


Hi there! I am back from out of town. Any news yet?

I have to clarify though...you sent more than one letter to MCM? I addressed the "request for documentation" in that second letter to MCM so I am hoping that's what you sent them. Is that what you sent?

What you can do now is make a copy of the green card that you got back from MCM and send a copy of it to each CRA that this debt is reporting to along with this letter.

Letter courtesy of WhyChat:

Your Name» «Address1»

«Address2»

«City», «State» «Zip»



«Credit Reporting Agency» «Address1»

«Address2»

«City», «State» «Zip»

«Date»



RE: My report of (date) (credit report #) Dear Sir/Madam

This is a request for deletion of a disputed item.

This item has been reported by :

(Name of Agency, Account #___) to your credit bureau, and is currently entered on my credit report.

I am requesting that the entry be deleted in it's entirety as it is an invalid claim, and any reporting of an invalid claim is prohibited.

(see Sullivan v. Equifax, Inc. et al., 2002 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7884 (E.D. PA. 2002)

(reporting a debt to a credit reporting agency is a communication covered by the FDCPA in §1692e(8))"1692e(8)

Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed."

Enclosed please find a copy of the notice sent to (name of collection agency), together with a copy of the return receipt proving delivery, enjoining them from any further collection activity on an account that is beyond the legal limit for collection in my State of ______.

Please consider this as notification to you that the account as reported is invalid, and that the (name of agency) has been properly notified of that fact.

Please notify me, in writing, of any continued collection activity on their part, including any verification, resubmission or reinsertion after your reinvestigation and deletion of this item.

Sincerely,

«Signature»

«Your Name



#22 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 22 September 2009 - 08:51 PM

Welcome back....so confusing all this stuff is, huh? The first letter sent out was the one you helped me with and it was basically another DV. Then, I got letter requesting information to help them resolve the debt. ( I get these letters like every 3 months) Then the green card came in from the first letter you helped me with and then I sent the second letter in this post.....


So, now, I will deal with the CRAs.

#23 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 22 September 2009 - 09:27 PM

Okay, you are right on track! I appreciate your clarification...I try to be absolutely sure of the details because...it's all in the details! :unsure: I'd rather be sure of something than to make an incorrect assumption.

Let me know if you have been given the SOR for the investigation from your employer. Your paper trail will be solid by the time they make their decision. :huh:

#24 L93065

L93065
  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 09:42 PM

DragonFly,

Just to clarify, I am sending to the CRAs the first letter we sent out which would be the letter referenced in post #11 and which you edited in post #12. This is the one I received the green card back on.

Actually, I find it kind of strange, but I have heard nothing back from the special agent after our meeting regarding the credit issues. Time in my favor, hopefully!

Thanks again for all of your attentiveness to my situation.

Linda

#25 DragonFlyer

DragonFlyer

    Mrs. O'Leary

  • Banned
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 09:52 PM

The letter in post #12 was addressed to MCM. I think I see where I got confused...you sent a COPY of it to the CRA's. :P Right?

Also, Jen posted something really interesting in another thread about MCM. She was connecting some dots and I consider her a genius. LOL

Read this thread:
http://creditboards....howtopic=410949

And pay special attention to the letter she wrote about another CA registered in Kansas (like MCM is):
http://creditboards....s...t&p=3801739

While we wait for the responses from the CRA's and MCM, let's consider this as our next step if it's not gone by then. :rofl: Let me know the moment those responses come in or if you see any deletions!

I think that's good news that you haven't heard from the investigator yet. Let me know if you do, okay?




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© Copyright 2003 - 2013 Creditboards.com. All rights reserved. No portion of this site may be reproduced without explicit permission from the owners. The content of creditboards.com is subject solely to the personal whim of its admins. We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to remove any and all posts or comments, at any time, for any reason which takes our entirely capricious fancy, or for no particular reason whatsoever, without restriction. Comments or questions regarding the site may be addressed to admin@creditboards.com.