As promised - The Midland Thread

[clambert1273]

So you have Midland poisoning your reports. You have fought and disputed and nothing changes. You ask for validation and they send you some crap transaction history… am I right so far?

 

I too battled them and won – twice – once on my end and once for my husband. It is not an easy fight but can be done if you have the right tools.

 

There are a couple of things to remember with them – you can threaten federal law til the cows come home and it won’t mean squat to them. They know most people aren’t going to sit in federal court and they deem their selves large enough to overcome anything. However, the important thing to remember here is that they have a location in California and conduct business there. Most of their correspondence indicates to send to California. This is invaluable as California provides a Civil Code that helps in this situation.

 

The first thing you will want to do is DV them like normal (very simply) and let them send you their “validationâ€. They will try other tactics as well like asking for more information to locate your information. Kindly send a letter back telling them you don’t know what they are talking about since you gave them the information that they are reporting in your reports. Usually after this you receive your “validation†which will consist of a transaction history that is printed like crap.

 

The minute you look this over, type up another letter – now you can get forceful. I will post an example from one of mine (please do these on your own as if they receive a ton of letters the same way it will become unproductive).

 

More specifically, I am disputing the reporting of the following items to the credit reporting agencies:

 

• The amount of $971 is due your company

• that this alleged debt is payable to you

• the date of first delinquency reported by your company

• that this account is a 1 month term (I have no agreement with you or installment with you)

• That you have the right to report the account past due.

• That you are knowingly reporting duplicate accounts on credit reports.

• That this a factoring company account (prove it)

 

As a data furnisher to credit reporting agencies, Midland has an obligation to report and provide accurate information as specified in the California Civil Code. The specific items disputed above (as notated by bullet points) are not accurate and I dispute your reporting of this information as allowed under Section 1785.25(f) of the California Civil Code. If you update this information as correct with the credit bureaus, I request that the supporting documentation be forwarded to me.

 

In each of the line items above, Midland is making false representation of this alleged debt, as defined in Section 1788.17 of the California Civil Code.

 

Please send proof of the accuracy of the disputed items above and a full validation as intended by the California Civil Code. If proof of this debt can not be obtained and forwarded, I will assume there is no proof and will consider this matter with your company closed and expect removal of notations of this account to any and all credit reporting agencies to which you are currently reporting, as required by all disputes under the California Civil Code.

 

I am once again requesting a full validation of this alleged debt. If validation is not received in a timely manner, then I will make formal complaints to the BBB and California Attorney General’s office.

 

With this letter, I am also making it known that all communication regarding dispute MUST be in writing as phone calls are an inconvenience to me.â€

 

I borrowed portions of this from Jen’s 623 letters and adjusted it to fit my own needs. After this letter, they will probably ignore you completely. I did not receive anything back. After 30 days, I filed the complaint immediately with the BBB outlining in a specific timeline everything and every error. I was very adamant in the results I wanted out of it.

 

A few days later you will receive a canned form letter from one of their paralegals stating that they have done everything correctly blah blah blah… this is when I brought the teeth out:

 

Here is that response – once again do not flat outright copy it as EVERY situation is different:

 

It is my belief that an investigation by your office into the practices of Midland Credit Management in San Diego County and other locations in California would show that their violation of California and federal law is common and part of their business practices to the detriment of the citizens of California at large.

 

I am requesting that your office consider opening and pursuing an investigation into the activities of Midland Credit Management to protect the citizens of California from a company that willfully and knowingly violates California law for financial gain.

 

My letter dated 06/08 stated how they violate these laws and in their response they refused to address these issues:

 

• The amount of $971 is due (which has now increased)

• that this alleged debt is payable to Midland

• the date of first delinquency reported by Midland

• that this account is a 1 month term (I have no agreement with Midland or installment with Midland)

• That Midland has the right to report the account past due.

• That Midland is knowingly reporting duplicate accounts on credit reports.

• That this a factoring company account (prove it)

 

In each of the line items above, Midland is making false representation of this alleged debt, as defined in Section 1788.17 of the California Civil Code.

 

To outline a response to xxxx letter, here is my response:

 

1. xxx stated that Midland initially sent me correspondence in 2007. This statement is incorrect as I have never received any piece of information from them other than what was located on my credit report. This was plainly stated in my initial communication with them as I told them I did not have any idea who they were or what they were collecting for.

 

2. xxx interpretation of the FDCPA § 809 is incorrect.

The only protection the “initial 30 days†of FDCPA § 809 provides is the ceasing of collection activities. It does not “expire†nor does it stipulate that a consumer cannot request debt validation beyond 30 days. The spirit of the FDCPA is to give consumers the right to dispute at anytime. Since the first communication from Midland was a response to my dispute, then my communication to them was timely as defined by California Civil Code.

 

3. xxx claims they mailed me a copy of the information I requested. However, in her attached copy to you it is evident that this is nothing more than a printout from Midland’s system. It does not provide any statement of accounting nor does it provide any information from the original creditor. This is not validation of any debt. The information I received was not from Midland but from another collection agency and I responded the same: This is not validation of this debt and is therefore disputed.

 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

 

In the above FTC opinion letter, the proper procedure for validation of debt is outlined: “…The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). 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….â€

 

4. xxxx claims that their classification of a “Factoring Company†is correct and dictated by the credit bureaus. She is obviously mistaken on the classification of a “factoring company†and “factoring accountâ€. My own research has provided vast amounts of data on what constitutes a “factoring companyâ€. A factoring company is a company that purchases good receivables from another company. If this is truly “bad debt†then obviously Midland could not be a factoring company. I also know that the credit bureaus do not dictate how they “classify†as a company. To have the account reported correctly, it should have been reported as a collection account.

 

As you can plainly see, nothing in my original disputes with them has been addressed. Once again, I am demanding that this erroneous trade line is removed from all three major credit bureaus immediately.

 

If this issue cannot be resolved amicably through this communication, then I will have no choice but to forward all information the California Attorney General and my attorney as well.â€

 

That got another response from their person which ended with “we will remove the accountâ€.

 

As I said, it is not an easy fight and be prepared for anything to happen. If you poke this, it might poke back. Luckily, they did not with me. Remember, this was my battle and what worked for me they can also view this so it may not work for you but I still thought it would be good to share..

 

Now let’s make this the mother thread and keep it all right here that way everyone will be able to utilize it!

 

 

Helpful Info:

 

California Civil Code

 

You will want to study these sections:

 

TITLE 1.6. CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES ACT

TITLE 1.6C. FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES

 

Please feel free to ask me anything - I will try to answer the best I can...

[randb]

Thanks for the info. I will be dealing with MCM soon. BTW, were these accounts within SOL?

[clambert1273]

lol almost all of mine have been

[randb]

mine is for $2500. Scared that they might sue...

[johnnyt6]

Nice work

[L93065]

Awesome, Clambert1273, and after reading of your troubles tonite, thank you so much for taking the time to help us fight the good fight!

 

Oh, and by the way, mine is time-barred!

 

Linda

[jack1212]

Good Job Clambert!

 

I'll add this to my profile.

 

You found the weakness of one of the biggest names.

[clambert1273]

* for the day crew

[nicole379]

Thank you for this! I'm currently in the middle of my dispute with them for two accounts. Luckily for me though I live in Texas and have TFC on my side. Also, I sent them a limited C&D letter and asked for validation and cited the TFC. They signed for it on Oct. 1st and then called me on both Oct. 3rd and Oct. 4th. So now I have them for that violation, not including that they are reporting as factoring accounts and various other errors.

 

If for some reason they do not delete within 30 days, then I will send them a very strongly worded letter informing them that I am going to find legal representation and that I will no longer mess around with them.

 

I truly hate Midland.

[Jen23514]

I'm going to add my own 2cents to this thead.

 

I had luck getting Midland deleted using the Kansas Office of State Banking Commission.

 

I would suggest using the CA laws first, but MCM is a KS corporation. So, if using Clambert's method fails, I suggest using some of the same methods I outlined in this thread : http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...howtopic=410949

[clambert1273]

I'm going to add my own 2cents to this thead.

 

I had luck getting Midland deleted using the Kansas Office of State Banking Commission.

 

I would suggest using the CA laws first, but MCM is a KS corporation. So, if using Clambert's method fails, I suggest using some of the same methods I outlined in this thread : http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...howtopic=410949

 

Yes mam!!!

 

it is good to have many different options! WHERE ARE YOU LOL

[Jen23514]

I'm sitting in the same chair I always am... 65 hours a week. get on yahoo

[vintagespeed]

great info clambert! i'm gonna use some of that against the last baddie on my DWs reports.

[jack1212]

Here's another Box o' Ammo.

 

From ICANHASMUNY? in the served forum.

 

MCM got busted for filing false affidavits in ohio. Awesome read....

 

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=412253

[clambert1273]

thanks jack.. I read that and thought was absolutely awesome.. bout time someone got them for their crap affadavits in court!

[jack1212]

thanks jack.. I read that and thought was absolutely awesome.. bout time someone got them for their crap affadavits in court!

 

Yea and im hoping Resurgent wont be far behind.

[Niteraven]

I hope you don't mind but I found this on the FTC website --

 

and felt it was an amusing but informative read .... especially to those fighting these guys ...

 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollect...42930-00025.pdf

 

 

Midland Credit Management, Inc.

8875 Aero Drive, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92123

Tel: (800) 825-8131 • Fax: (800) 309-6998

 

Via electronic delivery July 31, 2009

Federal Trade Commission Office of the Secretary Room H-135 (Annex A)

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20580

 

Re: Debt Collection Roundtable -Comment, Project No. P094806

 

Dear Federal Trade Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments in advance of the roundtable discussion regarding "Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration", scheduled for Chicago on August 5-6, 2009.

Our companies, Encore Capital Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECPG), Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM"), and three debt-buying entities, Midland Funding LLC, Midland Funding NCC-2 Corporation and MRC Receivables Corporation, take this topic seriously and appreciate the FTC's efforts to gather infolmation from interested parties. Xenia Murphy, Senior Manager, will be present at the roundtable to represent our views and answer any questions. We employ more than 1200 employees across five locations, and dedicate substantial resources to suppoli our financial, compliance and legal outsourcing departments, and to manage our account portfolios in a responsible, ethical and profitable manner. Our efforts are directed at working with consumers to amicably and fairly resolve their delinquent accounts without a need for litigation, but legal enforcement of an underlying credit agreement is sometimes necessary to move an account toward paylnent. We have been in the collection business for 55 years and started purchasing portfolios for our own account approximately 18 years ago. From our inception through June 30, 2009, we have invested approximately $1.3 billion to acquire 27 million consumer accounts with a face value of approxilnately $43 billion. The receivable portfolios we purchase consist primarily of unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom companies and resellers of such portfolios. After we purchase a portfolio, we continuously refine our analysis of the accounts to determine the best strategy for collection, including the use of a nationwide network of collection attorneys to pursue legal action where appropriate. We believe the use of the legal system is a necessary element of maintaining accountability in our financial system when repayment cannot be secured through the mail or by phone.

 

The roundtable agenda identifies four broad areas to which our comments are addressed below. We believe that these subjects are among the most important in the legal environment for the FTC to review and understand in advance of any supplemental reports or recommendations for changes to current practices.

Default Judgments and Service of Process

The processes by which any judgments, including default judgments, are entered across various jurisdictions differ greatly based upon such considerations as the amount of the debt, the documentation provided with the complaint, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the proper service of process upon the defendant. Default judgments represent a significant percentage of the judgments obtained by our companies and others in this industry, as well as in all other cases filed in coulis that must review and resolve increasingly large numbers of lawsuits. In our view, the rate of default judgments does not depend on the type of action but rather on the processes in place for a particular court or judge to make a decision in a case where the defendant has failed to file an appearance or responsive pleading, and has similarly failed to physically appear before the court. We would prefer that consumers appear so that we may discuss the account, their financial situation, and payment options, but they do not go to court, and that is the reason for the large numbers of default judgments. While the number of cases filed to collect delinquent debts is substantial, we do not see the default judgment rate to be a reflection of certain types of debt or debt ownership, but as an indication that most defendants fail to respond to proper legal notice of a pending court action involving their interests. A reasonable default judgment process that examines both the service of process and the information and materials supporting the complaint is able to quickly resolve uncontested lnatters and remove them from a crowded court docket while limiting the time that local counsel must devote to such cases. In most jurisdictions, a defendant is notified of such a default judgment and provided another opportunity to appear before the court and raise available defenses to the claim. We believe that defendants are given sufficient opportunities, both before and during the litigation process, to raise defenses, ask questions, and reach a resolution to their delinquent account, and the default judgment process is important for companies such as ours to continue to collect debts in an efficient and cost effective manner.

 

Statute of Limitations

A statute of limitations, which provides a deadline for the commencement of litigation, is defined is various ways across many states, with distinctions based on the nature of a contract, availability of supporting documentation, location of activity, and other factors that are reviewed and applied by courts at different jurisdictional levels. Our company uses litigation as only one of several methods to collect debts and, for those accounts that are past the statute of limitations, we do collect on such accounts through methods such as telephone calls and letters because there is no prohibition on such actions. We do not, however, knowingly pursue litigation against those consumers whose statute has expired. As you know, the FTC issued a Consumer Alert in October 2004 that specifically concluded that collection of debt for which a statute of limitations has run is not deceptive, misleading, or prohibited by law. With only a few exceptions, the expiration of the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt or our right to continue collections, and we do collect such debts in the same general course of business that we collect all other debts.

Through court decisions, the statute of limitations for credit card accounts has been reduced in several states, and a number of state legislatures have also proposed a reduction in the time period for litigation. It is our view that shorter statutes will not have the intended effect and will lead to a significant increase in the number of lawsuits filed. Companies will be compelled to file lawsuits earlier in the collection process to protect their interests, and will no longer have the time and flexibility to work with consumers having financial difficulties. While shorter statutes may initially appear to be favorable for consumers, the result will likely not be beneficial to them because agencies will no longer be able to wait for individuals to financially recover. Additionally, the litigation costs and court activity will only add to the burden faced by such consumers. Finally, consumers are currently provided with detailed information about their debt and numerous notices regarding their rights, and it is our view that informing consumers about the legal status of their account is problematic. Consumers receive a validation letter each time that an account is transferred to a new servicer, and consumers have also already likely received many letters and notices from the original creditor and prior owners and servicers, so we believe that sufficient disclosures have been made to consumers and that requiring an additional notice will result in legal questions and other issues that collection agencies should not be required to address. Letters to consumers should be concise, informative and provide details regarding the subject account and payment options, but should not be complicated with legal advice related to the statute of limitations, tax consequences, or other similar issues, which will complicate letters and make them less effective and more difficult for consumers to read and understand.

 

Evidence of Indebtedness

As noted previously, our company purchases account portfolios from national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, and telecom companies, as well as resellers of such portfolios, and each purchase is the subject of a comprehensive written agreement that addresses all aspects of the transaction between our company and the selling entity. Our agreements not only require representations and warranties from a seller that all consumer and account information is accurate and current, but also often provide for post-purchase support from sellers regarding additional information or documents that may be needed to address consumer or court inquiries. The electronic data obtained from sellers includes a consumer's name, address, Social Security Number, telephone number and other details that are used to confirm identity, as well as specific account information regarding the charge-off and current balance, last payment date and amount, and other account activity. All of this is provided to our law firms at the time we place an account for litigation. We intend and expect that all relevant and required information is referenced in the complaint or provided to the court and the consumer in the form of an affidavit or other exhibit. One major concern for our company and the industry has been the elevated evidentiary standards being proposed by state legislatures and independently developed by local courts. The standards appear to be applicable only to debt collection cases and often include documentation and information requirements that are burdensome and unrealistic in a time when such physical materials are often unavailable or non-existent. Many accounts are opened, accessed, managed and transferred without any hardcopy documents, so an evidentiary standard that sets minimum filing or judgment requirements that demand the production of an original application, complete set of account statements, copies of payments and other written materials is, in our opinion, an unreasonable expectation. The burden of proof should not be higher for debt collection matters, and we meet our burden of proof using electronic information and certain documents provided to us by the sellers and warranted by contract to be true and correct.

 

Post-Judgment Remedies

As with the other categories, post-judgment remedies, which may include garnishments, bank levies, property liens, and other permitted activities, are governed by state laws and differ widely across jurisdictions. We rely upon our nationwide network of law firms to be familiar with local regulations and to make appropriate decisions regarding the effectiveness and benefits of the remedies available for collectionofjudgmentbalances. States impose limits on each type of remedy,ranging from the percentage of wages available to creditors to the amounts exempted from action against a consumer's bank account. We do not instruct or expect our firms to seize exempt funds, including federal benefits, but processes are available to defendants to notify firms and courts regarding exempt funds, and such amounts are quickly released from any bank freeze. We receive no benefit when our law firms seize funds that cannot be applied to a judgment, and we bear the direct cost for the filing and release of such bank garnishments, but there is no means available to indicate the presence of exempt funds in an account which contains other funds that are subject to creditor actions. It is our view that the current process is sufficient and that there is no need for additional restrictions or regulation regarding this subject.

 

Productive Change and Best Practices

As a publicly-traded company, and as a member of ACA International, DBA, NARCA, and other industry organizations, as well as the Better Business Bureau, we are governed by a number of entities with whom we regularly meet, solicit feedback from and comply regarding best practices and internal processes ain1ed at collecting debts in a responsible and productive manner. It concerns us that certain state and city legislative actions have targeted the debt collection industry for heightened scrutiny and litigation standards, and we are similarly distressed by the unpredictable nature of the local courts, where evidentiary requirements are often in1posed without due consideration for the costs and reasonableness of such demands. We believe that it is in the best interests of this industry and the consumers for there to be consistent and reasonable expectations from the courts and consumer attorneys regarding the type, form and content of the information and evidence offered in supp011 of collection litigation, and we appreciate the FTC's leadership on these issues. It is important to note that we make great efforts and dedicate significant resources to contact and work with consumers to resolve their delinquent accounts prior to litigation. Our enforcement of a valid contract through the legal process is an expensive but necessary component of collections, and it is our hope that the roundtable discussions will provide the information needed to preserve the litigation process and protect both consumers and collection agencies against regulations that cU11aii the flexibility and predictability that allow us to best work with our custolners to find mutually-beneficial solutions. Thank you again for this oppo11unity to comment. Please feel free to speak with Xenia Murphy at the upcoming discussion and to contact lne directly if I can answer any questions or provide you with additional information in the future. Lance S Martin

President, Compliance and Regulatory Affairs Midland

FTC Roundtable Comments

 

just had to share ....

[DragonFlyer]

Awesome thread!

 

I shared this elsewhere, but thought it may supplement the discussion here.

 

MCM was recently issued a C&D in Maryland!

 

http://budhibbs.com/Midland%20CD%20%282%29.pdf

[Niteraven]

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=414003

 

Another thread re: them in Ohio

[thehellmouth]

Great thread. I have MCM on my reports twice so this will be helpful in getting some action!

[clambert1273]

I did too - after the removed the duplicate was still on there for months.. all it took was a dispute to remove that one tho

[mahler444]

Thank you for this! I'm currently in the middle of my dispute with them for two accounts. Luckily for me though I live in Texas and have TFC on my side. Also, I sent them a limited C&D letter and asked for validation and cited the TFC. They signed for it on Oct. 1st and then called me on both Oct. 3rd and Oct. 4th. So now I have them for that violation, not including that they are reporting as factoring accounts and various other errors.

 

If for some reason they do not delete within 30 days, then I will send them a very strongly worded letter informing them that I am going to find legal representation and that I will no longer mess around with them.

 

I truly hate Midland.

 

I think they can call you again to inform you they received your letter...

[DragonFlyer]

Not exactly...and I think nicole already is moving forward with an attorney on that....but to be clear:

 

They can call to let you know that they will either

1. Not call you again, or

2. Take further legal action

 

I find it funny they can call to say they won't be calling. LOL

 

/back to Midland

[sonicanatidae]

I wish this thread had been here last year.. Now, my MCM is about 10 months from

simply falling off, so I'm letting sleeping dogs lie. If they re-age and/or relist, I plan

on using info here to dispute.

 

Thanks for taking the time to post!

[neonhomer]

Here's a new spin. I have started getting calls from MCM about an account that is WAAAY outside of SOL for the State of Florida. The OC charge off amount was $350, and they are trying to collect $753. When told that the account was outside of SOL, I was transferred to a "manager" who promptly started by asking me "Are you a lawyer? If not, then don't quote law to us. We know the law."

 

They have said they have sent me letters and such, but I have never received anything. They have also said I made a payment, which I never did. I did screw up and let them positively ID me. When asked if I was going to pay this, I told them no. "So I can take this as a refusal to pay?" I told them they could take it however they wanted.

 

That I know of, they have not yet reported to any of the CRA's. As of the beginning of October, they had not reported to Equifax.

 

I guess I need to get them to send me something, so I can reference the account when I send the initial DV and start the ball rolling to squash these roaches.

 

Any tips?