Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. When I spoke with the manager of the licensing dept here in WA........I read that section for her and she stated that a lot of out-of-state CAs quote that and are incorrect. They think that because a license is not required in Tx, that it makes them exempt........but it doesn't. She told me that they absolutely do have to have an out-of-state license if they are pursuing a debt in which the debtor resides in WA. As far as following up with the provider.......I have tried that. I do understand that they are entitled to their money........however, I do not feel that I should be held responsible for their mistake and that is why I refuse to pay this. You would think that it would be an easy remedy but I have already talked to the insurance company when I first found out about this in 2006 and even though I was covered at the time of service, they will not go back that far and pay the healthcare provider since it was never submitted. This was for an anesthesia group that worked for a hospital. When I was admitted, I gave the hospital ALL of my insurance information.........it should have been taken care of then. I did not receive any bills......and did not even find out that it was owed and on my CRs until 3 years later.
  2. AHA! BUT......I just called the OC and FINALLY got them to admit that the debt is only ASSIGNED. They were next to impossible the first time I called them. Very rude and just about refused to talk to me about it since it was turned over to a CA. So I told them that they should be aware that their CA is trying to collect on a debt illegally and I have filed complaints. She argued with me that since the debt occurred in Tx that it didn't matter.
  3. Ah......under a different name. I was wondering about that. Thank you so much centex.
  4. Business and Professional Service http://www.bpservice.com/
  5. Quick background: I have 2 old medical debts from 2003 by the same CA. Debts occurred in Texas and the CA is in Texas. I have disputed these over and over and no luck. Insurance should have covered these but the CA is claiming that I did not provide insurance info to the OC. (I did consider putting this in the medical section but thought it was better suited here). I refuse to pay this since Medicaid should have covered it and I did give the OC the insurance info. I am in WA state now. I had given up on these but then recently decided to try disputing again since they are so old. No luck. So then I start checking into other avenues. Texas requires a CA to be bonded. WA requires a CA to be licensed AND bonded. So I decided to file complaints stating they have no right to report this or collect on it this since it should have been covered by insurance AND they are also in violation because they are NOT licensed to collect in WA nor are the bonded........IN EITHER STATE. I called and verified this with the Tx SOS. There is no record of them ever being bonded (their records go back 20 years) I filed complaints with the Texas AG, ACA international and the FTC. I just recently received a response via ACA and of course the CA has BS excuses and states that I had called them about 6 months ago and promised to make payments (not even close to the truth) and that they had sent me itemized statements (not true either). At the end of the letter regarding not being licensed, this is their response: "According to the information we have, Washington state requires: "an out-of-state agency is exempt from the licensing fee if the agency is licensed or registered in a state that does not require payment of an initial fee by any person sho collects debts in the state only by means of interstate communications from the person's location in another state. An out-of-state agency need not meet the bond requirements if it maintains an adequate bond as required by its home state." Washington Rev Code Ann. 19.16. ACA International has the information regarding our bond. Specific information regarding the bond is not public information. Also, I just spoke with the licensing dept here in WA. They stated that a CA does not have to be licensed if they ARE NOT collecting for a third part (the debt was purchased, not assigned) which is the case here. So they don't have to be licensed........but do they still have to be bonded (even though they own the debt)? Any advice is greatly appreciated. TIA
  6. True.....you have a point. Thanks for all of your input, Kevin. I appreciate it.
  7. I know... *sigh* That's why I'm wondering if this is just something I need to accept......the fact that it just isn't going to come off. I guess I thought that even though we were sued by the CA and lost.........that maybe there would be some way to get the CO off of my reports since it was "technically" an illegal repo. I've tried coming at it from all different angles......but nothing seems to work.
  8. When you called Ford, who did you get on the phone? I would write them a letter CMRRR. Has the judgment hit your reports yet? That should be your first priority... Hey Kevin.......thanks for your response. I'm sure it was just a CSR but it's the dept that handles charge offs. I have written them letters in the past (before we were sued) and they responded with "we no longer hold this acct. please contact dummy CA". They basically refuse to speak with me about it. And the weird thing is........the judgment AND the CA already hit my reports........but they were actually easy to dispute off for some reason. It's the CO from the OC that won't go away.
  9. Bumpin for the night owls.
  10. I am trying desperately to have this CO removed from mine and my husband's CRs. Quick summary: Ford - illegal repo in Tx 2003 - CO'ed in 2003 I have disputed the account NUMEROUS times but it not only comes back verified, they increased the "credit limit" from 6K to 13K (the 6K is the correct amount) Ford sold debt to Midland in 2005 Midland sues us and is awarded summary judgment in 2008 I have called Ford but they state they do not verify with the CRAs since acct was sold and to contact Midland. I cannot contact Midland - they tell me to contact their attys. I call attys - they won't return my calls regarding acct history/incorrect reporting. I call CRAs, they tell me it IS Ford verifying the info. UGH. I even called Ford today - same story. Called EX and talked to a total jerk who supposedly verified things right over the phone (whatever) through the automated system. When I asked how and who verified it.......he tells me Ford. I'm going in circles here and wondering if I should give up. I even sent a goodwill letter to the CEO of FMC but got nowhere. Is is possible that Midland verifies the acct (to the CRAs) for Ford? This is not scheduled to drop off until 2010... I'm just wondering if there is anything else I can try. TIA
  11. Be careful......make a late payment and they will drop it back down to $100 again.
  12. I have been looking on craiglist lately and there have been a lot of scams. Read this: http://www.craigslist.org/about/scams.html Be careful.

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
  • Create New...

Important Information