Jump to content

basharscredit

Members
  • Content Count

    247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. The original letter was a standard initial collection letter. The validation letter lists the account details, including amount due of $96.12, and reads "we have completed our dispute investigation and below are the findings. Attached is a verification of the debt". The attached verification is an itemized T-Mobile bill totalling $409.99. No line item is for $96.12. I have even tried to calculate how you can get from $409.99 to $96.12 using the line items, but no success.
  2. Recieved a collection letter from Convergent trying to collect $96.12 on a T-Mobile account. DV was recieved by collector on 07/18/13 and on 08/05/13 they mailed back "verfication". The verification was a copy of an old bill for $409. In my opinion this does not constitute validation has it fails to provide an accurate accounting of the alleged debt. Any thoughts?
  3. My sister and I received our SSNs shortly after our family immigrated to the States. Our numbers are one digit apart. Our names are similar and her student loans were on my account. Called her school and they were taken off.
  4. There was a a 40pt difference between my TU score from MyFICO and the one pulled by the VW dealer. I was pissed because I missed out on the zero percent financing because of it.
  5. In 08/12 DRS popped up on my credit report and shortly thereafter I received a letter. I DV'd (it was delivered on 08/22/12) and they wrote back 08/23/12 with a standard letter stating dates and figures and claimed it constituted verification. Around the same time, I disputed with the credit agencies and it was removed from my EX report. I recently received a letter from DRS stating that since they had validated back in August, it was now imperative for me to settle the account. This is my response that I'll send out in the next few days. Any inputs would be appreciated. Re: Account No. xxxxxxxxx Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of August 23, 2012 in response to my request for validation pursuant to Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and your letter of October 11, 2012 requesting that I settle this alleged debt. The information provided by Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC (“DRS”) in its letter does not constitute verification of the alleged debt pursuant to the FDCPA. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has clearly stated that the FDCPA requires a debt collector to obtain “verification of the debt” from the original creditor once it receives a request for validation from the consumer and that simply providing existing details from its own database, regardless of whether the information was provided by the original creditor, does not constitute verification (See FTC Staff Opinion: LeFevre-Wollman and United States of America v. Asset Acceptance, LLC). This position is further reinforced in Chaudhury v. Gallerizzo, wherein it is clearly expressed that verification is effected when the debt collector forwards information received from the original creditor. DRS received my request for validation on August 22, 2012 and replied on August 23, 2012. It is highly unlikely DRS contacted the original creditor and received information from the same in less than one business day. Therefore, DRS failed to validate this alleged debt and continues with illegal collection activities, including reporting this account to the consumer credit bureaus. Furthermore, your letter fails to address the Statute of Limitations in Virginia as I had requested and DRS has failed “to disclose that [the debt is] too old to be legally enforceable or that a partial payment would extend the time [the] debt could be legally enforceable”. The FTC requires such a disclosure. The pertinent dates provided by DRS in its letter clearly indicate this debt is beyond the Virginia Statute of Limitations but while DRS has failed to provide the required disclosure, its letter of October 11, 2012 states that it is “imperative” that I “resolve this matter” and “remit payment for the outstanding balance…to satisfy this matter”. DRS has violated my consumer rights by failing to provide proper validation, failing to provide a Statute of Limitations disclosure and harassing me to remit payment on a non-validated and legally unenforceable debt. The actions of DRS are unacceptable and it is imperative that DRS cease all collection activities by deleting the listing of this account from my consumer credit reports and cease all other collection attempts. Please provide, within fifteen days of confirmed receipt of this letter, a written acknowledgement that DRS will take the necessary steps to delete the listing of this account from my consumer credit reports and cease any further collection attempts. The acknowledgement should be mailed to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I reserve the option to file complaints with the Federal Trade Commission and/or seek monetary restitution for the various violations committed by DRS in the event DRS fails to provide a written acknowledgement stating it has taken the steps to remove the listing of this account from my consumer credit reports and will cease any further collection activities. Sincerely
  6. My worst decision was letting my capital one card was ignoring my capital one card that ended in a judgment. A simple $300 limit spiraled into a $1,600 dollar judgment.
  7. They attempted to collect on behalf of LVNV a few years back. I sent them a DV and in it I wrote that since their client has repeatedly failed to validate I doubted that they would be able to. Never heard from them again. On a side note, LVNV finally fell of my EQ report!
  8. After three of trying, LVNV has finally been removed from my credit report. TU and EX removed the listing for a former GEMB/Dillards card almost immediately, but EQ held on for three years. Earlier this year, I wrote to ACA but their finding was that Resurgent/LVNV had not violated anything. But the letters provided by Resurgent provided a lot of contradictory information which I then forwarded to EQ and I guess that finally changed their mind. My report was almost clean but a paid collection from West Asset Management from 2005 (pre CB days) just appeared on my TU account.
  9. ACA Ethics Committee finished their investigation: Regarding LVNV/Resurgent's failure to DV, the committee said no violation had been made and that any delays was caused by me living overseas. I guess it's very difficult to mail a letter overseas, especially when the address has been provided several times. I only wish I could claim that mailing a check from overseas is difficult and not pay my US bills. ACA completely ignored the issue of the account being re-aged illegally.
  10. I've already sent a letter to the ACA Ethics Committee regarding the updated information. I suspect they're trying to re-age the SOL. They'll probably serve me at some old address as their tactic and then try and obtain a default judgement. That seems to be their tactic when they sue people.
  11. My bout with LVNV/Resurgent through ACA continues and the final ethics committee hearing is this week. In the meantime, a few developments have occurred: 1. Resurgent finally provided a copy of their 2007 validation to ACA. However the letter has an address that has never been mine and not on my credit reports. Oops. The validation was a simple "OC says you owe this much" on a blank piece of paper. 2. EQ sent me an investigation report and this account was updated with information from the "original source" (not sure if that means GEMB or LVNV). Along with their usual factoring company and open account TL, they decided to update last payment to 03/2009, whereas it was N/A before. However, Resurgent's own letter earlier this year states no payments were made. Oops. Let's see what ACA has to say. This account falls off next year and while I'd like it off now, I can wait a few more months. And if they pull some crap then, I'm ready with a paper trail.
  12. This account has been removed from EQ and TU. I noticed on my EX report that the charge off date had been moved forward as well as the estimated date for removal from my credit report. I disputed the information to EX and they verified the information. Shot off a 623 letter to Applied and today I received a facsimile validating the debt and stating that the account was charged off on 11/30/2004 due to non-payment. So now that I have evidence that they are reporting an inaccurate charge off date, who do I approach next. Applied for providing inaccurate information or Experian for not conducting a proper investigation?
  13. I think the only reason they responded was because ACA is involved. ACA doesn't have any teeth, but I'm sure its members want to avoid having an unresolved ethics complaint. Though, I'm not in a position to head to court at the moment, I'm glad they did respond because in their two letters they give a lot of information that I believe will be helpful: 1. They admit to buying the account from the original creditor one year after it was charged off, so much for an open account 2. They claim to have sent "validation with verification" to an old address though I updated my address with them in certified letters, but have failed to provide a copy of their correspondence. I on the other hand have sent in copies of my validation letters and proof of delivery to ACA 3. They admit to just having requested documentation from the original creditor. This debit is past SOL, whether you use dates from the original creditor or LVNV's dates and it should be off my EQ report early next year. My main concern is having it off next year and LVNV not trying to keep it on by claiming the 7 year clock started at a later date.
  14. My US residence is in Virginia (tax and voting purposes) and that's where I opened an account with the original creditor back in 2001, but am currently residing overseas, at least for another six months. I did not request validation within the initial 30 day period since it was way before CB. Yes, the response is from Resurgent. In my response to their last letter, I stated that since they claim to have already sent "verification with validation" twice in 2007, the documents should already be readily available and could easily be faxed. No response as of yet. In their letter, Resurgent did say they had marked the item as disputed, but its still not showing up. Its been under a month so I'll give it another two weeks on that one.

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

Guidelines