Search the Community

1. I had a Midland (ugh) account that I dispute with Midland, they agreed to tell the CRA's to delete it. TU and EX did so promptly, it has been 5 weeks and it is still on EQ. 2. Verizon Wireless, after 2 years just mysteriously disappeared from TU, then a day later from EX. 1 week later it is still on EQ. Does EQ just not delete if they are told to by the creditors? And a side note wondering why Verizon deleted after only 2 years anyway?

First, thank you all for your contributions to this site. So far it has been information overload (in a good way) I have not pulled my CR in many years until just recently and found this: My questions are: I have two TL's on my CR from Midland Funding, LLC with all 3 CR's Both are outside of the SOL for collection but fall off Aug 2015 and Dec 2016 for SOL for reporting. I never got any notices from Midland on either of these accounts. The reason being is because they evidently sent them to an address that I have never been associated with. I confirmed with TU that Midland was the CA that reported the wrong address. They also reported incorrect phone numbers. I have the call with TU recorded (legal in my state). They continue to report this address each month and that is obvious on the other two CRA reports based on dates of reporting – as recently as 10/24/2014. I have no idea how they would have gotten this address except the people there, coincidentally, have the same last name as I do but I do not know them (½ mile from me). What's even more interesting is that Midland updated my address on 9/17/2009 but no TL's showed up until July and Aug 2011 with “Open Dates” of 6/2011 and 7/2011 respectively. DOFD is correct on both accounts (11/08 and 3/10). Re-aging maybe? I have been at my current address for over 12 years (9 yrs at the time they first reported which was Aug and Sep 2011). A simple review of my CR would have given even a person with the most 'simplest' mind an indication of my then, and now, current address since it was the only one shown on my CR's for two CRA's reports and a very old address prior to that that was reported in 1997 on another. As to the phone numbers, one is for someone that lives about a mile from me (different last names and different than the people with the same last name – don't know them either) and another phone number for which the info was not available to the lady at TU. My phone number has been the same since 1996. My thoughts are the following: Begin by sending letter demanding the following: 1) Demand for Verification AND a Validation in same letter. Stating that I want signed contracts, copies of statements (both accounts are for CC's) 2) Copies of their Bill of Sale when they bought the loans (this was in 2011 for both or maybe 2009 according to the address update) 3) Copies of all correspondence sent to the 'fake' addresses 4) Dates and times of any phone calls made to those phone numbers they reported 5) How they obtained the fake address 6) DO NOT report the 'fake' address again after this notice. 7) That a complaint IS GOING to be filed with the CFPB 8) Do not contact me by any other means other than USPS as phone calls are inconvenient (of course I will provide my correct address) Then throw in the section of the FDCPA re: disclosing info to third parties and reporting false info to the CRA's for each month they have reported this 'fake' address. Maybe also re-aging due to the difference in the address reported date and the TL's dates for each month.. And this I saw on another thread here at CreditBoards: “Systematically sending FDCPA notification and dunning letters to old invalid addresses so as to avoid the ramifications of consumer disputes should be a FDCPA violation. Hope you get audited by the CFPB soon “ from ICANHASMUNY? Posted on http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=531999&hl=%20midland%20%20funding post #13. In this same letter I would add an ITS if no info is received within 21 days (or should it be 30?). I know they have forever to 'verify' and 'validate' but.... I would put in something to the effect that I want to request arbitration but there is no need to since both accounts' SOL's have run. Midland is also reporting as a “Factoring Company Account (debt buyer).” Any issues with that? Also, this may be related to Midland so I'll ask in this same topic – Midland may have sold these accounts but I doubt it because Midland has reported as recently as 10/24/2014, including the 'fake' address/phone number. I have three other CA's pulling my credit recently but I have no TL's from any of them on any CRA's: Enhanced Recovery 8/22/14 Experian Law Offices of Ed Overcash 7/31/2014 TransUnion Account Discovery Sys 7/22/14 TransUnion Midland pulled one on 7/4/2014 but I believe that to be legal since I have an “open account” with them. I know this may turn out to be a lengthy letter but under the circumstances (Midland using the 'fake' address originally and continuing to use it.) not sure how I can condense it. Any advice on the above? I think I have given enough info, but if anyone has any questions, please ask. Thanks in advance. Also** On another issue (I will start another topic but just want a quick answer) Does anyone think it's strange that BB&T would issue a 1099c Cancellation of Debt for the year 2012 for a repo that happened back in 2000? TWELVE years later. This question is for a friend – really, it's for a friend. Simple Yes or No or a link to any topics already here that I haven't researched yet. Thanks again.

About time the National papers start picking up... Taking on the country’s biggest debt buyer, Midland Funding http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/taking-on-the-countrys-biggest-debt-buyer/2014/05/09/fbd65a24-a94d-11e3-b61e-8051b8b52d06_story.html Encore, which owns the debt of one in five Americans,

We sent a dispute to MCM for a time barred acct on DH's CR. Our dispute letter cited state law about time barred debt, told them to stop contacting us and to delete from CR. They responded with a bunch of old cc statements and a letter requesting payment. They also indicated they would no longer contact us as we requested unless it was to further respond to our dispute. Nowhere in the letter did they indicate the debt was time barred and that they would not sue. Is this a violation of the FDCPA? We live in FL. Thanks.

Okay here it is in a nutshell.... This is the baddies that are haunting me. My question is where should I start? What would you do? 5 charged-off and paid student loan collections from Citibank last reported activity on all these was back in 2008. (I have sent a GW letter regarding their removal) Midland Funding is reporting to all three credit bureaus a debt for a JCPENNEY card (see #5). They are reporting to TU $1174, to EQ $1182, and to EX $0. (I disputed these debts a long time ago) It also appears they are double dipping on my credit report, but I won't know till I receive the actual hard copied reports from the 3 CB's I have a total of 14 separate medical collection through Paramount Recovery for Questcare. These total over $5000. I did try PFD and they refused they instead were willing to list it as PAID. I did pay one to see what would happen. They did report it as PAID and it removed the derogatory remark and the date didn't change. (I am not sure if I should touch many of these....they will fall off in the next 3 years). RJM Acquisition LLC collecting for Compass Bank in the amount of $911 and reporting only to TU and EX. This one should fall of next year they did offer me a settlement for PFD, but they are falling off next year. JCPENNEY's is showing up on my EQ report only showing an open date of 08/01/2001; a credit limit of $0, a monthly payment of $34; a balance of $693; a last reported date of 07/01/2009; it shows closed, and amount past due of $242??????? This is also being collected by Midland Funding (see #2) This is only on EQ, but shouldn't it be removed since Midland is trying to collect it. It is due to fall off next year. I think??? Commonwealth Financial collecting for I believe Questcare in the amount of $350. Reporting to TU and EQ. This one is a recent debt from 2013. OHHHHH and last, but not least I owe $41,000 in defaulted student loans through Texas Guaranteed OC is Citibank see #1. (I just started the rehabilitation program and will be completed with it in December 2014). So this is it. What should I do with all this? You all give the best advice so I know I have come to the right place. I can use some help. Thank you.

So I am cleaning up the baddies and I can't understand why Midland Funding wants to collect well over what JCPenney, the OC, is trying to collect. Okay here it is: Midland Funding is on all 3 credit reports trying to collect $1174: Date Opened is 7/2009. I had previously disputed this item which is reflected on my credit report because I wasn't aware of the debt. When I call them I get someone from "SOME FAR OFF LAND"??? Well they tell me the OC was JCPenney. I am aware that I messed up on an old JC Penney Card... This is how JC Penney looks on my credit report: It only shows up on my Equifax report for a total of "693.00" which is way less than Midland is trying to collect for the same debt. They list is as a "Bad debt & placed for collection and SkiP" and it is listed as "CHARGED OFF ACCOUNT" When I spoke with Midland, I acted as if I don't know about any JCPenney account (I don't want to admit to the debt over the phone). I asked when was the date of first delinquency and I was told Jan 2009. Sorry for the long back story. MY QUESTIONS: How do I handle Midland? Should I handle them or should I speak with JCPenney about the Charged off Account? Should I just wait till 2016 and let it fall off my report? Should I DV? I know I owe JCPenney, but the amount Midland is trying to collect is not accurate. Should I again dispute the item? I already disputed it with the CRA's to no avail Any advice would be appreciated.

Hi so I have FAKOS in the high 500s and I want to know what the best move would be for me right now to repair my damaged credit. I have about 5 inquires on each Transunion, equifax and Experian this year. I am not applying for anymore credit. Hoping to bump Equifax and Transunion. My good accounts are a secured loan for $400 on Equifax, a secured loan for $1000 on all three and student loans, about 7 that are deferred on all of them. I have like 2 closed good accounts that were installment loans. The last good thing is that im getting an installment loan through the credit union unsecured $1000 and ill pay it back in 6 months. Hopefully this will help me. Are installment loans, or secured loans a waste of time. Should I get a secured credit card with a high limit? or would a low limit work just as fine? BAD: 1:furniture account charged off, for $350 2:$300 first premier bank charged off. about $300 Will fall off 2017 I believe. 3: credit one bank in collections $1100 that keeps rising up form old credit card. Now turned over to through midland funding will fall off 2018. 4: webank fingerhut account that midland owns for $300. Keeps rising up though. 5: 3 small accounts in collections, all less than 100 seventh avenue each, grandpointe 6: a zzounds account, like $250thats in collections 7: sprint account that is about 332 that's in collections and was turned over to a collection agency. 8. on Experian an old library bill $42 that's in collections. (I plan on paying this off) will fall off in 2018 I plan on trying to get a paid for delete for the 3 small accounts under $100 or either a paid in full so that they will report as good. Is this a good idea and also the important thing I want to know is should I pay off midland? I heard they are the worse Is it worth it. I tried to do a settlement but the letter said under the signature that paying will not guarantee the account being deleted from the agencies. This didn't sit well with me so I never sent the money. Should I just wait until it falls off? I also wanted to get a secured card for maybe like $200 and only spend $10 a month on it and pay that off for a quick boost in my score. I know that would help. Any advice would help as I just want to get back on the right track. Thanks

After calling a few times a month for nearly a year, Midland finally sent me a dunning letter. As far as I can tell, still not reporting. Time to warm up the printer!

I recently sent a Comprehensive Texas DV to Midland Funding / Midland Credit Management for a debt they are claiming is owed to a cell phone company that I've never had a contract with. In the DV, I stated that I disputed the debt in its entirety, and requested validation of the account with proof that I have some contractual obligation to pay Midland Funding the reported amount via: 1. A contract bearing my signature that shows my obligation to pay debts on the alleged account; 2. Itemized billing statements from the inception of this alleged account through the account closing date; and 3. Proof that you are entitled to collect the alleged debt on the original creditor's behalf. I also stated that no federal questions were being raised, and that my dispute was under TFC 392. I received a response today, within the 30 days alloted under TFC 392. It consisted of a one-page letter stating, "Please be advised that we have determined that our credit file and credit reporting o fthe above-referenced account is accurate..." blah blah blah, and stating they would be resuming collection activities. Sometime within the last few days, they have updated the tradeline so that the Balance section is blank. Midland did NOT include any documentation regarding the account aside from their letter. I don't see where TFC requires the CA to provide validating documents, only that they are required to respond and admit/deny the accuracy within 30 days. Should I now send a validation request under FDCPA/FCRA, or is there a clause that encourages me to proceed under TFC 392? I'm 100% certain that they don't have the required documents because I never signed up for service with the original creditor.

MIDLAND NATIONAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT THROWN OUT - NEW SETTLEMENT IN WORKS. I had posted this at the end of the old Midland thread, but it get buried. Brent v midland funding FDCPA case was combined with others in a nationwide class action called Vasalle v Midland back in 2010 a settlement was reached in 2011 , over 38 state Attorney generals' and the FTC's objections ( boith filed amicus briefs opposing the settlement terms) And finally the settlement was object to by a number of individuals, and was appealed to the 6th Circuit Federal court of Appeals. The settlement was thrown out by the appeals court and remanded back to the Northern district court of Ohio for a new settlement full text at link; http://scholar.googl...126&as_ylo=2012 highlights; Eight objectors-appellants objected to the settlement, arguing that the settlement was unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the nationwide settlement class, and that the notice to prospective class members did not satisfy due process. For the following reasons, we REVERSE the district court's order approving the settlement, VACATE the judgment certifying the nationwide settlement class and the award of attorney fees, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. _____ Despite the wide discretion we must afford the district court in applying these factors, this disparity in relief is so great that we conclude the district court abused its discretion in finding that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. First, the named plaintiffs receive the primary benefit of the settlement: the exoneration of debts owed to Midland. If the 1.44 million unnamed class members received this benefit, like Brent, they would be absolved of debts in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Instead, the settlement actually prevents the unnamed class members from using Midland's use of false affidavits against Midland in any other lawsuit, virtually assuring that Midland will be able to collect on these debts. Finally, the relief actually provided to the unnamed class members is perfunctory at best. First, provided they respond to the notice, the unnamed class members receive $17.38. Second, the settlement provides for one year of injunctive relief, overseen by a retired federal judge, under which Midland is required to change its policies. The $17.38 payment can only be described as de minimis, especially in comparison to the now-forgiven debt of $4,516.57 owed by Brent. We can safely assume that many of the 1.44 million class members' debts are in the thousands or at least hundreds of dollars. The one-year injunction is likewise of little value for three reasons. First, it does not actually prohibit Midland from creating false affidavits; rather, it only requires Midland to change its policies and provides oversight of this process. Second, the injunction only lasts one year, after which Midland is free to resume its predatory practices should it choose to do so. Third, the injunction offers only prospective relief that likely does not benefit class members at all. For the foregoing reasons, the settlement was unfair to the unnamed class members, and the district court therefore abused its discretion in approving the settlement as "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Appellants cite several alleged deficiencies in class notice, one of which is dispositive. Namely, the notice does not explain the fact that the release of claims impairs the class members' ability to vacate the allegedly fraudulent judgments Midland obtained against them in state court lawsuits. Rather, the notice only states that by not objecting, the class members give Midland a "release." The notice states that "[a] release means you can't sue or be part of any other lawsuit against [Midland] about the claims or issues in this lawsuit, or any other claims arising out of affidavits attached or executed in support of collection complaints filed against Class Members by [Midland]." This language is insufficient to notify a non-attorney class member that by not objecting, he or she loses the right to use Midland's false affidavits against Midland in their debt-collection actions. The failure of the notice to mention this fact is not just "any ground" on which a class member might object; rather, it is the principal ground. The unnamed class members' greatest interest is their ability to contest these allegedly fraudulent judgments. For this reason, the class notice does not "`fairly apprise . . . prospective members of the class of the terms of the proposed settlement.'" UAW, 497 F.3d at 630 (quoting Grunin, 513 F.2d at 122). Accordingly, we find the district court erred in finding that the notice to the class satisfied due process. I'm so lost w/o my cards without all those magnetic strips, my purse doesn't point north anymore...