All you want to know about LVNV

[jack1212]

I had created a thread earlier for research. I wanted to know how many people with LVNV have the following on their reports....

 

They dont report under "Collections". It is listed under "Other" (or something similair). I could not for the life of me understand why they would NOT report under collections. Then it dawned on me. It's an f'd up way of killing your reports/scores.

 

Here's how it works. Look at the CDIA manual.

 

http://www.cdiaonline.org/files/PDFs/2006CRRGWholeManual.pdf

 

Scroll down to 4-11, p 54. You will see a payment rating field. 17B

 

It shows thr report codes from 0-L.

 

Here's a quote from Picantel in another thread.

 

 

 

As for 120+ days past due, most creditors charge off accounts after 180 days not 120. The credit bureaus are not reporting the account as 120+ days late because they simple report the information you give them. The "Payment Rating" field, 17B is where, I believe, this field and the portfolio type and possibly account type are used by the CRAs in some formula to display the "open" or "collection" on our reports. This field must contain "G" for collections. Most likely, the CA is reporting it as 0 for "current account" which is where the violation occurs. They may instead be reporting it as 1-6 which indicate 30 through 180+ days past due, also another violation.

 

 

So they are not reporting it a "G" for collections, but rather "0" or "4", this cause a greater impact on your scores.

 

This is the reason that you dont see LVNV reported under "collections". They keep it open, adding lates, which in turn poisions your reports.

 

Hope that makes sense. Just another big break through! And another nail in the coffin.

 

Jack

[cKG]

LVNV FUNDING LLC

PO Box 10584

Greenville, SC-296030584

(866) 464-1183

 

Account Number: XXXXXXXXXXX

Current Status:

Account Owner: Individual Account.

High Credit: $2,713

Type of Account : Open

Credit Limit: $0

Term Duration:

Terms Frequency:

Date Opened: N/A

Balance: $2,713

Date Reported: 12/2007

Amount Past Due: $2,713

Date of Last Payment:

Actual Payment Amount: $0

Scheduled Payment Amount: $0

Date of Last Activity: N/A

Date Major Delinquency First Reported:

Months Reviewed: 8

Creditor Classification: Financial

Activity Description: N/A

Charge Off Amount: $0

Deferred Payment Start Date:

Balloon Payment Amount: $0

Balloon Payment Date:

Date Closed:

Type of Loan: Factoring Company Account (debt purchaser)

Comments: Collection account

 

 

This is on my EQ report only, but I didn't think I've received anything about it in the mail. In my last 3-in-1 report, this is in the same section as the OCs, and on the same line as Sears (where it shows "UPAID" for EX and TU.)

 

I was planning on trying to pay off Sears in a few months. Should I just let this lie, or should I DV them unprovoked?

[jack1212]

You may want to create your own thread, it will get more attention.

 

jack1212

[Male Nurse]

Hey Jack,

They're pulling that crap on mine too. Think we can legally call them on that crap? Is that violating the US code? I'm still new and trying to follow ya here...

[jack1212]

I have found a way to get them to at least back down. Resurgent wont speak of ANYTHING except validation, and "you owe it".

 

However, when laws are broken, validity is not an issue.

 

Dont let them off the hook. Hound them to death and make them PROVE what they are reporting is correct.

 

They havent done it yet. They will however, blame it on the CRA's. from reading letters that members have gotten from resurgent, they are all generic. with a few words put in to address the consumer.

 

They pretty much copy and paste generic responses all day, addressing nothing but DV.

 

Take DV out of the picture, and you got em.

 

Jack

[Male Nurse]

So in my ITS letter dont even mention validation? Just slam them on their violations and demand the account be deleted? Bring up their coding error, etc?

[redskinfan]

They are listed on my report as Installment and the other collection agency I do have on my report is listed as Collection as far as type. My credit cards are listed as revolving my husbands car note is listed as Installment....very interseting point Jack I'll mention that to my attonrey this afternoon.

[JaySpice]

subscr

[ChrisAZ]

I had created a thread earlier for research. I wanted to know how many people with LVNV have the following on their reports....

 

They dont report under "Collections". It is listed under "Other" (or something similair). I could not for the life of me understand why they would NOT report under collections. Then it dawned on me. It's an f'd up way of killing your reports/scores.

 

Here's how it works. Look at the CDIA manual.

 

http://www.cdiaonline.org/files/PDFs/2006CRRGWholeManual.pdf

 

Scroll down to 4-11, p 54. You will see a payment rating field. 17B

 

It shows thr report codes from 0-L.

 

Here's a quote from Picantel in another thread.

 

 

 

As for 120+ days past due, most creditors charge off accounts after 180 days not 120. The credit bureaus are not reporting the account as 120+ days late because they simple report the information you give them. The "Payment Rating" field, 17B is where, I believe, this field and the portfolio type and possibly account type are used by the CRAs in some formula to display the "open" or "collection" on our reports. This field must contain "G" for collections. Most likely, the CA is reporting it as 0 for "current account" which is where the violation occurs. They may instead be reporting it as 1-6 which indicate 30 through 180+ days past due, also another violation.

 

 

So they are not reporting it a "G" for collections, but rather "0" or "4", this cause a greater impact on your scores.

 

This is the reason that you dont see LVNV reported under "collections". They keep it open, adding lates, which in turn poisions your reports.

 

Hope that makes sense. Just another big break through! And another nail in the coffin.

 

Jack

 

Jack,

 

great research as always.

[x-ray]

Heather Maloney blog

 

http://fedfighter.blogspot.com/search/label/LVNV%20Funding

[jack1212]

Heather Maloney blog

 

http://fedfighter.blogspot.com/search/label/LVNV%20Funding

 

Damn Good find X-ray!!

 

She backs up each and every claim we made here. Geez, theres a box FULL of ammo in this thread.

FIGHT PEOPLE!!!!

[jack1212]

Interesting: (credit Bud Hibbs)

 

Consumer Alert! (January 23, 2008) Be advised that LVNV Funding, through Wolpoff & Abramson are filing suits on ‘time barred debts.’ Their collectors are telling consumers that a minimum payment (usually from $20-$50) was made, which restarted the statutes. The portfolio they are using dates back to the 90s, which means a LOT of debts are too old to be sued on. Be careful NOT to fall for this scam, it is an illegal method to take monies they may not be entitled to, especially for Texas residents. Contact us for assistance and referral to a local consumer law professional.

 

Well, well, well, they had put a payment on mine!

Edited January 29, 2008 by jack1212

[collins135]

So in my ITS letter dont even mention validation? Just slam them on their violations and demand the account be deleted? Bring up their coding error, etc?

 

This is what my ITS said and that is when they finally deleted for me.

 

Jack is a little more obsessed than I was. I just wanted a delete. Jack is building a slam dunk case.

 

So it depends on what your goals are.

 

If you just want a delete, i suggest slamming them on violations in an ITS after you have done your homework.

[jack1212]

So in my ITS letter dont even mention validation? Just slam them on their violations and demand the account be deleted? Bring up their coding error, etc?

 

This is what my ITS said and that is when they finally deleted for me.

 

Jack is a little more obsessed than I was. I just wanted a delete. Jack is building a slam dunk case.

 

So it depends on what your goals are.

 

If you just want a delete, i suggest slamming them on violations in an ITS after you have done your homework.

 

Yep. All they have to fall back on, is DV. No matter what the true nature of the account is.

 

I repeatly asked for "why are you reporting this way", and please explain this. I even asked for the contact info for the affidavit creator. What was the response?

 

This Debt has been validated.

 

They didnt go anywhere NEAR the other questions. Now my BBB complaint is deemed frivolous and without merit, by LVNV.

 

Thats how they are in good standing with the BBB, and have almost 500 complalints. It gets administratvely closed.

 

Plus i get the feeling the "got each others backs" so to speak.

[collins135]

So in my ITS letter dont even mention validation? Just slam them on their violations and demand the account be deleted? Bring up their coding error, etc?

 

This is what my ITS said and that is when they finally deleted for me.

 

Jack is a little more obsessed than I was. I just wanted a delete. Jack is building a slam dunk case.

 

So it depends on what your goals are.

 

If you just want a delete, i suggest slamming them on violations in an ITS after you have done your homework.

 

Yep. All they have to fall back on, is DV. No matter what the true nature of the account is.

 

I repeatly asked for "why are you reporting this way", and please explain this. I even asked for the contact info for the affidavit creator. What was the response?

 

This Debt has been validated.

 

They didnt go anywhere NEAR the other questions. Now my BBB complaint is deemed frivolous and without merit, by LVNV.

 

Thats how they are in good standing with the BBB, and have almost 500 complalints. It gets administratvely closed.

 

Plus i get the feeling the "got each others backs" so to speak.

 

jack, you do not know how much i want you to take them to court and tell them how frivoulus they are!

 

[jack1212]

Well now they hung themselves. (again.) I have not mentioned this until now.

 

In one of the responses from the BBB, i got the following....

 

My name, my address, my case number at the top.

 

The response from LVNV was for SOMEONE ELSE! It addressed a different issue.

 

They "filled in the blanks" and placed Jack in certain parts of the letter.

 

They later sent the correct one, and advised me to disregard the other as it was not intended for me.

 

The best part, the phrases in both my, and the other debtors reponse, were generic.

 

This is a classic case of not even investigating.

 

 

I feel a great summer vacation coming on. Even if this part didnt happen.

[Lars87]

Just stumbled across this thread after a long CB hiatus. Thanks to Jack1212 for posting a fantastic resource. I wish this was available two years ago.

 

If I could throw in my two cents, when you're dealing with a rogue CA with little regard for your rights, it's very important to keep an immaculate paper trail of your efforts, especially if you're going to consider litigation. Getting deletion is hard enough, going that extra step requires a lot of work. Make sure you know your rights under FDCPA, FCRA, and any applicable state laws.

 

Abusive CAs can be beaten, this board is filled with stories -- it's just that some companies are a little more tenacious than others!

[jack1212]

Amen bro.

 

I have done more homework with this one account than i EVER did in school.

 

But in the end, it will all be worth it.

[propeller27]

I need to send a DV letter to LVNV for the first time. Any advice on what should I write for that first contact?

[jack1212]

A special thanks to Sunshine76 for inspiring me to come up with this DV letter.

 

 

If i had it to do all over again, id do this.

 

 

Dear LVNV,

 

I am requesting Validation on this account. Be advised it is within the 30 day time period. Here is what i DONT want you to send me.

 

1. An Affidavit from your company, unless the creator wants to go to court with me.

 

2. A quote from the chaudhry case.

 

3. Your stupid Credit card settlement scam.

 

4. That you are a creditor.

 

5. Dont tell me you are a "debt purchaser" and not a collection agency.

 

6. Dont tell me you cant change what you report.

 

 

 

Thanks in advance!!!

 

Jack

[jack1212]

Here are some generic letters you will get when filing complaints. If anyone finds these familiar, jump in.

This is where i asked about data factoring and installment.

 

 

 

Re: Jack, Case No. 123456

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

This letter is in response to your recent correspondence dated

march 30, 2007. This account was purchased from HSBC on June

23rd, 2004. Jack is correct in that LVNV Funding, LLC

(“LVNVâ€) is not the credit grantor of this account. However,

LVNV purchased this account from the original creditor and all

rights to collect were transferred at that time. Therefore, this

account is being reported to the three major consumer reporting

agencies in accordance with the FCRA.

 

Per the CDIA (Consumer Data Industry Association) Metro 2 manual,

factoring company is defined as “a company or individual who

purchases accounts with the intent of collecting debts owed.â€

Therefore, it is accurate in this situation.

This is where i asked what makes this a data factoring account. Above is how they responded.

 

The statement “installment account†is generally how a revolving

line of credit is defined by the credit bureaus. This comment is

added by the bureaus to further define the account and cannot be

altered. (BS Alert)

 

In accordance with the FCRA, this account is being reported as

disputed to the three major consumer reporting agencies. If you

have any questions or concerns, please contact the Law Office of

Weltman, Weinberg, and Reis at 800-xxx.xxx

 

Sincerely,

 

Compliance Department

Resurgent Capital Services, LP

 

 

 

Here's an issue that was sent to me by mistake. It had my name filled in. I was later told to disreguard it.

 

COMPANY'S RESPONSE:

 

Response:

 

Jack makes an incorrect reference to the legal term "Volenti

Non Fit Injuria". This term holds that a person who knowingly

and willingly puts himself in a dangerous situation cannot sue

for any resulting injuries. LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV") has not

put itself in a "dangerous" situation and has not brought any

harm to itself by purchasing a contract of obligation from the

original creditor. The transfer of Jacks contract to LVNV

is a standard transaction process concerning the collection of

debt. The obligation to pay has merely been transferred to

another party. The amount a creditor purchases an account for is

irrelevant to the agreement a consumer has made with a creditor

for the exchange of goods, services, or credit extended on the

consumer's behalf. The obligation of a consumer to pay a debt

incurred by or established on his or her behalf is not altered by

the transfer of the debt to another creditor. The contract alone

is a legally binding instrument used to confirm an agreement of

obligation. This fact is not being disputed by Jack.

Therefore, we consider the subsequent rebuttals frivolous and

without merit. Jack may contact our Customer Service

department at any time to discuss repayment options

 

RE Payment, WTF?

 

 

Here's when they know they are screwed and start to back off.

 

Linda,

 

We have thoroughly reviewed and responded to the allegations presented

by

Jack multiple times. Not only has this debt been validated, but

applications and statements have been provided, which is not required

by the

FDCPA. Jack has quoted one case in which a court decided against

LVNV

Funding, LLC ("LVNV"). LVNV has not changed its position concerning

what

type of entity it is and currently conducts itself as a creditor and

not a

collection agency. Jack has yet to deny owing this debts or to

contact

our office for repayment. Yet, we continue to receive and respond to

rebuttals concerning alleged credit reporting violations. If Jack

truly believes his character is being defamed by the reporting of a

legitimate debt he has the same right of any consumer to seek legal

counsel.

At this point, the debt has been more than sufficiently validated and

we

maintain the account is reporting correctly. Therefore, we consider

any

subsequent rebuttals frivolous and without merit. Jack may

contact our

Customer Service department at any time for repayment options.

 

Compliance Specialist

Resurgent Capital Services, LP

 

Now that you know how they respond, you'll be another step ahead.

[propeller27]

Hey Jack,

 

I got a new one for you. LNVN has started posting on some months as OK on my report with all the others as CO (even one month as Foreclosure/Reposession ??!!). It seems ther eis always a new surprie from them. Appears in some reports as one month and in another as 2 Oks. I figure this is done to imply a payment was made? What do you think of this?

[jack1212]

Is it on the hard copy reports? Look at your OFFICIAL equifax report.

 

It lists "Date of last Payment". You'll find your answer there.

[propeller27]

Date of payment is blank on EQ. I was just wondering what would be their intention in posting some months as OK/current, then CO, then RF (Foreclosure/Reposession). Just seems so odd.

[jack1212]

are you seeing this info online, (fako sites) or on an official hard copy?