Midland FOAD Response

[david_weaver]

Had a collection with Midland pop up for an old Orchard Bank card. Account was outside SOL, sent FOAD letter.

 

Below is the response I received:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Dear David,

The purpose of this letter is to advise you that you did not provide sufficient information to investigate your dispute of the credit reporting of your above-referenced account pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

 

We understand you are disputing the accuracy of our records concerning the above referenced account. After reviewing the information you provided, as well our own account notes, and information provided by the previous creditor, we are unable to determine the nature of your dispute, and consequently deny that our records are incorrect.

 

In order to further investigate your dispute, we need additional information to help verify the basis of your dispute. Including a complete explanation of your dispute would be helpful. Further, copies of any documentation you may have to support your dispute. In the interim, we have requested that the three major credit bureaus change the status of this account to “Disputed”.

 

Examples of documentation we need or which would be helpful include the following:

 

Paid in Full or Account Settled: a) a copy of the front and back of payment instrument with copy of settlement offer or statement showing balance and account number; a copy of the paid in full or settlement letter showing account number.

 

Fraud or Identity Theft: a) a copy of a police report; Federal Trade Commission Fraud Affadavit that has been filled out (which can be obtained at www.ftc.gov/idtheft); or c) notarized fraud affidavit.

 

Balance Discrepancy: a) copy of contract that states rates for time frame of disputed service; a copy of bills or statements that show amount owed or rates; c) a more detailed explanation of disputed charges.

 

In the meantime, as requested by you, we will no longer be contacting you regarding this account by phone or mail unless it is to further respond to a dispute by you under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

 

The account may still be reported on your credit report as unpaid.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

So at this point, not sure what to do next. In the past, if one of these pesky ghosts popped up, a good slap always sent them scurrying back into the gutter. This time, Midland did as they said, and updated the listing with the three CRAs.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Thanks,

Dave

 

[MB34]

 

 

In the meantime, as requested by you, we will no longer be contacting you regarding this account by phone or mail unless it is to further respond to a dispute by you under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The account may still be reported on your credit report as unpaid.

I guess that says it all. They won't be contacting you but they will still report it.

[BeachDweller]

You need to offer a bit more information. Tell us more specifics such as the date of first delinquency, general amount of the debt, state where you live, etc. What type of letter did you send them? Did you send a debt validation letter or cease and desist. From their response, they treated it as a debt validation letter; fortunate for you. Did you send them the letter in the first 30 days after receiving your dunning notice?

[david_weaver]

DOFD was 2009, July or August maybe, either way it is over 5 years. It was $700+/-, and with interest and such Midland was claiming $1000. I live in Maine. I sent them a modified version of the FOAD letter from the samples here, but edited to include clarification that although I live in Maine, I lived in Pennsylvania when the SOL expired (4 years).

 

Why would it be fortunate if they treated it as a debt validation?

[MistralsDaughter]

To OP,

 

Could their response be akin to phishing for more info to use against you?

 

Just wondering.

[david_weaver]

Thought that, but not really any point. They can't sue as it is past SOL. They already have a collection listed in my credit reports, so they have access to any information about me contained there. And they are agreeing not to contact me anymore except to respond to any future disputes.

 

Perhaps one of the members more up on the law could advise:

 

Is it my responsibility to prove affirmatively that the account was paid, or is it their responsibility to prove not only that is was NOT paid, but that they are legally the entity to whom the debt is now due?

[mk_378]

The latter. Burden of proof is on them.

 

FOAD is typically for accounts more than 7 years past DOFD-- it can't be reported even if valid, so they can just f off. For accounts older than SOL but still within 7 years you would usually use a DV + limited C&D strategy to get deletion on the basis of un-validatable.

Edited October 22, 2014 by mk_378

[david_weaver]

Got it. Thanks!

[BeachDweller]

Did you respond within 30 days of their initial dunning letter? It's important since they seemed to take your response as a dispute. When did you receive their initial communication?

[david_weaver]

Yes, it was within 30 days. It seems their response was to say they have no idea what I am talking about, but I could help them tremendously by doing their job for them, if I would be so kind.

 

So BeachDweller, what do you suggest as the next move, if any?

[legaleagle2012]

you did not provide sufficient information to investigate your dispute of the credit reporting of your above-referenced account

 

It is clear they are treating this as a credit reporting issue, not debt validation. The SOL for reporting is not up, it's 7 years no matter where you live. The SOL for suing would be up if your dates are accurate. If they threaten to sue or actually sue, it's an FDCPA violation. Here is a case from our Circuit, take a look, it will give you all the info you'll need if they do the above.

 

Goins v. JBC & ASSOCIATES, PC, 352 F. Supp. 2d 262 - Dist. Court D Connecticut

[david_weaver]

So yesterday I receive a letter in the mail from Midland. Now, keep in mind, yesterday was November 4th. The letter is dated October 22nd. No idea why it would take two weeks to reach me?

 

They ask for MY assistance in helping THEM to resolve my dispute made to the credit bureaus.They list some details of the account such as open date and last 4 of SS#. They ask that I please provide more specifics on the nature of my dispute so we can work together to reach a solution.

 

They again recite their pledge that per my request, they will no longer contact me by phone or mail except as relates to a dispute under FCRA.

 

That is followed by the verbiage that this is communication from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt.

 

So my question is: do I respond? If so, do I provide a list of reasons for my dispute (already provided to CRAs), or is this their issue to work out? In other words, if all the CRAs sent them were a few e-Oscar codes, is that their issue or mine? Or do I respond and tell them that it is between them and the CRAs to work out, and they need to verify to the CRAs they are reporting correctly.

[ManofB]

So yesterday I receive a letter in the mail from Midland. Now, keep in mind, yesterday was November 4th. The letter is dated October 22nd. No idea why it would take two weeks to reach me?

 

They ask for MY assistance in helping THEM to resolve my dispute made to the credit bureaus.They list some details of the account such as open date and last 4 of SS#. They ask that I please provide more specifics on the nature of my dispute so we can work together to reach a solution.

 

They again recite their pledge that per my request, they will no longer contact me by phone or mail except as relates to a dispute under FCRA.

 

That is followed by the verbiage that this is communication from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt.

 

So my question is: do I respond? If so, do I provide a list of reasons for my dispute (already provided to CRAs), or is this their issue to work out? In other words, if all the CRAs sent them were a few e-Oscar codes, is that their issue or mine? Or do I respond and tell them that it is between them and the CRAs to work out, and they need to verify to the CRAs they are reporting correctly.

 

File a CFPB complaint and upload their letter. They clearly dont have anything substantial to validate. They'll tuck tail and go away

Edited November 5, 2014 by ManofB

[ICANHASMUNY?]

So yesterday I receive a letter in the mail from Midland. Now, keep in mind, yesterday was November 4th. The letter is dated October 22nd. No idea why it would take two weeks to reach me?

 

They ask for MY assistance in helping THEM to resolve my dispute made to the credit bureaus.They list some details of the account such as open date and last 4 of SS#. They ask that I please provide more specifics on the nature of my dispute so we can work together to reach a solution.

 

They again recite their pledge that per my request, they will no longer contact me by phone or mail except as relates to a dispute under FCRA.

 

That is followed by the verbiage that this is communication from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt.

 

So my question is: do I respond? If so, do I provide a list of reasons for my dispute (already provided to CRAs), or is this their issue to work out? In other words, if all the CRAs sent them were a few e-Oscar codes, is that their issue or mine? Or do I respond and tell them that it is between them and the CRAs to work out, and they need to verify to the CRAs they are reporting correctly.

 

the CRA should have sent them your letter ; send those reasons again to midland.

[JunkBuyersWorstNightmare]

To OP,

 

Could their response be akin to phishing for more info to use against you?

 

Just wondering.

 

 

Of course. They're trying to get the OP to do their job for them.

[funkiehouse]

Typical Midland BS. Don't provide anything to them.

 

You can try this letter if you like it. Feel free to modify.

 

*************

 

Their address

 

Your address

 

Date:

 

Re:

 

CMMR #:

 

I'm writing you in response to your letter dated _____. Your correspondence did nothing to provide me with any proof or validation that I owe the alleged debt you are claiming I owe. You also failed to provide any documentation that proves I owe this debt; show that any personal, non-generic identifiers link me to this debt; and that this debt is within (INSERT STATE HERE)’s Statute of Limitations for collection.

 

Since you have failed to validate this debt, I am demanding that you cease and desist your collection attempts, including reporting this alleged debt on my consumer file(s). Be advised that continuing to report this alleged debt in my consumer file(s) is an act, in itself, to collect a debt. Continued attempts at collecting a debt that you have failed to properly validate is a violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and continuing to report incorrect information in my consumer file, after you have been notified that it is incorrect, is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

 

Failure to remove this incorrect information from my credit reports, will prompt me to take whatever actions I deem necessary to clear my good name and my credit record. Since you are a furnisher of information on my consumer file, it is your responsibility, not mine, to ensure that what you are reporting is valid and correct. Your immediate action is required in this matter and I will be monitoring my consumer file(s) to ensure your compliance with federal law.

 

(do not sign)

 

Your name

[david_weaver]

Well, this is an odd one. Typically when an issue arises, and advice is solicited, there is a consensus of the path forward. As I already screwed up a little with the first letter I sent them, I would prefer if someone could offer clarification.

 

The three suggestions so far are:

 

1) To comply with Midland's request for more information and send them a detailed list of the inaccuracies/disputes I previously submitted to the CRAs.

2) To file a CFPB complaint (with Midland's own letter as evidence) that they are unable and/or unwilling to validate.

3) To send a cease and desist letter to Midland based on their failure to validate.

 

No offense intended to Funkiehouse or ManofB, but absent a consensus, I would have to take ICAN's advice as she is the ace.

[ManofB]

No offense would be taken, I was just sharing what worked for me when they pulled that crap. ICANs advice has never steered me wrong, she really is the ace

[ICANHASMUNY?]

Well, this is an odd one. Typically when an issue arises, and advice is solicited, there is a consensus of the path forward. As I already screwed up a little with the first letter I sent them, I would prefer if someone could offer clarification.

 

The three suggestions so far are:

 

1) To comply with Midland's request for more information and send them a detailed list of the inaccuracies/disputes I previously submitted to the CRAs.

2) To file a CFPB complaint (with Midland's own letter as evidence) that they are unable and/or unwilling to validate.

3) To send a cease and desist letter to Midland based on their failure to validate.

 

No offense intended to Funkiehouse or ManofB, but absent a consensus, I would have to take ICAN's advice as she is the ace

 

 

 

 

 

What letter did you send in the first place?

[david_weaver]

It was the FOAD letter in the samples, modified slightly to explain that although I currently live in Maine, I lived in Pennsylvania through the expiration of the SOL for suing.

 

I know now that was the wrong one to send, but it seems they treated it more like a dispute than a FOAD.

[ICANHASMUNY?]

sounds like they are just responding with form letters.

[funkiehouse]

 

No offense intended to Funkiehouse or ManofB, but absent a consensus, I would have to take ICAN's advice as she is the ace.

 

Don't even worry about this. Everyone has accomplished success in different ways and by combining different methods. You can certainly send Midland another letter explaining what your disputing as ICAN mentioned. The thing with credit repair is that its sometimes very hard to know what will actually be the thing that gets a company to act in your favor, outside of catching them doing something illegal. A lot of it also depends on what each person here is comfortable handling on their own. We have all come here looking for the perfect answer to our credit issues and sometimes there are several answers and sometimes no clear answer. There's so many variables to sort through for each person's credit issues. I never take offense to anyone correcting me or making a better suggestion because I learn from that and so do future readers.

 

As far as midland, I have dealt with them myself, and read a lot about them. They usually fold after the second letter unless your debt is huge and they think they have a chance getting their hand in your pocket. It seems like they get the hint after the second letter and learn that you are going to be a PITA. They have many others to go after that have know idea on how to deal with them. You are past SOL with them so you have more wiggle room for mistakes than if you were not past SOL. Just don't do anything to reage the debt. I personally think they don't even read our letters. They just look for keys words and use a form letter to respond.