Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
JusChopnitup

Please Help!!! Sprint Statute of Limitiations

Recommended Posts

Hello CBer's

I need advice on dealing with a CA on an old Sprint bill. The accounts first date of delinquency was 2014. I recently disputed with CA (Convergent Outsourcing) stating that the debt was past the SOL which is 3 years in the State of Maryland. They listed the account as being opened on Dec 2016 which is actually 3 years after it was originally opened. They responded to my SOL letter from "Why Chat's Credit Confusion" saying the debt was valid as well as enclosed a bill dated Jan 31, 2015. Should I dispute and asked debt be removed (due to being obsolete) with Experian and Equifax and include what Convergent sent me?

 

Any help or suggestion is greatly appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An entity that is collecting on an account will list the date it was opened IN THEIR OFFICE.  This is NOT re-aging. 

 

Being beyond the SOL for maintaining a successful action in litigation does not preclude the reporting of a matter on the four major bureaus. 

 

Better guidance may be available when you list how the matter reports on the paper copies obtained from each of the four bureaus.  DO NOT take actions from an online credit report, even if it is sourced directly from a bureau's website. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the immediate reply!

On my Experian paper report, the CA reports it as Date Opened- Dec2016, OC - Sprint, Account Status - Closed,

Status Updated - Dec2016, Original Balance - $257, Payment history dated back only to 2018 (although no pymts made since 2014)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the DOFD was 2014, it won't fall off until 2021.

 

SOL for litigation is different from the reporting SOL, which is 7.5 years everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JusChopnitup said:

Got it! I'll see if the CA will settle for less and take a pay for delete at this point.

Thank you!

If you had a legitimate basis upon which to have disputed the claim, then another option would be to have utilized your Public Utilities Commission (or similar agency regulating utilities in your jurisdiction).  But this, as with ALL *good* disputes, necessitates drafting a letter specific to YOUR situation and NOT looking for some cut and paste letter to send in. 

 

Have you confirmed that the account was, in fact, sold?  If you can access the original creditor's online payment page, then you gain some other options going that route...no discount though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a federal statute of limitations on cellular carrier debt of 2 years.  This is different from the reporting SOL for the credit reporting agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 4:41 PM, centex said:

If you had a legitimate basis upon which to have disputed the claim, then another option would be to have utilized your Public Utilities Commission (or similar agency regulating utilities in your jurisdiction).  But this, as with ALL *good* disputes, necessitates drafting a letter specific to YOUR situation and NOT looking for some cut and paste letter to send in. 

 

Have you confirmed that the account was, in fact, sold?  If you can access the original creditor's online payment page, then you gain some other options going that route...no discount though. 

The account was originally Sprint and then sold to Convergent Outsourcing who as a result report it as a late payment every month but it doesnt report like a "30 or 60 Day late". I was just under the impression I could dispute it since the original account with Sprint defaulted back in 2014. I will definitely look into the Public Utilities Commission and drafting a letter specific to my case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the MD PUC web site:

(It appears that they do not get involved with billing disputes, collections, or credit reporting)

 

The Commission is empowered to hear and decide matters relating to: (1) rate adjustments; (2) applications to exercise or abandon franchises; (3) applications to modify the type or scope of service; (4) approval of issuance of securities; (5) promulgation of new rules and regulations; and (6) quality of utility and common carrier service. The Commission has the authority to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in connection with an electric utility’s application to construct or modify a new generating station or high-voltage transmission lines.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 6:41 AM, legaleagle2012 said:

From the MD PUC web site:

(It appears that they do not get involved with billing disputes, collections, or credit reporting)

 

The Commission is empowered to hear and decide matters relating to: (1) rate adjustments; (2) applications to exercise or abandon franchises; (3) applications to modify the type or scope of service; (4) approval of issuance of securities; (5) promulgation of new rules and regulations; and (6) quality of utility and common carrier service. The Commission has the authority to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in connection with an electric utility’s application to construct or modify a new generating station or high-voltage transmission lines.

Someone that cannot take the time to find a manner of rule that covers the issue isn't trying...I would all but bet the ranch that there is an element of Rules and Regulations as well as quality of service that can be raised...but it take the time of a consumer being interested enough to spend the few hours of time to research the guidelines applicable to their State. 

 

Again, NO entity wants their practices subject to a hearing because it WOULD NOT be limited in scope to just the consumer filing the complaint. 

 

But a significant key is being willing to actually research instead of hoping for a cut and paste letter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. A lot of posters expect us to do all their research for them. I found the above  paragraph in less than twenty seconds. Incidentally, it appears under the heading "Telecommunications." In this case, it appears to be a common unpaid bill, so the above is probably what they are going to hear if they go this route. Sprint has arbitration; I used it for leverage when they sent me a $107 bill I did not owe. Cost them a grand to get rid of me, nice consumer that I am. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't collection of the debt time-barred at this point?  There is a universal federal SOL on cell phone debts of two years.  OP should point this out to Convergent and send them a FOAD letter, copying CFPB which is currently proposing a federal regulation about attempts to collect on time-barred debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burdell said:

Isn't collection of the debt time-barred at this point?  There is a universal federal SOL on cell phone debts of two years.  OP should point this out to Convergent and send them a FOAD letter, copying CFPB which is currently proposing a federal regulation about attempts to collect on time-barred debts.

 

The SOL virtually never bars them from attempting to collect.  They can try to collect for a million years.  What the SOL does do is somewhat prevent them from suing you.  

 

All you can do is tell the CA to, as you suggest, FOAD.  Then they could push the debt to a new CA and the fun starts all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PotO said:

All you can do is tell the CA to, as you suggest, FOAD.  Then they could push the debt to a new CA and the fun starts all over again.

This IS, however, one of the many reasons I always suggest that people provide a detailed basis FOR their dispute.  It won't preclude the movement of the paper to some other sucker, but it allows one to point out that it is continued collection activity while an active dispute had been in process.  The subsequent entity will then quickly close their books in most instances...

 

Some who maintain websites and claim that they have a process that one should not deviate from overlook this when they poo-poo the notion of specificity in a dispute...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, legaleagle2012 said:

I seem to remember that in some circuits, a cease and desist etc. maintains its status if the debt is given to a different CA.

Which does nothing to preclude the new entity from reporting.  A well-written dispute tailored to the individual situation, however, gives the ammunition to demonstrate they bought the proverbial hog.  That IS ammunition if the matter were to report. 

 

Again...there IS a reason for specificity, no matter how much the advocates of generic 'templates' and form letters might rail against it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




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