CA malicious reporting to CRA

[screwedbysears]

I will take no prisioners :twisted:

 

I had a CA going after me for a medical debt. I did the Why Chat HIPPA letter and I sent the payment to the OC and they cashed it. I also had them on very specific HIPPA violations (they had sent medical info for my kid and a medical bill IIBK) I looked on PG today and this is how CA reported it on EXP. Up to this time it was never reported on any of the CRA reports

XXXX12345

Acct Type: Collection Department / Agency / Attorney

Acct Status: Closed

Monthly Payment: $0

Date Open: May, 2004

Balance: $0

Terms: Unknown

High Balance: N/A

Limit: N/A

Past Due: $0

Remarks: Account in dispute-reported by subscriber

Payment Status: No status

 

Now this didn't do anything to my scores thank goodness (FAKO) who knows on FICO. But they did this, just be jerks.But I say they can't do this since I don't owe them anything I also sent them the same letter that I sent the OC they can't say we didn't know by the fact the way they reported it. It shows they did this just to spite me.

I will not settle just for deletion I will settle for $500.00 and deletion

Do I have a case?.

[Jasper]

I have the exact same thing going on! They changed the listing to look just like yours w/o the account number. I contacted the Med provider's legal department and they said "Well pal, go ahead a file your HIPAA complaint. When Hell freezes over and they get around to looking at your little complaint maybe we'll just tell them that we're sorry and thought we were in compliance." And then he hung up.

 

I guess we're going to have to figure out a better way to squeeze these guys.

[SassyinAz]

You've got nothing but a Hipaa violation, Screwed, that you have no cause of action for -- file the complaint anyway. They're allowed to report accurate information (paid collection), you never disputed the validity with the CA and now they don't have to provide it.

 

Previous thread, saying the same:

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...=42475&start=15

 

Sassy

 

EDITED to correct link

[LKH]

I have the exact same thing going on! They changed the listing to look just like yours w/o the account number. I contacted the Med provider's legal department and they said "Well pal, go ahead a file your HIPAA complaint. When Hell freezes over and they get around to looking at your little complaint maybe we'll just tell them that we're sorry and thought we were in compliance." And then he hung up.

 

I guess we're going to have to figure out a better way to squeeze these guys.

 

You should find out if recording phone calls is legal in your state without advising the other party. Look in the consumer protection forum here. If so, get yourself a recorder, call the flowers back at the providers office, and tell him you wanted to discuss it once more. Try and get him to repeat that, then tell him you have it on tape and his goose is cooked unless they take immediate care of this. IF he doesn't believe you, play it for him.

[screwedbysears]

But it doesn't say Paid collection!! In other words what reason do they have to put that on there.How is zero accurate What proof do they have that they ever owned it could there be a FDCPA violation.

Just doesn't seem right I could understand if they reported it as being owed and then changing it but it was never reported until after I paid the OC.

XXXX12345

Acct Type: Collection Department / Agency / Attorney

Acct Status: Closed

Monthly Payment: $0

Date Open: May, 2004

Balance: $0

Terms: Unknown

High Balance: N/A

Limit: N/A

Past Due: $0

Remarks: Account in dispute-reported by subscriber

Payment Status: No status

Who is the subscriber? the OC or the CA

The account is not in dispute.

ITS JUST FREAKING THERE Huuuuh :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[Why Chat]

I will take no prisioners :twisted:

 

I had a CA going after me for a medical debt. I did the Why Chat HIPPA letter and I sent the payment to the OC and they cashed it. I also had them on very specific HIPPA violations (they had sent medical info for my kid and a medical bill IIBK) I looked on PG today and this is how CA reported it on EXP. Up to this time it was never reported on any of the CRA reports

XXXX12345

Acct Type: Collection Department / Agency / Attorney

Acct Status: Closed

Monthly Payment: $0

Date Open: May, 2004

Balance: $0

Terms: Unknown

High Balance: N/A

Limit: N/A

Past Due: $0

Remarks: Account in dispute-reported by subscriber

Payment Status: No status

 

Now this didn't do anything to my scores thank goodness (FAKO) who knows on FICO. But they did this, just be jerks.But I say they can't do this since I don't owe them anything I also sent them the same letter that I sent the OC they can't say we didn't know by the fact the way they reported it. It shows they did this just to spite me.

I will not settle just for deletion I will settle for $500.00 and deletion

Do I have a case?.

 

Have you redisputed this with the CRA using the CRA follow up dispute letter?

 

I am not as knowledgeable as most about "scores", but it seems to me you obtained a "neutral" report, that apparently doesn't even indicate it is, or was, a medical collection.

 

The OC got paid what was owed, the CA got ZILCH, the only possible effect (as far as I know) that this account can have on your score is the age of the account.

 

As to the salamander at the OC billing office, well-- you can still file your HIPAA complaint, and include his/her remarks in your complaint.

 

However,in my opinion,they aren't in violation, as the account is not identified as a medical account, the fact that it is NOT identified as a medical account, when it fact it WAS, is, in my opinion, an FCRA violation on the part of whomever is reporting it.

 

So, if you are going to file suit against anyone, it would be the CA and the OC who authorized their agent to misreport so they could avoid a HIPAA violation.( in fact, it may have been the "bright idea" of someone at the OC to direct the CA to omit the "medical collection" designation to avoid the HIPAA violation, perhaps even the person who dissed you)

 

An FCRA violation, in this case would be easily proven wit the paper trail you have, and if you wanted to get nasty, you could cerainly claim WILLFUL and DELIBERATE misreporting.

[screwedbysears]

Thanks why chat I only got on for a second before heading out I will digest your post later to night could you provide a link to the letter. Thanks SBS

[LKH]

Screwed, I'm gonna say something that you aren't going to like. But before you paid this, you were given different opinions. You dismissed other opinions and went with the one that you decided you liked the answer to. It's apparent you've done NO research on your own into this. did you even consider what Sassy had to say or give it a 2nd thought? It sure looks like what she said would happen, did.

 

Maybe this time, and I'm not discounting Why Chat at all, but maybe you should research all the opinions you get instead of going with the one whose response you like the best. You went with it because you thought it sounded better. It was the answer you wanted to hear. And just because you thought it sounded better, obviously you now know it doesn't mean it will work out that way.

[Why Chat]

I guess I just don't understand the problem here.

 

Asde from "wanting to sue", exactly WHAT is the problem?

 

A CRA is required to only have accurate information, the account as reported has NO INFORMATION AT ALL!!

 

Just dispute it to the CRA as no such unidentified account with the unidentified creditor for an unidentified amount.

 

As to not getting the desired results from using the HIPAA letter, he had been threatened with having the account put on his report as a medical collection account, which would have hurt his credit, what is on the report certainly can not be considered to be harmful, can it? If he HAD paid the CA, they COULD have legally posted it as a paid medical collection account for xx $$, which certainly would be considered derogatory.

 

I try to design programs to improve ones credit, not to have grounds to sue for violations.

[LKH]

I guess I just don't understand the problem here.

 

Asde from "wanting to sue", exactly WHAT is the problem?

 

A CRA is required to only have accurate information, the account as reported has NO INFORMATION AT ALL!!

 

Just dispute it to the CRA as no such unidentified account with the unidentified creditor for an unidentified amount.

 

As to not getting the desired results from using the HIPAA letter, he had been threatened with having the account put on his report as a medical collection account, which would have hurt his credit, what is on the report certainly can not be considered to be harmful, can it? If he HAD paid the CA, they COULD have legally posted it as a paid medical collection account for xx $$, which certainly would be considered derogatory.

 

I try to design programs to improve ones credit, not to have grounds to sue for violations.

 

I think it can be considered harmful to his report.

While maybe being a "neutral" account per PG, which means nothing, any potential seeing the tradeline listed with just that first line

 

Acct Type: Collection Department / Agency / Attorney

 

Will see it is a collection acct. And even if it doesn't hurt his real scores, it will hurt when an underwriter wants to know what happened with that acct.

[SassyinAz]

So, if you are going to file suit against anyone, it would be the CA and the OC who authorized their agent to misreport so they could avoid a HIPAA violation.( in fact, it may have been the "bright idea" of someone at the OC to direct the CA to omit the "medical collection" designation to avoid the HIPAA violation, perhaps even the person who dissed you)

No, the new FACTA laws, now effective for medical information prohibits the reporting of identifying medical information.

 

An FCRA violation, in this case would be easily proven wit the paper trail you have, and if you wanted to get nasty, you could cerainly claim WILLFUL and DELIBERATE misreporting.

No, because under the FCRA for there to be a reporting violation of the furnisher it has to be triggered by a dispute initiated through the CRA's -- a consumer has to trigger the investigation.

 

As previously stated, section 623(a) as cited in your letter is not enforceable by a consumer and everything hinges on there having been an investigation and the information being inaccurate.

 

Screwed, under the FDCPA there doesn't have to be ownership and it doesn't matter anyway you didn't trigger the validation requirements -- now moot.

 

The CA is the subscriber.

 

It is showing as a collection account with a zero balance -- what is that? a paid collection.

 

TY TY LKH!!!!!!!!

 

Sassy

[screwedbysears]

LKH please refresh my memory on the other options that I had. What I do know is that this was about to go on my CR within a week if I didn't either pay the CA which I didn't want to do they where real jerks to me as most are .{Yes this was my choice) or I could pay the OC and get at least a nuetral TL .hopefully thats the case. Sorry if I came off like a baby if thats the impression that I gave. In a way this all a game, someone trying to beat the other person. No one likes to get beat even me and I feel that they got one up on me. I do want to everyone to know I do apprecite all the info that I get from the boards.

Can I come out of the corner now

Well I have calmed down now and to me honest I do have bigger fish to fry so I'll let this stew for a while and in a week or so maybe just dispute as not mine or something .

Thanks guys.

[SassyinAz]

Screwed,

 

Both you and WhyChat should re-read the related thread previously linked.

 

The Hipaa letter isn't designed to get you a "neutral" TL nor does it have anything to do with scores, it is supposed to get you deletion -- see the instructions at WhyChat's website.

 

In fact, you said, I hope they report so I can nail them -- which is what started the discussion, there is nothing to go after based on the Hipaa series, only the Hipaa violation if there is one, which a consumer can't enforce. The FCRA violations cited in the Hipaa letter aren't enforceable by a consumer and aren't violations at all if not triggered through the disputing mechanism -- which is the point.

 

There is nothing "neutral" about the TL that is reporting, a collection TL is always negative. It is only not hurting your score, at this moment, because of the "dispute" notation triggering the "no-status." Once the no status is removed, there will be a corresponding score drop.

 

Sassy

[Flurry]

CA did same thing to me, I finally sent everything to the ceo of the hospital and showed they cashed the check and he called up the ca had them take it off and mailed me saying sorry.

[screwedbysears]

Sassy as I humble myself if you were me at this point in the game what would you do?

[SassyinAz]

You don't need to humble yourself to me but I've been thinking, based on Flurry's post, you may want to humble yourself to the doctor.

 

If you dispute with the CRA's now, they'll remove that "no status" -- don't want that.

 

If you file a Hipaa complaint now, you're going to lemonade off the doctor -- don't want that, that's the best chance of getting it deleted.

 

This is the related thread, wrong one above (links to this one, he he he):

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...=42475&start=15

 

The last thing you said was that you thought the OC was going to take care of it, truly I believe the doctors aren't the ones that want to keep you paying by ruining your credit, they only want their money.

 

What if you wrote to them saying, you cashed my check with the understanding that it wouldn't be reported, the CA on whatever date, despite my payment in good faith and with that understanding, reported it anyway. Can you please intervene and request them to remove the information. Tell them you are sorry it was late, thought it was included in BK, whatever, so they think not paying was a misunderstanding that you shouldn't continue to be punished for by the reporting. Also that you want to maintain a good relationship with them should you require their services in the future.

 

Sassy

[screwedbysears]

Ill try that Sassy thanks a bunch.Good night!

[SassyinAz]

:shock: Screwed,

 

Solicit more input, see what LKH and WhyChat have to say before deciding, anyone else with similar experiences too -- the more input, the better advice for you, always. That will keep you out of these tight-spots.

 

Keep bumping until you feel you've enough input to make a decision.

 

So, here's your goodnight (thank you) bump!!!!!!!

 

Sassy

[TeeSharice]

*Note*

 

This is the ONLY reason your scores weren't affected:

 

Remarks: Account in dispute-reported by subscriber

As soon as the CA takes this notation off, ya scores WILL drop.

 

 

Do I have a case?.

NOPE

[pryan67]

You've got nothing but a Hipaa violation, Screwed, that you have no cause of action for -- file the complaint anyway.  They're allowed to report accurate information (paid collection), you never disputed the validity with the CA and now they don't have to provide it.

 

Previous thread, saying the same:

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...=42475&start=15

 

Sassy

 

EDITED to correct link

 

It is NOT accurate...OP did NOT pay the CA...they paid the OC....therefore, it IS inaccurate...

[mel130ny]

Quick question - if you go around the CA and pay the OC directly is there a 'good' chance that the CA TL will get removed since you PAID the original creditor first? The reason I am asking, my husband is debating on whether to pay the OC (dentist) for a CA account because his dental insurance won't cover part of the bill (under $100). The CA - Divisified in TX has the TL on the CRs. I wrote two letters out (both will pay for deletion) - who should we send it to - the Dentist or the CA?

 

Thanks!

[LKH]

You've got nothing but a Hipaa violation, Screwed, that you have no cause of action for -- file the complaint anyway.  They're allowed to report accurate information (paid collection), you never disputed the validity with the CA and now they don't have to provide it.

 

Previous thread, saying the same:

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...=42475&start=15

 

Sassy

 

EDITED to correct link

 

It is NOT accurate...OP did NOT pay the CA...they paid the OC....therefore, it IS inaccurate...

 

The oc send the acct to a ca. Just because the OP sent the check to the oc who accepted it, doesn't mean it wasn't a collection account in the hands of a ca. Sending the payment to anyone other than the ca who is attempting to collect, doesn't mean there wasn't a collection account that is now paid.

 

The oc may have forwarded the payment to the ca who then deposited it. Not that it makes any difference, but it could have happened that way. I disagree that it is inaccurate. It most certainly is not.

[screwedbysears]

The oc didn't not send the check to the CA I wrote on the back for deposite only to the account of the OC.

So now we have a debate weither it is accurette to post as paid or not. here is the problem my TL doesn't say who the OC is, so as it is right now it looks like the CA is the only one on the account and it was paid to them since there is no OC on TL now I don't know if this makes a difference but it could.

Thoughts.

One other thing if it comes down to it I will send ITS letter to CA for calling my cell phone after being told not to FDCPA section 808 (5) It may not stand but will they want to send someone to court on a $80.00 doctor bill? or get rid of the TL. I have the phone bill to prove they called it more then once.

[screwedbysears]

Bumping for the night.

[screwedbysears]

I pulled EXP today had a free one and I have a question if they it says in My statement "account in dispute under fair credit billing act.

 

Ok I never disputed anything The only thing I sent them was a copy of what I sent to the OC The Hippa letter and was not address to them I only CC it.does that constiute dispute? and does the fair credit billing act apply here?

 

Just looked it up this is what it says

 

Fair Credit Billing

 

Have you ever been billed for merchandise you returned or never received? Has your credit card company ever charged you twice for the same item or failed to credit a payment to your account? While frustrating, these errors can be corrected. It takes a little patience and knowledge of the dispute settlement procedures provided by the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA).

 

 

The law applies to "open end" credit accounts, such as credit cards, and revolving charge accounts - such as department store accounts. It does not cover installment contracts - loans or extensions of credit you repay on a fixed schedule. Consumers often buy cars, furniture and major appliances on an installment basis, and repay personal loans in installments as well.

 

I think I could send a ITS letter based on this? This is not accurate info am I not correct? Comments please I want to get this out Saturday if possible Thanks Guys