1-2 Punch

[cletus van damme]

I have read and reread the 1-2 punch. I understand the concepts and logic behind it all. I put the link here. http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...Apunch%2A#33746

 

My question for the vets is:

 

If I have an account listed on my CR, I d/v the account, the CRA verifies, I wait on validation from the CA, I PR the CRA, BUT I know that the account listed is paid off several years ago, I have itemized payment details, why should I wait on validation? Why not send proof of payment to the CRA and be done with the whold thing? Would it not be quicker and simpler?

[joshbgosh]

why send the CRA proof of the debt? Then you'll never be able to get it deleted.

[cletus van damme]

No, proof that the debt was paid to either the OC or another CA . The bottom line is that the baddies on my reports have been paid. The OC and/or CA that I paid off are not on the CRs.

 

The accounts listed are the same TLs but with a new CAs.

[joshbgosh]

You might as well try and get them deleted first. Having them showed as paid will not increase your score. There is a chance that if you dispute, the OC will not verify and it will be deleted. Might as well give it a try.

[TeeSharice]

if ya send it to OC/CA, they will not delete, they will update it as PAID COLLECTION which is legal but still a negative notation

[joshbgosh]

The purpose for validation is hoping that they cannot validate and therefore have to delete by law.

[joshbgosh]

No, proof that the debt was paid to either the OC or another CA . The bottom line is that the baddies on my reports have been paid. The OC and/or CA that I paid off are not on the CRs.

 

The accounts listed are the same TLs but with a new CAs.

 

 

Oh I think I see what you are saying.

 

The new CA's...did they get this debt after it was paid in full???

[cletus van damme]

Yes, Same paid TLs with new CAs. I have disputed. Most have come off. But, EX, or the Great Satans, have verified them, somehow.

 

I am racking my sharklike brain, trying to determine the best course of action.

[joshbgosh]

Just want for PR from EX and validation from the CA. Most likely you will not get validation since EQ and TU deleted. Then you can demand deletion.

[atlchick819]

Send proof of payment to the CA (who is wrongfully on your CR as unpaid) and tell them they are collecting on a debt that is paid and thus collecting on a nonexistent debt and changing the status of the debt. These are FCRA violations and come with penalties of 1000 each! Tell them to go away or else you will take them to court for these violations. You can also mention the violation for verifying a debt without marking it in dispute according to the FDCPA. It is the CA's responsibility to make sure the debt is valid. If it is in their system as unpaid going through CRA will only come out verified. Now you must contact the CA itself. If you didn't pay them then they can't update it to paid on your CR so I wouldn't worry about that. Make sure you emphasize it is invalid and must delete.

[cletus van damme]

I suppose that is what I should do. It burns my keester to see a TL on the CR that I know was paid off, I have proof of payments, listed by a CA that has no right to collect on it. Even if they validate, and they do it correctly, which I doubt they will since it is Sherman, I see this as a huge error from the CRA .

[TeeSharice]

I suppose that is what I should do. It burns my keester to see a TL on the CR that I know was paid off, I have proof of payments, listed by a CA that has no right to collect on it. Even if they validate, and they do it correctly, which I doubt they will since it is Sherman, I see this as a huge error from the CRA .

 

 

Did you PIF or Settle for lesser amount?

[atlchick819]

Yeah, but from the CRA's point of view it is your word against the CA and they don't have the documentation that you have to prove it is the same exact account as the one that is paid. Is the paid one on your CR for the CRA to match up? Even if it is I'm sure it has its own account # and I guess it could be possible to have similar amounts owed to someone else. From CRA logic if the CA is verifying it they should have documentation to back it up. I'm not saying it is right or stupid that they can't just look at it and tell, but I'm sure they could get in trouble for not following proper procedures or something. Your best bet is to go to the CA for giving false info. to CR and then if they don't delete then you can add a new violation of continued collection of knowing a debt is false or may be false. You have a lot of leverage with CA's when it is paid!!!

[cletus van damme]

I paid in full

 

I am looking in the FCRA right now for the language. I can't verify 100% it is the same account because they use different account numbers. However, I only had one account with the OC that is listed w/the CA on the CR.

 

In fact, at one time the OC was still on my CR, but I disputed the listing and it came off my CR last month.

 

In addition to the itemized payment history to the OC and the authorized CA, I have a statement from the CA that is for deletion of the derogs.

[cletus van damme]

This is the only reference I could find in the FDCPA:

 

Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

 

I wonder if I should have referenced this in my letter requesting Validation?

[TeeSharice]

This is the only reference I could find in the FDCPA:

 

Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

 

I wonder if I should have referenced this in my letter requesting Validation?

 

 

THAT reference is WHY I said THIS:

 

if ya send it to OC/CA, they will not delete, they will update it as PAID COLLECTION which is legal but still a negative notation

[cletus van damme]

I agree with you. I believe that it should go to the CRA. But, I will give the DV letter its time to work. If they respond with the OC account number, then this is easy. The problem is that I don't know with 100% accuracy if the account is the same. Despite the fact the TL from the OC was deleted and the letter fof deletion from the CA.

 

Don't I get bonus points for rooting around in the FCRA and FDCP?

[TeeSharice]

I agree with you. I believe that it should go to the CRA. But, I will give the DV letter its time to work. If they respond with the OC account number, then this is easy. The problem is that I don't know with 100% accuracy if the account is the same. Despite the fact the TL from the OC was deleted and the letter fof deletion from the CA.

 

Don't I get bonus points for rooting around in the FCRA and FDCP?

 

 

let me rummage thru a few pocketbooks around here & give ya bonuc cool points for reading the laws....

 

 

Still, DONT SEND ANYTHING to CRAs......your fight is with the furnisher of info

[cletus van damme]

Hmmm, stay the course with making them prove it? If they provide account info and it matches the paid account, tell the CA to delete? I read that we never furnish CAs anything. If they have the account then they should have all the info required to collect.

 

I don't mean to appear to be "slow". I am not clear of my next actions if and when they validate.

 

 

I can use those bonus points...

[cletus van damme]

BTW, I have 2 TLs that fall into this scenario. Both of them have DVs out on them.

[TeeSharice]

ya can also, in the mean time, file complaint s with AG, BBB and ACA or like organization

 

otherwise, wait out the 30 days......then Id follow with ITS but be prepared to file & fight

[cletus van damme]

How did you know I was looking at the FTC dispute? I can't believe it would require suit. I can certainly bluff it. The DOLA is 97-98 timeframe. Even if TL has been "reaged". They can't be so stupid or dumb to push it if I have evidence that is contrary to what they claim.

[atlchick819]

IF you paid it then what are you worried about sending them proof. I had a paid collection that was sold to NCO. I sent them proof that they should have never had it. It still wouldn't go away a month later and then I sent them the ITS and it was gone within a few days. You have to push their buttons sometimes. IF it wasn't paid to that particular CA then they can't update it to paid on your CR. You have to emphasize it is invalid and debt doesn't exist. Most of the violations are with the FCRA. Later I will post the sections.

[cletus van damme]

Let me know when you post them

[atlchick819]

FDCPA

 

Sec. 807-falsley representing either the character, amount, or legal status of a debt.(since they are saying it is unpaid when it isn't)

 

Sec. 809 if the consumer disputes the debt or requests ident. of original creditor in writing, the collector must cease collection efforts until he verifies the debt and mails a response. (did they verify with CRA's after you DV or did they forget to note on CR it is in dispute)

 

 

FCRA-Section 623 titled Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies

 

Sec. a 1.A Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. (if you send them proof and they still don't delete you can use this one, that is why I say send them proof)

 

Sec. a 1.B Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if

i. the person has veen notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and

ii the information is, in fact, inaccurate

 

Section 3 Duty to provide notice of dispute (notes they must put in dispute with CRA's if they are notified by consumer so if they didn't or they verified after DV then you can use this violation)

 

 

Then you might also have something on them for state laws. Do they need to be licensed in your state? If they do and they aren't licensed then add that one on here too.

 

What do you think????