bldrxl

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About bldrxl

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. I know that a Home Builder mustn't "force" you into using thier lender. But what about incentives they offer if you do? $5000 in upgrades and $2000 to closing...but unavailable if you use someone else for your loan. Is that the norm?
  2. I have AAA (in Calif.) and don't see any inq. from them on any of my reports (since March) They did tell me about looking at CLUE report. The only thing I see that *might* be that is a soft pull on Experian (listed as "choicepoint ins."---could be some other ins. I got quoted from). I don't have any tickets or anything but scores in the 500's.
  3. Wow! Who woulda thunk it? ) Thought Disputing Inqs. with TU was a lost cause. I've had success with EQ and EXP too (Both by mail).
  4. EQ is the easiest for me. Down to 2 Negs on Dh's report with them and 1 on mine. However, I've had no luck getting personal info. and inquiries removed AND they took 3 months to give up my free Credit Report when I was denied credit. TU is so-so. They do send frivolous letters and have deleted things without sending me a deletion notice (risk of reinsertion). But, they are my highest score and are coming around. EX is the most difficult for me. While they have investigated and deleted inquiries they just don't budge sometimes. I re-dispute, send information PROVING things should NOT be on my report and yet the negatives remain. My score has done nothing but go DOWN since "repairing" with them (602-572 with no obvious reason--no inquiries, positive tradelines and removal of collections/chargeoffs) It's all hit or miss I guess.
  5. If I can jump in here too... This thought never occured to me. I have a Crap 1 that refuses to budge on any of my reports. Mine is from 1997/1998. Last November it showed that is was charged off in 7/99 for $862. But, as of 9/03 the balance was $1568. Now, it's well over $1700. It was a $300 limit. I have proved re-ageing on this account to Experian but they have yet to delete it. Should I try to validate Crap one again AND make them aware of the charges that should NOT still be climbing? (Looking for a new avenue to dispute this with the CRAs) (I know, EXP violated and I "could" sue them but I just don't feel up to that avenue--especially with some of the horror stories I've heard about Experian and my own experiences with them being so difficult)
  6. Has anyone tried this #? I've been told EXP doesn't do anything by fax. This would be great.
  7. I got this to work by calling experian for myself and my husband got his by writing. They were good about correcting it. We had report numbers BTW but didn't have to use any ID or Utility Bill copies.
  8. bldrxl

    HIPAA

    I posted a question about 4 weeks ago abt. a medical collection and collection agency. They say they sent a bill and have my correct info. but I DID NOT ever recieve one. I've never dealt with the CA (who doesnt need a lic. or to be bonded in Cali.) Anyway, I took the advice of sending the payment to the HC provider and writing it out to the OC with a specific line on back saying "not to be cashed by any 3rd party agency". The check never cleared and was not returned. I called the OC today and spoke to the sect'y for the Director of Patient Accounting (the billing people won't speak with me) She said the problem is that when they (the OC) sent the statement I requested they forgot to include the interest accrued by the CA. But, they'll go ahead and consider this payment in full. HOWEVER, they have sent the check to the CA and the CA will run my check Despite the notation of not to be cashed by a 3rd party. I feel that's just totally wrong. I'm glad it'll be paid. But I'm really ticked that they went ahead and sent my check to the CA. I really don't care how many bills they say they sent....I didn't get them. So, what use is this HIPAA stuff if they just ignore it? I'd at least like to know if I have grounds to complain somewhere and "if" the CA does cash that check....It's got to be fraud or something. right?
  9. So, I am in the process of DV just got some stuff back from a CA who owns the debt in question. I'm a little confused on what to do next. Here's why: 1. On the DV form the collector hand wrote and signed: "Please review your credit reports. The original creditor has listed this acct. since 2000, beyond your time to request validation" ~What does the listing date have to do with anything? I never even saw my credit report till just a few mos. ago and then immediatly disputed this acct. 2. They did't send ANY loan agreement or statements or anything. All I got was a settlement letter from the attorney for this CA and a chain of title. Plus, an "affidavit of open acct." from the previous CA. 3. In this "affidavit" the last sentence reads:new CA has authority to collect,settle(etc...) and "(previous ca)performed a due & diligent search of its records and the original loan agreement cannot be found." 4. Something that strikes me as odd...is that when I was contacted a few weeks ago by this CA (leading to my DV letter) they said they owned this debt. But, there is also an enclosure that is some notorized thing (no info-just that old CA appeared to notary public. The notary public is the same name as the attorney for the new CA and the thing is dated 3 days AFTER they recieved my DV letter. 5. The cover letter from the attorney says "This is a confidential settlement communication protected by California evidence code section 1152 and federal rule of evidence 408" ~ Is that supposed to mean something to me? 6. Then, on the back of the attorney letter is the portion about being able to dispute this debt in writing within 30 days. So, I am now just completely confused. Should I send a dispute to the Attorney now? What are my rights in regards to a lawyer? Can I request actual PROOF of this debt other than that the CA bought it? Should I send another DV to the CA and re-request any documentation bearing a signature? Besides the FTC Wollman opinion letter--where can I find info. on exactly what is required of a CA in validating/verifying a debt? If they cant provide proof of a debt they claim why would they even try to send me this useless chain of title stuff? I threatened to make a complaint with the FTC,AG and BBB (on previous violations--though I can't prove it). Any help on my next move is appreciated.
  10. I have a Ca (who purchased a debt) claiming not to be a collector...I found this FTC opinion letter to be very helpful: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Division of Credit Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection ~ Clarke W. Brinckerhoff Attorney December 22, 1993 Ms. Kimberlee Arbuckle MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT 500 West First Street Post Office Box #576 Hutchinson, Kansas 67504 Dear Ms. Arbuckle: This responds to your letter dated December 2, 1993, inquiring whether Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") is a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or "Act"). You report that MCM "purchases portfolios of delinquent accounts receivable for the purpose of profitable recovery, resale and cure. These accounts are owned solely by MCM . . ." Section 803(6) of the FDCPA defines the term "debt collector" as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." In our view, a party that purchases delinquent accounts from the party to which the debts were originally owed and attempts to collect them from the consumer debtors fits clearly within that definition. The party is attempting to collect debts that were "owed or due another" and the fact that title to the accounts is passed to the collector in no way changes that fact. In the leading case on point, involving a company whose business included the purchase of large volumes of checks that had been dishonored and subsequent collection of the checks from their makers (in the same manner as MCM buys defaulted accounts and thereafter attempts to collect from the account debtors), the court wrote persuasively that the purchaser is covered by the FDCPA. It gave short shrift to the fact that the party had actually purchased the checks in question: By use of the language "owed or due another" Congress was attempting to exclude those entities that extend credit from the effects of the Act. Congress intended to protect borrowers from "third persons who regularly collect debts for others." (Italics by court; citation omitted). (The purchaser) is a third party collecting a debt originally owed to another. . . . It cannot escape the spirit of the Act by the technicality of purchasing the debt upon default so that title technically rests in itself. Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1293 (D. Del. 1990) The only theory for exclusion of a party such as MCM from the "debt collector" definition (and thereby from coverage under the FDCPA) is that it is a "creditor."(1) Section 803(4) defines "creditor" as "any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or trans-fer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another." Since the accounts that MCM buys are delinquent when purchased and are being transferred for the purpose of collection, we believe that MCM is within the class that the "creditor" definition expressly "does not include."(2) The words "for another" at the end of the clause excepting assignees from the definition of creditor in no way changes this result: (T)he excluding factors in the exception are that the debts are the result of an assignment or transfer and that the debts were already in default at the time of assignment or transfer. With the phrase "for another" at the end of the exception, Congress merely intended that the debts should have originally belonged to another and that the creditor was therefore in effect a third-party or independent creditor. (Italics by court) Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1485 (M.D.Ala. 1987). Accord, Holmes, supra, at 1293. In sum, it is our view that a party that obtains consumer obligations in default for the purpose of collection is a "debt collector" under the FDCPA, even if that party actually purchases the accounts from the original creditor. The views set forth in this informal staff opinion letter are not binding on the Commission. Sincerely yours, Clarke W. Brinckerhoff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Section 803(6)(A) only specifically exempts creditors' officers and employees. However, it "seems clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress intended that this exclusion cover creditors themselves as well as their employees." Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1291n.3 (D.Del. 1990), citing Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1484 (M.D.Ala. 1987). 2. See the comment on this subsection in our Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50101 (Dec. 13, 1988.)
  11. Thank you for all the replies. I feel quite a bit better now. I should have hung up when I found out who it was...they came out with the "sue" word so fast so I stayed on. I did send them a DV, Limited C&D, and Outlined the FDCPA violations they made over the phone (not that they care). Also, found a link that says if they purchased the debt from the OC they are still bound by the FDCPA. They are members of the BBB and have resolved each complaint they've recieved so, hopefully, I can use that if need be as well. I'll update when/if they respond. Thanks so much for all the help!
  12. Here is what I did with a recent Medical Collection: 1st of all...I never talked with the CA. The OC's BILLING Dept. Flat out Refused to deal with me and I refused to talk with the CA. I called the original hospital and asked for the # and address to the Legal Dept. (On the advice of the great people here). This Hospital turned out not to have one but I did get the address of the guy that RUNS the Accts. Dept. Fired off a letter to him stating I never recvd. a billing (which was true even tho they claim different) Heard back--hand signed with an itemized bill--minus the bogus "collection agency %" and was able to mail payment directly back to the OC (care of Mr. Accounts Dept) I also wrote on the check "date:____$0 Balance for acct.# paid in full" and added "for OC only not to be endorsed over to any 3rd party agency" on the back (Since I never contacted the CA I'm just waiting for the check to clear and will send a HiPAA Letter so OC will recall this info. from CA---didn't want to send it with the check and push my luck with this guy till I know they are paid.)Knock on wood--I avoided $40 worth of interest fees and hopefully will get this off the credit report ASAP Good Luck.
  13. A Collection Agency (& thier Atty.) bought an old credit card (debt) I had in 99-2000 and *may* be filing suit against me. The amount is just under $600.00 I have a question...I still have the original Card Member Agreement. It goes over the usual things about Default and transferring to 3rd parties, Atty. fees etc... Then, there is this section: Applicable Law This agreement and your account will be governed by federal law and the laws of Arizona, and whether or not your account is used outside of Arizona. You agree that (1)this agreement is entered into in Arizona;(2)all credit under this agreement will be extended from Arizona;and (3)all credit extended under this agreement is subject to, and governed by, Section 44-1205© of the Arizona Revised Statutes. All terms and conditions of this Agreement (including change of Terms provision, This Applicable Law provision, and the finance charge, Late Charge, Returned check charge and over limit charge provisions) are deemed to be material to be material to a determination of the finance charge. I live in California (& did at the time I got this secured credit card) The SOL here is 4 years and I am just 1 month shy of 4 years from the Date of Last Activity (last Payment). However, Arizona has a 3 year (open acct.) SOL. To me, it looks like Arizona Law applies to this card and this debt. And therefore, applies to any other party that might try to collect on this debt. Am I just grasping at straws here? Am I reading this entirely the wrong way? Thanks. BTW- Here is a link to Arizona Section 44-1205© http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/44/01205.htm&Title=44&DocType=ARS
  14. They don't have to be Lic. or bonded in Calif. I spoke with the guy again and said I'd need any settlement offer from them via Mail and I won't speak about this over the phone....with that he said "OK, we'll go ahead and file" This Company is located about 6 hrs. drive from my county. Will the Atty. really show up? Are they required to bring/send in all original paperwork? Will I be served with the court papers in person? How long does it usually take to get to court on this type of thing? So, will they attach my and my Husbands Bank acct.?(even though this is my debt from before we were married) I stay at home with my daughter, so they can't do much else to collect. BTW I was told that they have purchased this debt. Did I make a Big mistake? Should I just find some way to come up with the $$$ for this. I would not like to have a judgement on my credit report for 10 years and then get it renewed after that.
  15. I need a little help here. I just got a call from a CA (well, they said they are'nt a CA but Rather a "mediation co." or something --even though they show as a CA on my Credit Report) and now I'm a bundle of nerves. I have an old acct. with Direct Merchants for like $550. It went to collections/chargeoff all that. It is from 2000(in California SOL). Anyway, this Co. called Credit Solutions Corp. just called and said that I must pay them now (or give them a post-dated check) $300.00 lump sum OR this Atty. for them will file paperwork in my local county court. Then, I'll have to pay the Atty. fees etc... So, I immediatly confirmed that they DO infact intend to sue and asked for a date on that . Got the "Any day now unless you pay answer" Told him I don't have any money to pay anything right now and IF I did agree to pay something it would not be until I got paperwork from them saying that $300 would =$0 Balance. "Oh", he tells me-"you don't need to worry about that...you can even get it deleted after paying by just calling the credit bureau yourself and saying it was paid" LOLOLOLOL that's such a crock! So, then I go into asking about Validating this acct. I need to see paperwork on this. He tells me--y"ou already disputed it with Experian and we "validated" it so that means it's a valid acct." I said "No, I think you are confusing Verifying with the CRA and VALIDATING with me--I need to see some contract with my sig. etc..." At this he says "Well, we don't have that paperwork and neither does the Atty. IF you don't pay when we take you to court we will bring that paperwork" So, what the heck is that? Now, I can't try to Validate this acct.? I mean I suddenly feel so pressured...I wasnt prepared for this type of call and now I feel like I need some time to stop and prepare. Please guide me in the right direction here...my brain is on the fritz because I'm a little freaked out. This may get to the court but I want to be prepared. The guy on the phone said 3 things that I KNOW are against the FDCPA/FCRA but how do I prove that? What's should be my plan of action here? Thanks In advance