Jump to content

lakeeire

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location
    tx

lakeeire's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/6)

10

Reputation

  1. the cell service is from t-mobile, I signed up at one of their authorized dealers who happen to be skylight wireless.
  2. it's not from a ca,its from a retailer who sells wireless service.
  3. In February I got tmobile service through skylight wireless for my dh, bill went sky high, defaulted, receive letters from tmobile for cancellation fee and other charges, then receive collection letter from ca, not on reports yet, then today I get a certified letter from skylight wireless telling me I owe them $50.00 remainder on the phone because the phone was $129 I only paid $79 discounted and $200 cancellation fee, if $250 not received by 09/26 the will file an affidavit with Dallas County Courts. should I worry about paying skylight wireless and them filing in the courts, if tmobile is the one providing the wireless service and has already given this to a ca? should I have skylight wireless validate since they are acting as a collection agency? I need all the opinions I can get.
  4. do anyone think I should send Skylight Wirless a validation request asking for signed contract agreement requiring me to pay them, since they are acting like a ca?
  5. do anyone think I should send Skylight Wirless a validation request asking for signed contract agreement requiring me to pay them, since they are acting like a ca?
  6. In February I got tmobile service through skylight wireless for my dh, bill went sky high, defaulted, receive letters from tmobile for cancellation fee and other charges, then receive collection letter from ca, not on reports yet, then today I get a certified letter from skylight wireless telling me I owe them $50.00 remainder on the phone because the phone was $129 I only paid $79 discounted and $200 cancellation fee, if $250 not received by 09/26 the will file an affidavit with Dallas County Courts. should I worry about paying skylight wireless and the courts, if tmobile has already given this to a ca?
  7. ++In February I got tmobile service through skylight wireless for my dh, bill went sky high, defaulted, receive letters from tmobile for cancellation fee and other charges, then receive collection letter from ca, not on reports yet, then today I get a certified letter from skylight wireless telling me I owe them $50.00 remainder on the phone because the phone was $129 I only paid $79 discounted and $200 cancellation fee, if $250 not received by 09/26 the will file an affidavit with Dallas County Courts. should I worry about paying skylight wireless and the courts, if tmobile has already given this to a ca?
  8. what would be the best way to approch this this? see below, listed on Equifax twice using different account number TransUnion Experian Equifax 518189000745**** 518189000745**** 518189000745 Past Due: $1077 $1077 $1077 High Balance: $884 $884 $884 Terms: 1 months Limit: Payment: $0 Opened: 04/17/2003 04/2003 Reported: 08/21/2007 08/21/2007 07/2007 Responsibility: Individual Individual Individual Equifax COMPU-8189000745**** Past Due: High Balance: $884 Terms: Limit: Payment: $0 Opened: Reported: 07/2007 Responsibility: Individual
  9. Cover letter to the underwriter that has been used in the past... Dear Sir or Madam: Please find the enclosed copy of a letter sent this date to name of third party subject to TFC, in city, state. The Texas Secretary of State has indicated that your offices provide the coverage in the form of a surety bond that is required under the relevant portions of the Texas Finance Code, and that your bond coverage took effect on or about date. Notice is being afforded to your offices so that you may be aware of a potential claim against the bond should the matter move to litigation. The enclosed materials will provide you with a synopsis of the facts at issue, but in a nutshell, name of company is attempting to collect on a matter that has been in dispute with the original creditor (name of OC) as recently as two weeks ago. The underlying amount is so old as to be beyond the statute of limitations in the State of Texas for any person to pursue via litigation. Despite my having exercised my rights under the Texas Finance Code within a timely fashion, name of company has opted to disregard relevant portions of the statute and initiated their attempts to collect on a matter that they should reasonably have known through the due diligence conducted prior to the portfolio purchase was disputed. As your staff is very likely aware, Texas law provides that a claim may be made against the bond. No action is required by your offices at this time, although I am certainly amenable to discussions pertaining to settlement in the event that your company opts to intervene on behalf of your client. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address reflected below. There are other variations that I have used and there is not one set template. Quite frankly, I am a firm believer in ALWAYS making sure a letter is tailored to the task at hand. To Whom it May Concern: Your offices are reporting an outstanding amount to the credit bureaus in the amount of $XXX.00, with the above account number appearing in the credit report prepared by BUREAU. To date, there has been no correspondence received from your offices. I nonetheless maintain the position that there are no amounts due or owing to you or to any other entity in the claimed amount. At no time have I entered into any contractual arrangements with name of third party, nor can this matter be claimed to have been a collection since date 1 yet opened in date 2. Additional reporting infractions occur in that name of third party was aware of a dispute raised electronically through Experian as the steps were taken to have noted the tradeline as being in a state of dispute. However, the tradeline has now been recorded as disputed for more than thirty days, with an update being made to Experian during date 3. That update represents continued collection activity in violation of relevant statutes. For the purposes of litigation, claims will be limited to the prohibited actions addressed by the Texas Finance Code at Section 392. As you have been unable to validate this matter within a thirty day period, there is a requirement that the tradeline be modified as requested by the consumer. In this instance, that modification is a complete deletion as any other reporting is inaccurate on its face. I am reasonably certain that your staff is aware of the current position of many courts that continuing to report a tradeline is viewed as continuing collection activities. I am also reasonably certain that your staff is aware of the requirements of the Texas Finance Code pertaining to the reporting of matters that are disputed. In particular, I would again point you in the direction of Section 392.202 which references the duties of the collector upon notification of the matter being in dispute. There are a number of areas in which the provisions of the Texas Finance Code mirror federal statutes that would govern this issue. In addition to the reporting requirements incumbent upon third-party entities, Texas law also contains a bonding requirement. A search of the list of bonded agencies provided to me by the Legal Support Unit/ Statutory Documents Section of the Secretary of State did support that a bond was in place at the time your office claims to have reported the file. Records reflect that the bond is underwritten by underwriting company (policy number) and involvement of their claims personnel has been held in abeyance pending your compliance with the issues in this letter. Absent a validation of the claim within the thirty days specified in Texas law, any tradelines reported to any credit reporting agency that pertain to this claim are to be deleted. Failure to do so places me at risk of irreparable harm and is violative of the requirements of both state and federal law that reporting of credit be done in an accurate manner. It stands to reason that a matter that cannot be validated cannot also be considered as accurately reported as a tradeline. It is expected that within thirty days from the date of your receipt of this letter, as evidenced by the delivery date on the Return Receipt card, your offices will have either provided the documents required for validation of both the claim or this matter will have been closed and the tradeline deleted. Nothing in this letter authorizes a “hard pull” or a “soft pull” of my credit information. The account number you have reported to a credit bureau is included and should provide you with sufficient information with which to identify me in your existing records. There should be no basis for you to request additional information from me in the validation process. It is not incumbent upon me, as the injured party, to build your files for you, nor should I pay a penalty in the form of a reduced score for your attempts to reconstruct records which you should already have possessed prior to making any claim. If such retrieval is discovered to have occurred, it will be evaluated for action as a non-permissible access of the report as well as retaliatory actions for the exercise of rights provided to the consumer under both state and federal law. Please be cognizant of the fact that venue for any action will be in accordance with the provisions of the prevailing statutes of the State of Texas. There are no federal questions being raised in this matter and any attempt to remove an action to the United States Western District Court will be challenged. Damages will also be sought under the controlling provisions of the Business and Commerce Code, and I would remind you that those damages are subject under Texas law to a trebling upon a showing of gross negligence. Upon a favorable finding in the Travis County courts, claim will be made against the bond. Except as pertains to the production of documents responsive to the validation, there is no reason for your office to contact me. Under no circumstances is communication to occur via telephone, to include my place of employment, as such telephonic contact is inconvenient. All communications shall be in writing and directed to the address of record as it appears on the preceding page. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. In this particular case, we did not tip the hand that my office would handle the litigation. The matter was resolved within 48 hours of the other party having received the letter.
  10. Cover letter to the underwriter that has been used in the past... Dear Sir or Madam: Please find the enclosed copy of a letter sent this date to name of third party subject to TFC, in city, state. The Texas Secretary of State has indicated that your offices provide the coverage in the form of a surety bond that is required under the relevant portions of the Texas Finance Code, and that your bond coverage took effect on or about date. Notice is being afforded to your offices so that you may be aware of a potential claim against the bond should the matter move to litigation. The enclosed materials will provide you with a synopsis of the facts at issue, but in a nutshell, name of company is attempting to collect on a matter that has been in dispute with the original creditor (name of OC) as recently as two weeks ago. The underlying amount is so old as to be beyond the statute of limitations in the State of Texas for any person to pursue via litigation. Despite my having exercised my rights under the Texas Finance Code within a timely fashion, name of company has opted to disregard relevant portions of the statute and initiated their attempts to collect on a matter that they should reasonably have known through the due diligence conducted prior to the portfolio purchase was disputed. As your staff is very likely aware, Texas law provides that a claim may be made against the bond. No action is required by your offices at this time, although I am certainly amenable to discussions pertaining to settlement in the event that your company opts to intervene on behalf of your client. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address reflected below. There are other variations that I have used and there is not one set template. Quite frankly, I am a firm believer in ALWAYS making sure a letter is tailored to the task at hand. To Whom it May Concern: Your offices are reporting an outstanding amount to the credit bureaus in the amount of $XXX.00, with the above account number appearing in the credit report prepared by BUREAU. To date, there has been no correspondence received from your offices. I nonetheless maintain the position that there are no amounts due or owing to you or to any other entity in the claimed amount. At no time have I entered into any contractual arrangements with name of third party, nor can this matter be claimed to have been a collection since date 1 yet opened in date 2. Additional reporting infractions occur in that name of third party was aware of a dispute raised electronically through Experian as the steps were taken to have noted the tradeline as being in a state of dispute. However, the tradeline has now been recorded as disputed for more than thirty days, with an update being made to Experian during date 3. That update represents continued collection activity in violation of relevant statutes. For the purposes of litigation, claims will be limited to the prohibited actions addressed by the Texas Finance Code at Section 392. As you have been unable to validate this matter within a thirty day period, there is a requirement that the tradeline be modified as requested by the consumer. In this instance, that modification is a complete deletion as any other reporting is inaccurate on its face. I am reasonably certain that your staff is aware of the current position of many courts that continuing to report a tradeline is viewed as continuing collection activities. I am also reasonably certain that your staff is aware of the requirements of the Texas Finance Code pertaining to the reporting of matters that are disputed. In particular, I would again point you in the direction of Section 392.202 which references the duties of the collector upon notification of the matter being in dispute. There are a number of areas in which the provisions of the Texas Finance Code mirror federal statutes that would govern this issue. In addition to the reporting requirements incumbent upon third-party entities, Texas law also contains a bonding requirement. A search of the list of bonded agencies provided to me by the Legal Support Unit/ Statutory Documents Section of the Secretary of State did support that a bond was in place at the time your office claims to have reported the file. Records reflect that the bond is underwritten by underwriting company (policy number) and involvement of their claims personnel has been held in abeyance pending your compliance with the issues in this letter. Absent a validation of the claim within the thirty days specified in Texas law, any tradelines reported to any credit reporting agency that pertain to this claim are to be deleted. Failure to do so places me at risk of irreparable harm and is violative of the requirements of both state and federal law that reporting of credit be done in an accurate manner. It stands to reason that a matter that cannot be validated cannot also be considered as accurately reported as a tradeline. It is expected that within thirty days from the date of your receipt of this letter, as evidenced by the delivery date on the Return Receipt card, your offices will have either provided the documents required for validation of both the claim or this matter will have been closed and the tradeline deleted. Nothing in this letter authorizes a “hard pull” or a “soft pull” of my credit information. The account number you have reported to a credit bureau is included and should provide you with sufficient information with which to identify me in your existing records. There should be no basis for you to request additional information from me in the validation process. It is not incumbent upon me, as the injured party, to build your files for you, nor should I pay a penalty in the form of a reduced score for your attempts to reconstruct records which you should already have possessed prior to making any claim. If such retrieval is discovered to have occurred, it will be evaluated for action as a non-permissible access of the report as well as retaliatory actions for the exercise of rights provided to the consumer under both state and federal law. Please be cognizant of the fact that venue for any action will be in accordance with the provisions of the prevailing statutes of the State of Texas. There are no federal questions being raised in this matter and any attempt to remove an action to the United States Western District Court will be challenged. Damages will also be sought under the controlling provisions of the Business and Commerce Code, and I would remind you that those damages are subject under Texas law to a trebling upon a showing of gross negligence. Upon a favorable finding in the Travis County courts, claim will be made against the bond. Except as pertains to the production of documents responsive to the validation, there is no reason for your office to contact me. Under no circumstances is communication to occur via telephone, to include my place of employment, as such telephonic contact is inconvenient. All communications shall be in writing and directed to the address of record as it appears on the preceding page. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. In this particular case, we did not tip the hand that my office would handle the litigation. The matter was resolved within 48 hours of the other party having received the letter.
  11. Can someone please explain what you mean by inaccurate and how it should be written in the dispute, also when and how should I dispute with the evil one EXP.
  12. How should I proceed with this dispute? notice the date opened, dofd was 2002 or 2003. COLLECTION COMPANY OF AMERICA Address: 700 LONGWATER DR NORWELL, MA 02061 No phone number available Original Creditor: SPRINT PCS Status: Collection account. $371 past due as of Aug 2007. Date Opened: 07/2006 Type: Collection Credit Limit: $277 Date of Status: 08/2007 Terms: 1 Months High Balance: NA Reported Since: 08/2007 Monthly Payment: $0 Recent Balance: $371 Last Reported Date: 08/2007 Responsibility: Individual Recent Payment: $0 Your Statement: NA Account History: Collection as of Aug 2007
  13. I was approved for the same, sent $19 check, was cashed, still was showing 7-14 day status, called and was told I was not approved. still waiting for my $19.
×
×
  • Create New...