ljones4521 Posted July 8, 2003 Report Share Posted July 8, 2003 The original creditor is out of business but the credit line continues to report each month. It is an auto loan with The Harvest Group out of Tempe, AZ. The loan reports 150 days late with DLA 01/98. The automobile was totalled and the insurance company paid off this loan. Yet, Harvest Group maintained that a balance was owed and continues to report this account as open.Any advice before sending the valication letter?Thanks a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creditfix Posted July 8, 2003 Report Share Posted July 8, 2003 Does a CA have this account? If so, you can send a DV letter. You can't send a DV letter to the OC. Have you tried disputing this with the CRAs? If not, go ahead and do that first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljones4521 Posted July 8, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2003 It is with a collection agency; however, it reports under the original creditor. Disputed with CRA and they come back verified.BTW if we can't send a DV to the OC what then do we send to them?Thanks a million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoAtreides Posted July 8, 2003 Report Share Posted July 8, 2003 You can send a DV, just an OC isn't required to provide the validation. Also, most of the 'template letters' here refer to the FDCPA...that doesn't pertain to an OC unless they have an in-house CA.I've DV'ed several OC, and they just weren't able to cough up the info. I provided their ' we don't have the info you requested' letters to the CRA's and it has work 3 out of 3 times for deletions so far.It can't hurt to try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kb9tbq Posted July 8, 2003 Report Share Posted July 8, 2003 I suggest this; that you go ahead and DV the collection agency.I have seen this happen before that the OC was gone, but reporting was still under their name; because the collection agency was using the OCs subsriber code to continue on the reporting.\Very good chance the CA is the culprit in this case - ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljones4521 Posted July 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by kb9tbqI suggest this; that you go ahead and DV the collection agency.I have seen this happen before that the OC was gone, but reporting was still under their name; because the collection agency was using the OCs subsriber code to continue on the reporting.\Very good chance the CA is the culprit in this case - ok.</blockquote>Isn't it illegal for a CA to report under a different name? Also, since this is really a CA for them to continue to report under the OC name makes it appear as if this account is still opened. Also, the DLA was 01/98 so....this is a time barred account and under CA law I should be able to get this off....you think?Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 I have already seen this being done once with Helieg Meyer Furnature, they went belly up and another company call Master Trust, was just driving people crazy with the disputing & then the continual verification when they new they had gone out of business.It could be that the Original Creditor sold out to the collection agency, so now the collection agency owns the subscriber number and opts to do business as (DBA) the OC in this case. Little clock & dagger catching people this way off guard.The SOL only means they can't take you to court and sue you for the money, it don't mean they can't try to call or write letters to collect. Of course I forget you are in California (can't remember but you might be right there with the different laws your state has).In most cases continual collection efforts would still be allowable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljones4521 Posted July 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by kb9tbq 72I have already seen this being done once with Helieg Meyer Furnature, they went belly up and another company call Master Trust, was just driving people crazy with the disputing & then the continual verification when they new they had gone out of business.It could be that the Original Creditor sold out to the collection agency, so now the collection agency owns the subscriber number and opts to do business as (DBA) the OC in this case. Little clock & dagger catching people this way off guard.The SOL only means they can't take you to court and sue you for the money, it don't mean they can't try to call or write letters to collect. Of course I forget you are in California (can't remember but you might be right there with the different laws your state has).In most cases continual collection efforts would still be allowable.</blockquote>Ok...so I need to request proof that they own the debt and/or proof/authority to do business as The Harvest Group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 Bingo, then you might take this further to speak with a lawyer specifically that handles credit reporting issues to get their take on this practice, that is the best I can think of at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts