Jump to content

Midnight Velvet & Our Weekends


nangirl6
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has anyone had any dealings with Midnight Velvet and Our Weekends companies. They were reporting on both my TU and EX reports. I disputed because they are not mine. Well, TU deleted both accounts, but EX verified. I did some online research and found that the companies are divisions of Monroe & Main. They appear to be a mail order company. I know that OC's are not obligated to validate, but I sent a validation letter to Monroe & Main and they sent me some type of affidavit for me to fill out and have notarized and returned to them. Should I do this? I know that the accounts are not mine. Are mail order companies allowed to report to the bureaus? I thought that they needed more than a name and address to report.

[Edit by nangirl6 on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 @ 11:32 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by Ravenous Wolf

What was Swede doing at Midnight Velvet that made her so much money?

</blockquote>

A CA sent Swede a falsified application for credit (Bally's Gym) that said she was 21, a stripper, and made $120K the year before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE]Originally posted by cookiemnster

A CA sent Swede a falsified application for credit (Bally's Gym) that said she was 21, a stripper, and made $120K the year before.

</blockquote>

Ahhh yea, the good old days, no worries and lots of money....

Of course Cookie has to make me sound cheap...... I made 370K, not 120K - HUMPF!!

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/cgi-local/cutecast/cutecast.pl?forum=3&thread=1901

[Edit by Swede on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 @ 12:36 PM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixerupper

I think Swede would agree with me on this - do NOT fill out and return the affidavit.

</blockquote>

Yep- definately agree. Is this reporting in the creditor section or collections?

[Edit by Swede on Thursday, May 15, 2003 @ 05:26 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you know that the account is not yours then you DO complete & return the form.

You need to look over the rest of your credit report. Check the personal information - if you see anything which is not right then you dispute with the CRA the fact of the matter.

Call the creditor directly and research what they have on file involving this account. They can & will work with you on these things to get to the bottom of the matter.

If you find more problems - then you want to immediately to file a police report itemizing all the information contained in the credit report that don't belong to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by kb9tbq

When you know that the account is not yours then you DO complete & return the form.

</blockquote>

Why? So they can use it against her? She doesn't need to prove anything to anyone, they're reporting on her- it's their job to provide the proof. Do not sign it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When dealing with ID Theft you only have a limited window to establish reasonably your innocents. If you don't then you look at loosing the opportunity for the creditor to track down the real person responsible. Why let the responsible party escape free with tagging you as responsible for the account?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by Swede

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixerupper

I think Swede would agree with me on this - do NOT fill out and return the affidavit.

</blockquote>

Yep- definately agree. Is this reporting in the creditor section or collections?

These accounts are reporting in the creditor section. Swede, what should be my next step? These appear to be OC's and not CA's. Should I fire off another letter to them to send me proof that these accounts are mine?

[Edit by Swede on Thursday, May 15, 2003 @ 05:26 AM]

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by kb9tbq

When dealing with ID Theft you only have a limited window to establish reasonably your innocents. If you don't then you look at loosing the opportunity for the creditor to track down the real person responsible. Why let the responsible party escape free with tagging you as responsible for the account?

</blockquote>

Please show my where you find this information that the "debtor" must fill out a fraud affidavit or loses their rights to dispute and validate a claim. I have yet to find it. It is not her responsibility to prove or show anything, she's not reporting derogatory information on them. All she has to do is dispute it and ask for proof.

<blockquote>Originally posted by nangirl6

These accounts are reporting in the creditor section. Swede, what should be my next step? These appear to be OC's and not CA's. Should I fire off another letter to them to send me proof that these accounts are mine?

[Edit by Swede on Thursday, May 15, 2003 @ 05:26 AM]

</blockquote>

Although OC's aren't required to validate under the FDCPA, you can still ask for proof to support their claim- they do have a responsibility to report accurate and complete information and investigate when you dispute.

Also, they may very well fall under the FDCPA. A creditor is covered by the act if they're collecting a debt using a different name indicating a third party is collecting the debt.

§ 803. Definitions [15 USC 1692a]

(6) The term "debt collector" means 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. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 808(6), such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include --

Also, the 2nd Circuit Court established that that a creditor using a different name while collecting falls under the FDCPA. Check this case:

Maguire v. Citicorp Retail

As a general matter, creditors are not subject to the FDCPA. However, a creditor becomes subject to the FDCPA if the creditor "in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). A creditor uses a name other than its own when it uses a name that implies that a third party is involved in collecting its debts, "pretends to be someone else" or "uses a pseudonym or alias." Villarreal v. Snow, 1996 WL 473386 at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 1996). Although a creditor need not use its full business name or its name of incorporation to avoid FDCPA coverage, it should use the "name under which it usually transacts business, or a commonly-used acronym," Federal Trade Commission Statements of General Policy or Interpretation Staff Commentary On the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50107 (1988), or any name that it has used from the inception of the credit relation, see Dickenson v. Townside T.V. & Appliance, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 1122, 1128 (S.D.W.Va. 1990).

Similarly, a creditor's in-house collection division, such as Citicorp's Debtor Assistance, is not considered a debt collector "so long as [it uses] the creditor's true business name when collecting." S. Rep. No. 95-382 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1698. An in-house collection unit will be exempt from the provisions of the FDCPA if it collects its own debts in the true name of the creditor or a name under which it has consistently done business. See Kempf v. Famous Barr Co., 676 F. Supp. 937, 938 (E.D. Mo. 1988).

Maguire concedes that Citicorp is a creditor, but argues that Citicorp is nonetheless subject to liability under the FDCPA as a debt collector because Citicorp used the name Debtor Assistance, a "name other than its own," when collecting its debt. We agree and we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant and remand the case for further proceedings.

The district court concluded that because Debtor Assistance is, in fact, a unit of Citicorp, it was not using an alias, or a name other than its own, and was not liable under the FDCPA. See Maguire, 1997 WL 280540, at *5. The district court further held that Citicorp was not attempting to collect its own debt under a third party name because Citicorp and Debtor Assistance "are the same entity." Id. We disagree with the district court's analysis. The triggering of the FDCPA does not depend on whether a third party is in fact involved in the collection of a debt, but rather whether a least sophisticated consumer would have the false impression that a third party was collecting the debt.

[Edit by Swede on Thursday, May 15, 2003 @ 12:08 PM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.