negative deleted; can it be re-reported IF SOLD to another C

[Anonymous]

I have two of these. One a Verizon bill, was deleted last month from all three credit reports. Yesterday, however, a NEW CA sent me a bill re. THE SAME alleged debt. Obviously, the original CA simply sold the debt to another CA.

Am I protected if I send them a letter explaining that it was deleted after my disputes from all three reports? Can they re-report it? Or should I just pay it and avoid the hassle? It's about $200.

Of course I know about the five-day rule -- so any advice re. this doesn't help me.

My reports are all clean except for a lone university collection, which has been sold to TWO additional CAs in five years (i.e. original CA sold it to two others). Original CA reported to one CRA only; I'm assuming that the new CA can report to the other two?? Thanks.

[LetoAtreides]

Well, I'de like to chime in asking the Vet's about the five day rule on this one.

Does it apply to the same debt, but being collected by a different CA? Say for example, Collect A get's the DV, decides it doesn't want the hassle. The CRA's delete. Now Collect A sells the debt to Collect B. Collect B lists with the CRA's....probably a different amount ( added fees ) , and now a different CA name.

Are the CRA's required to abide by the 5 day re-insertion rule?

As to your question Fixitquick, just because the debt is deleted off the CRA's doesn't make it any less valid for a CA to try to collect. They can report, and if they do, they are required to provide the needed DV, ect ect. The information the CRA's report has no actual bearing on what you do or do not owe. I know they probably won't, but say they decided to sue for the 200$, the court won't give a flip whether it is on the CRA's or not.

If you are sure the debt is yours, and they can validate it to you, you may want to negotiate with the new CA for a deletion so it is resolved. Also, if this CA just got the debt, they are still in the 30 day window for the mini miranda, ect.

[BrassFan]

<blockquote>Originally posted by LetoAtreides

Well, I'de like to chime in asking the Vet's about the five day rule on this one.

Does it apply to the same debt, but being collected by a different CA? Say for example, Collect A get's the DV, decides it doesn't want the hassle. The CRA's delete. Now Collect A sells the debt to Collect B. Collect B lists with the CRA's....probably a different amount ( added fees ) , and now a different CA name.

Are the CRA's required to abide by the 5 day re-insertion rule?

</blockquote>

I would think not. The FCRA is fairly specific on this. It says that if information that was deleted is reinserted, they must notify you within 5 days. If you have a new tradeline from a new company, that information wasn't deleted.

Here's an example. Let's say I owe Capital One $1000, and they sell it to a collection agency. Before that agency reports, someone finds out about it, and fraudulently reports it, and tries to collect. I do a DV, and they can't validate, so I get it removed. The next day, the actual CA reports it. The information is accurate, and it wasn't deleted from my report...so, it stays.

[LetoAtreides]

That's what I assumed, thanks for the confirmation!

[Anonymous]

just to clarify, here's the scenario:

Collection agency A tried to collect for Verizon and reported me to all three CRAs. I disputed and got three deletions on first round. Slam dunk. Then -- just a few days after the last deletion -- I got a letter from collection B trying to collect for the SAME AMOUNT. It's the same account, no question about it.

Another wrinkle: If I pay Collection B, I run the risk of it then being reported as a "paid collection" on all three reports, which are now virtually spotless (one FICO hovers near 800 on myfico.com).

As for the other scenario I mentioned (the university), this has NOT been paid and appears on EQ only. It's clipping my FICO at least 50 points, though, judging from the other two. I disputed twice, came back verified. It has been to three different CAs. Last contact I had was about 18 months ago. Collection agencies B and C did NOT report, only collection A.

hope this helps. i could use any assistance you good folks could add. i'm stumped. applying for mortgages, business loans and govt. security clearance soon (as if one weren't enough!!) Thanks!

[Anonymous]

one other thing: relying on the five-day rule alone makes me sweat bullets. i travel a ton, and there are times when i'm gone several weeks at a time and hence have no access to my mail. so i could easily get stung by reliance on the five-day thing alone.

[momoney4me]

The five days doesn't apply here since it's a new CA. It's possible that's why you got deletion so easily from the other CA because they already sold the account. Anyway, you need to send the CA a DV letter immediately. If you do this within 30 days of receipt of their letter, they can't report to the CRA until they validate with you.

[Anonymous]

Is that last entry accurate? Anyone else have experience with this? Why should it be predicated on who is collecting the debt? It seems only logical that the five-day rule should protect consumers. Otherwise, CAs could sell the same debt a thousand times, and each one would be eligible to report it!

[kb9tbq]

Ok, You go by the 7 years from the charge off date of the original creditor. Only during this time can the collection agencies also report.

So if one collection deletes and sells to another collection agency - then yes they can still report up to the 7 year expiration on the OCs charge off date.

If it is past the 7 years on the OCs charge off date, then all collection agencies are out of luck and can not report beyond this to make you suffer longer then the original 7 years aloted.

Only other rule is if the OC re-tracks the collection; but this goes to say why would another collection agency even have their hand on this account then to even report. But you can use this to get the last known collection agency to delete their tradeline.

Know this can get a bit more complicated with the what ifs part of it, but basically you only do 7 years time, but different multiple collection agencies can report in this period of time.

Only re-insertion applys to existing collection agencies re-reporting on the same debt.

[Anonymous]

this is probably obvious, but if a new CA reports, it doesn't affect the original "date reported" in any way for purposes of the seven years, does it? Example: this one is a May 1998 account, as reported by collection A. If collection C reports it to other bureaus, the relevant date is still May 1998, right?

[Anonymous]

forgot to mention: verizon account is a 2000 account, so obviously there is a lot of life left in this in terms of new CAs reporting it.

[Anonymous]

if i now pay the verizon account with the new CA, won't it then show up as a "paid collection." i.e. won't they then report it that way, so that it then shows up on my credit reports which are now clean?? this is perplexing!

[cookiemnster]

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixitquick

this is probably obvious, but if a new CA reports, it doesn't affect the original "date reported" in any way for purposes of the seven years, does it?

</blockquote>

It's not supposed to, if it does, it's illegal re-aging.

[ADSOFT]

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixitquick

just to clarify, here's the scenario:

Collection agency A tried to collect for Verizon and reported me to all three CRAs. I disputed and got three deletions on first round. Slam dunk. Then -- just a few days after the last deletion -- I got a letter from collection B trying to collect for the SAME AMOUNT. It's the same account, no question about it.

Another wrinkle: If I pay Collection B, I run the risk of it then being reported as a "paid collection" on all three reports, which are now virtually spotless (one FICO hovers near 800 on myfico.com).

</blockquote>

Well, I might be interpeting this incorrectly, but doesn't collection agency B have to send you you mini maranda's. ... if you pay during that30 day period it does NOT go on your credit report????

If you ask for full validation during that period it might according to the CA$$ letter????

[Edit by ADSOFT on [TIME]1057256798[/TIME]]

[Anonymous]

WAIT A MINUTE. IS THIS THE RULE: IF A CA SENDS YOU A LETTER DEMANDING PAYMENT AND YOU THEN PAY UP, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT TO THE CRAs so long as you pay within the 30-day window? Does that also mean that they can't report it as a "paid collection?'

[ADSOFT]

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixitquick

WAIT A MINUTE. IS THIS THE RULE: IF A CA SENDS YOU A LETTER DEMANDING PAYMENT AND YOU THEN PAY UP, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT TO THE CRAs so long as you pay within the 30-day window? Does that also mean that they can't report it as a "paid collection?'

</blockquote>

Read the dunning letter, they usually say that you have 30 days otherwise it show on your report. That's why from now on if you ever get a dunning letter try to settle in 30 days. Read the letter you got from second collection agency, does it say that.

[Anonymous]

what is the dunning letter? could someone kindly post it? thanks.

[ADSOFT]

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixitquick

just to clarify, here's the scenario:

Collection agency A tried to collect for Verizon and reported me to all three CRAs. I disputed and got three deletions on first round. Slam dunk. Then -- just a few days after the last deletion -- I got a letter from collection B trying to collect for the SAME AMOUNT. It's the same account, no question about it.

Another wrinkle: If I pay Collection B, I run the risk of it then being reported as a "paid collection" on all three reports, which are now virtually spotless (one FICO hovers near 800 on myfico.com).

</blockquote>

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

Well, I might be interpeting this incorrectly, but doesn't collection agency B have to send you you mini maranda's. ... if you pay during that30 day period it does NOT go on your credit report????

If you ask for full validation during that period it might according to the CA$$ letter????

[Edit by ADSOFT on [TIME]1057256798[/TIME]]

</blockquote>

I editted that, its the CA$$ LETTER, not the Wollman:

Sorry, I made a mistake:

I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g.

It is possible to for them to report during the 1st 30 days. I have read some dunning letters that say if you don't pay this in 30 days it might go on your report! What I have done in this situation is pay the OC, before it gets on my report.

If you DV during the 30days they can't report!!!!!

II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g( requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.

[ADSOFT]

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixitquick

what is the dunning letter? could someone kindly post it? thanks.

</blockquote>

The first letter you get from a collection agency.!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

why are they called dunning letters?

what would you do if you were in my shoes re. the verizon account?

i'm scared that if i pay it, it will show up as a paid collection. i'm scared if I DV it, they'll report it to the CRAs after the 30 days is up. Neither is an attractive option.

[BrassFan]

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixitquick

Another wrinkle: If I pay Collection B, I run the risk of it then being reported as a "paid collection" on all three reports, which are now virtually spotless (one FICO hovers near 800 on myfico.com).

[Anonymous]

thanks for your kind input -- the verizon account was DELETED, though. that was the point of my question. see my first entry. so the issue is whether i should pay it or dv it since i'm early in the 30-day window.

i think i have the university account licked, so this one hopefully is not gonna be much of an issue. the verizon account is the biggie.

[ADSOFT]

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixitquick

why are they called dunning letters?

what would you do if you were in my shoes re. the verizon account?

i'm scared that if i pay it, it will show up as a paid collection. i'm scared if I DV it, they'll report it to the CRAs after the 30 days is up. Neither is an attractive option.

</blockquote>

I had a simular thing happen back in NOVEMBER. I paid the OC in the first 30 days, before it showed up on my credit report. ... that way if the CA reported I could say I never had a letter from them and I could always get back to the OC and put pressure on them for taking my payment and not contacting the CA. Of course I don't have any statues to back that up it just worked out for me!.

I have seen posts of people who were in collections and paid the OC, then DVed the CA'S and it came right off.

Ask SWEDE, she know the answer to this situation. ... I think you might be save in settling with the OC at this point, ....or you can continuine sending DV'S.

... Ask SWEDE, she will know what to do, .... but you got the things off your report, make sure you have a DV letter ready before the 30 DAYS are up and STUDY the CA$$ Letter, Its in the DV section on the top board.

[Anonymous]

I received the response below in reply to this same thread that I posted in the "collections" portion of the forum. Anyone have any insight to this approach, listed below? Thanks.

Yes.

Send a DV immediately stating that the account has been under a validation of debts request under their previous CA, and that any collection activity is in violation of the FDCPA.

Redispute it requesting the DV, and if its on any of the CRAs dispute it as soon as you get the green card back.

You want to use the TAR clause that is in some of the other threads "notice to agent is notice to principle, notice to principle is notice to agent, applies to all successors and assigns."

Without that clause technically the OC doesn't have to notify the new CA that its under dispute, although it is fraud to imply that the sale or transfer of the account terminates our rights under the FDCPA. (Section 807(6))

[ADSOFT]

I forgot to ask you, now that the TL got removed from the first CA , has the SECOND CA put it on your CR yet????