feille Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 Ok.. so I have started my DV process. One fell off, still waiting to hear from other ones. Pulled tribureau reports from PG.What a mess! Some accounts list both the original creditor (saying charged off, sold, etc) and then the Collection Agency, who now has a new date (I guess when they purhased or got the account) Lawyer says (I'm in NY) that they are allowed to do this as long as OC says charged off, sold, transferred, etc. Aargh!!1) Can they really do this? One debt is past the statute of limitations for suing me, and they should fall off next year. Their collection agency however, now has a date of Last year, which would make that entry stay on for another 7!! Is this gettting screwed twice or what (no porn intended)2) On the good side, same CA threatened legal action/would recommend legal action. Lawyer is taking them to court for $1000, 'cause they are not lawyers and are not allowed to even say they will advise. Wheeee!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retmar Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 That is incorrect information. An OC can report an account as a CO, showing balances, etc., at time of CO, including all lates that apply. They may also report as Assigned to a CA, if they did. BUT, if they sold or transferred the debt, they must report as a CO or "Account Closed by Grantor", with a Zero balance, and the notation "Sold or Transferred". The other information can also remain, such as the high amount, payment, etc.The assigned CA cannot change the DOLA for any reason, unless you, depending on your State's laws, signed a new contract, or made a payment, during the period of DOLA and CO. As to a DB, they cannot change the DOLA to the date they purchased the debt. The date of first delinquency will always be used. Many DB's think they can change the date because they now own the debt. This is illegal in itself and backed by law. Yes, there have been some who got away with it, but, only because the Judge or Magistrate (Wannabe) had no idea of the law, plus, since most consumers have little knowledge of their rights, it is an easy ripoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDon Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Lawyer is taking them to court for $1000, 'cause they are not lawyers and are not allowed to even say they will advise. Please give a little more detail if you would - this is an interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted July 26, 2004 Report Share Posted July 26, 2004 You have GOT to be in NY city? I am in NY and I don't think there is a lawyer who knows anything about FDCPA - FCRA? Even the Eldeman Combs guy alked about here turned down my Arrow case because they didnt have co-council in NY ares grrrr.......Dola can NOT be changed period. Everything the CA says is a lie anyway why believe what he says on DOLA? The other day UI was told by a CA that he can threaten me with legal action because the OC told them they could say that to me! Im serious.This Ryan guy said that yes it is against FDCPA unless the OC tells them they are allowed lol! I laughred so hard at poor poor Ryan hahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts