Debt Validation and CRA disputes

[FixitNow]

Hey all,

This site is great. The knowledge that you learn is invaluable. I do have some questions though.

Here is my situation. About six months ago I paid off all my collections. I did negotiate to have debts settled for less than the full amount due. I then disputed with the CRA's to see if these CA's would fall off and most came back verified. If I try and dispute again I get the same old line that it has already been investigated and all collections will remain for 7 years.

Now, its six months later and my scores went through the floor. Equifax alone dropped 100 pts.

So I am unclear now what to do. I have read up on the debt validation procedure. Does that still work even though the account is paid?

Should I still continue to dispute the derogatory tradelines on my credit report every month? If so what other options are there after that has been done. I talked to a few creditors and they refuse to remove any derogatory reporting because in fact, I did not make those payments on time.

Also is it legal for a Collection Agency to report on your accout immediately 9 months late the first time they report it? Just checked my credit and I have an over due medical bill for $47 that I didn't even know about from two years ago. Pops up in December as 9 months past due. Jeez, if I had a bill I would have paid it.

Please help and thanks

FixitNow

[Gryffindor]

You can request DV for any CA item at anytime.

[FixitNow]

Ok,

So I now am going to DV every collection agency on my report. Do they have the typical 30 days to respond?

[DocDon]

A CA is not under any time requirement to respond to a DV.

However, they cannot continue collection activity until proper validation is supplied to you.

While there is no "set" timeframe for a DV response, it can be safe to say that if after say....45 days, they have not responded, you can demand they remove the collection entry as it is apparent the debt cannot be properly validated....

[FixitNow]

All of these collection accounts are paid. They are reporting paid as agreed/ collection account.

Is it still worth my time then to Debt validate to try and get them removed or what other recourse do I have.

I have already disputed with the CB's and they came back verified.

[DocDon]

Are they showing "closed" with a $0 balance? "Paid as agreed" is a lot different.

If you can show they verified incorrect info, you can more easily demand deletion.

[FixitNow]

I have a trimerged report that is showing the collections as paid or paid charge off. They are also reporting as closed. On the trimerged report it also shows y-9 under MOP. I was told the higher the number the worse impact it has on your credit score.

The do show a zero balance.

All of these are listed under the derogatory items. I guess my goal is to get them to appear in the good section or have them removed completely.

[Josh Mcgrath]

A CA is not under any time requirement to respond to a DV.

Unless you're in Texas. Texas law requires CA's to delete after 30 days if they cannot verify. I am suing Attention LLC for this now. And also, under Texas FDCPA, you can sue for more than 1k! My case is going for anywhere between 3-5k.

What state are you in?

[Recovering Attorney]

You don't DV the CRA. You ask them to reinvestigate the item. You need to give them a reason to delete, such as " not mine" . Otherwise, there is no reason for them to do anything

Your scores may have gone down because your available credit has shrunk, or your debt to available credit ratio is higher.

On teh medical bill, sounds like it was sold to a JDB like MEDCLR, and they are using the acquisition date as the DOLA, which is wrong.

[DocDon]

Unless you're in Texas. Texas law requires CA's to delete after 30 days if they cannot verify. I am suing Attention LLC for this now. And also, under Texas FDCPA, you can sue for more than 1k! My case is going for anywhere between 3-5k.

What state are you in?

Good catch. It's too much for my thinking organ to keep up with individual state laws.

[FixitNow]

Let me see if I got this right...

It sounds like the only time you DV is when you still owe the collection agency money. As for me - I have paid them all off.

I live in Iowa which from my understanding of the last two posts, the CA doesn't have to respond to my DV which is pointless anyway sense I don't owe them anything.

I can and will continue to dispute these tradelines with the CRA's in the hopes that the collection agency doesn't respond.

Did I get it??

[ppdotcomadmin]

Hey all,

This site is great. The knowledge that you learn is invaluable. I do have some questions though.

Here is my situation. About six months ago I paid off all my collections. I did negotiate to have debts settled for less than the full amount due. I then disputed with the CRA's to see if these CA's would fall off and most came back verified. If I try and dispute again I get the same old line that it has already been investigated and all collections will remain for 7 years.

A negative trade line can remain on a consumer's report for 7-years. The reporting period begins on the date of the original delinquency on the account, and not the date the colleciton agency gets the account. So check you accounts to make sure they have not been re-aged by the collection agencies.

So I am unclear now what to do. I have read up on the debt validation procedure. Does that still work even though the account is paid?

No.

Should I still continue to dispute the derogatory tradelines on my credit report every month? If so what other options are there after that has been done. I talked to a few creditors and they refuse to remove any derogatory reporting because in fact, I did not make those payments on time.

Yes. But dispute smartly. Do not dispute as "not mine" unless it truly is not yours and you can PROVE it. Find details of the accounts that are being reported inacurrately.

Also is it legal for a Collection Agency to report on your accout immediately 9 months late the first time they report it? Just checked my credit and I have an over due medical bill for $47 that I didn't even know about from two years ago. Pops up in December as 9 months past due. Jeez, if I had a bill I would have paid it.

In theory, if the account is 9-mo past due, the can report that. But since a collection account is a delinquency, it is a strong arguement that they are NOT open accounts.

[ppdotcomadmin]

A CA is not under any time requirement to respond to a DV.

However, they cannot continue collection activity until proper validation is supplied to you.

While there is no "set" timeframe for a DV response, it can be safe to say that if after say....45 days, they have not responded, you can demand they remove the collection entry as it is apparent the debt cannot be properly validated....

Just to clarify, they only have to cease collection activity if they receive a timely dispute and request for verification. It appears the original poster's accounts are far older, and their effective validation rights have expired.

[gdouglaslee]

A CA is not under any time requirement to respond to a DV.

However, they cannot continue collection activity until proper validation is supplied to you.

While there is no "set" timeframe for a DV response, it can be safe to say that if after say....45 days, they have not responded, you can demand they remove the collection entry as it is apparent the debt cannot be properly validated....

Just to clarify, they only have to cease collection activity if they receive a timely dispute and request for verification. It appears the original poster's accounts are far older, and their effective validation rights have expired.

There's no evidence he was contacted by a CA so his validation rights have not necessarily expired.

While they may have sent notices to former addresses the only thing that does is protect the CA from getting burned by the 5 day initial notification rule.

Until they actually send a notice to his current residence his validation rights are in effect, unless he was stupid and waived them by talking on the phone.

[admin]

Actually, doing a DV on paid collections is always a good idea and completely legal. So what if it says "paid". How do they know it was you? And why are they continuing collections activity (reporting it on your credit report) when the debt is supposedly paid.

I've had better luck DV'ing a paid collection than an unpaid one.

[adminppdotcom]

A CA is not under any time requirement to respond to a DV.

However, they cannot continue collection activity until proper validation is supplied to you.

While there is no "set" timeframe for a DV response, it can be safe to say that if after say....45 days, they have not responded, you can demand they remove the collection entry as it is apparent the debt cannot be properly validated....

Just to clarify, they only have to cease collection activity if they receive a timely dispute and request for verification. It appears the original poster's accounts are far older, and their effective validation rights have expired.

There's no evidence he was contacted by a CA so his validation rights have not necessarily expired.

While they may have sent notices to former addresses the only thing that does is protect the CA from getting burned by the 5 day initial notification rule.

Until they actually send a notice to his current residence his validation rights are in effect, unless he was stupid and waived them by talking on the phone.

Just a small correction. If the debt collector sent the validation notice to an old address, and it was NOT returned, the validaton rights period begins then. See Mahon case here. http://www.ppforum.parachatboard.com/index.php?showtopic=52. A debt collector simply has to SEND the notice. It does not require the consumer to have RECEIVED it.

[adminppdotcom]

Actually, doing a DV on paid collections is always a good idea and completely legal. So what if it says "paid". How do they know it was you? And why are they continuing collections activity (reporting it on your credit report) when the debt is supposedly paid.

I've had better luck DV'ing a paid collection than an unpaid one.

Yes, it is legal and there is case law behind it. The problem is GENERALLY, by the time the debt is paid, the effective validation period has expired and they are under no obligation to reply.

I have done this though and the debt collector does not send verification, but does delete the account, most likey because they got paid.

A good way to bait them into violation is to send a check for part of the amount of the debt upon receipt of the validation notice, then send a request for verification right after. Chances are great that the debt collector will respond to the parital payment with another collection letter, thus violating the FDCPA.

Make sure you arent sending a check for more than what you might recover in court though LOL

[shafted]

While they may have sent notices to former addresses the only thing that does is protect the CA from getting burned by the 5 day initial notification rule.

What is the 5 day initial notification rule? and is that 5 business days?

[DocDon]

the effective validation period has expired and they are under no obligation to reply.

Is this because the debt was paid, or are you saying there is an SOL to request DV?

The FDCPA states a consumer must be given the mini miranda within 5 days after the initial communication by a CA (providing it was done on the phone initially, yes).... so what if the communication was in the form of placing an entry into the file of a consumer and no other action was taken?

What if the consumer notices this negative information 5 or 6 years after it was placed into their file?

There are 2 schools of thought regarding the 30-day validation period and whether or not you lose your right to validation at the end of those 30 days. Iv'e read both opinions, don't remember where they are now.

However, the FDCPA continues to say that failure to request DV will allow the CA to "assume" the debt is valid. It does not state they can now be "assured" the debt is valid if you miss the 30 day mark. It also states that if a consumer doesn't dispute the info that it cannot be an admission of liability in the courts....

So... not sure what the "effective validation period" means.

[adminppdotcom]

the effective validation period has expired and they are under no obligation to reply.

Is this because the debt was paid, or are you saying there is an SOL to request DV?

The FDCPA states a consumer must be given the mini miranda within 5 days after the initial communication by a CA (providing it was done on the phone initially, yes).... so what if the communication was in the form of placing an entry into the file of a consumer and no other action was taken?

What if the consumer notices this negative information 5 or 6 years after it was placed into their file?

There are 2 schools of thought regarding the 30-day validation period and whether or not you lose your right to validation at the end of those 30 days. Iv'e read both opinions, don't remember where they are now.

However, the FDCPA continues to say that failure to request DV will allow the CA to "assume" the debt is valid. It does not state they can now be "assured" the debt is valid if you miss the 30 day mark. It also states that if a consumer doesn't dispute the info that it cannot be an admission of liability in the courts....

So... not sure what the "effective validation period" means.

I hope no one is taking my posts to mean a consumer cannot request verification at anytime, because they can. I try to put "efffective" period because it is the "30-day rule" that gives the consumer an upper hand. Outside the 30-days, the debt collector is merely required to mark the debt in dispute.

To address the scenerio:

so what if the communication was in the form of placing an entry into the file of a consumer and no other action was taken?

Because the broad definition of "communication" is used differently in different provisions of the FDCPA, you have to rely on case law and legal interpretations from judges and consumer law authorities like the National Consumer Law Center.

Both the courts and the NCLC define "communication" in regards to validation, as DIRECT or INDIRECT communication with the consumer DURING WHICH the debt collector attempts to collect a debt. They further describe this "communication" as a 2-way street.

Simply listing the trade line on a consumer report IS COMMUNICATION, but it is NOT communication in connection with the collection of a debt. Doc like your other post, confusing phrases and symantics are all over the FDCPA/FCRA.

Below is a scan from the NCLC manual on FDCPA addressing the 30-day effective period:

The scenerio of a consumer "slumbling" on a trade line or account on a consumer report, or even an inquiry for that matter, is quite common.

Here is the trick. The courts tell us that an inquiry or a trade line is NOT communication in connection with the collection of a debt and therefore the validation period has not yet begun. The consumer can spark the validation period in a few ways.

Some suggest writing the collection agency and requesting validation. If the collection agency replies, and there is no legal obligation to reply, they must include the validation notice contained in 15 USC 1692g IF THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT THE DEBT. There are too many variables here.

A better suggestion, and the one that works 9 out of 10 times is to CALL the collection agency. Why call? How many times have you heard a consumer saw they talked to a debt collector on the phone and they DID NOT try to attempt to collect a debt? LOL

It is this phone call, MADE BY THE CONSUMER, during which the debt collector attempts to collect a debt, which triggers the validation period. They are required to provide EITHER a oral notice per 15 USC 1692g, OR send a written notice WITHIN 5-days of the phone call. THEY NEVER SEND THE NOTICE

This puts them in violation before the consumer has even sent one letter! Now, if they fail to provide the oral notice, AND the written notice, the validation period starts 5-days after the phone call because this is when the debt collector was LEGLALY required to send the notice.

So the consumer fires off a request for verification on the 6th day from the phone call. The debt collector now has to either "put up or shut up." That is they either have to cease collection efforts all together, and this includes reporting during the 30-days, or cease collection efforts until which time they provide verification of the debt. There is no set time for the debt collector to provide the verification. but you can safely assume 1-year is too long, and 1-week is not enough time.

I hope that addresses at least some of the concerns

[adminppdotcom]

While they may have sent notices to former addresses the only thing that does is protect the CA from getting burned by the 5 day initial notification rule.

What is the 5 day initial notification rule? and is that 5 business days?

[DocDon]

I see your points. Thank you for elaborating.

Stupid question, but if the information on our credit reports is not "communication" (ie: communicating account information to the masses by placing it in your file), what is it then called?

Do you know the 2 contradictory opinions regarding the 30-day period that I mentioned? I have to try to dig it up in the archives....

[adminppdotcom]

I see your points. Thank you for elaborating.

Stupid question, but if the information on our credit reports is not "communication" (ie: communicating account information to the masses by placing it in your file), what is it then called?

Do you know the 2 contradictory opinions regarding the 30-day period that I mentioned? I have to try to dig it up in the archives....

Here is part of the confusion created by congress. They define "communication" in the 2nd provision of the FCRA. But then procede to use it to mean different things in different provisions.

A trade line IS communication, indirect to be more precise. There is no question there. But in the validation arena, it is not simply communication which triggers the 30-day validation period, it is communication IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF A DEBT.

There are a TONS of conflicting opinions on this on the net especially. But the courts have held strong to the idea that it is a "limited" and informal process.

There was a court case out of HI in which the court SEEMED to have ruled that a consumer can request verification at anytime and the debt collector HAS TO PROVIDE it no matter what. But if you read that case, I cant recall what it was right now, you will see the court is merely providing there own opinion of validation, and not MAKING A RULING.

The whole FDCPA/FCRA is quite simple. The way they are written, a consumer can kick some major butt over the debt collectors. But it the snow balling effect that consumer have created when the add things to the FDCPA, such as no phone call letters, or demanding validation and not simply verification [cause there is no difference]/

Most of the time, if the consumer took a step back and removed the personal nature of the situation, they could clearly see what to do. Thats how lawyers and judges to it

[DocDon]

A trade line IS communication, indirect to be more precise. There is no question there. But in the validation arena, it is not simply communication which triggers the 30-day validation period, it is communication IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF A DEBT.

That was the scenario playing in my head. Anything the CA does is "in connection with the collection of a debt". They're a collection agency - that's all they do.

[shafted]

what are you guys discussing here.. it's quite confusing. What if you send a DV letter to the CA in the actual 30 day window, no dispute there. If the CA doesn't have to respond, how can you have legal grounds to sue them for removal?