T-Mobile posing as a Collections Agency!

[QMAX21]

Hi everyone,

Recently I sent this letter to T-Mobile to settle an account. (IF you don't want to read it all just go to the end and see my comments)

Dear T-Mobile

Re: 321XXXXX

After a long period of difficult times with my personal finances, I am finally in a position where I would like to take care of the debt for the above account. I truly believe that your company will do all it can to help us resolve this issue. I want to make an honest attempt to settle this debt.

The amount I would like to propose as the payment in full for this debt is $850. This amount excludes the early cancellation fee rendered by your company. We were making payment on this account and informed your representatives that such payment would continue until amount was paid in full pursuant to them not canceling our service. In addition, any references to late payment or charge-off regarding this account are to be removed from my credit file.

This contract shall serve to spell out the terms of an agreement between Carol XXX & Quennel XXX, hereafter referred to as debtor(s) and T-Mobile, hereafter referred to as creditor on acct number 321XXXX.

Upon receipt of the first initial payment from the debtor for $50, the creditor agrees that the terms of this contract is binding and that no further payment is due for fees, or dues outside of the stated amount, $850. Also, the creditor agrees not to refer to collections or third party debt collectors to collect any money outside the stated amount pursuant to receiving payment.

The terms of this agreement are: at least $50 provided upon a weekly basis ($200 per month) via money order, check or debit payment or, if one week payment is missed a total of $200 every 30 days until amount is paid in full. Upon receipt of first initial payment, this contract supersedes all others between the debtor and creditor and is considered binding upon all parties. I have several other companies with which to conduct negotiations over debt, and a limited amount of funds. I am able to make payment to those companies who are willing to meet my terms for I don’t have enough money to pay everyone. I really appreciate in advance all efforts your company is willing to make us resolve this issue.

Upon receipt of this of this signed acknowledged agreement, I will forward you payment beginning with the initial stated amount above, for the time period necessary, to pay off this debt minus the cancellation fee.

Yours truly,

CarolXX & Quennel XXXX

Enclosed attachments

Payment Schedule (At least $200 sent per month as described in terms given

Initial Payment $50.00 12/24/04

1/7/05

1/14/05

1/21/05

1/28/05

2/4/05

2/11/05

2/18/05

2/25/05

3/4/05

3/11/05

3/18/05

3/25/05

4/1/05

4/8/05

4/15/05

4/22/05

After getting this letter, T-Mobile sent me an interesting letter saying:

Dear QMAX

This letter is to confirm that T-Mobile USA, Inc. has received your recent inquiry dated 12/10/2004. Our records indicate your account is currently being handled Sunrise Credit Services collection agency. In order to resolve your concerns with this account please contact Sunrise Credit Services at 1-800-645-9824. We have also forwarded your inquiry to our collections department on your behalf.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

T-Mobile

Well obviously minus the spelling and grammatical errors, I find this letter very interesting. First off, T-Mobile is claiming to forward my above letter as an inquiry when it is clearly not one to their collections BUT YET THEY HAVE AN OUTSIDE COLLECTIONS AGENCY TRYING TO COLLECT ON THIS DEBT. SINCE MY PAYMENT WAS TO T-MOBILE AND NOT THIS AGENCY SHOULD I DV THE OUTSIDE AGENCY. THEY WERE ONLY ASSIGNED MY ACCOUNT AND THEY DO NOT OWN IT. What is more interesting is that T-Mobile seems to be playing with fire because Sunrise, who doesn't own this account claimed that they acknowledged my payment TO THEM FOR THIS ACCOUNT!!!

Dear QMAX

This is to acknowledge your recent $50 payment. Since we have no current arrangements, it is important you call us today, so satisfactory terms can be set up

Please call me toll Free at ######

Sunrise

Gia Styles

------

This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication is from a debt collector

As you can see from my letter, I didn't set up any agreement with Sunrise and they are trying to claim that my payment belongs to them EVEN THOUGH THE ACCOUNT WAS ONLY ASSIGNED TO THEM. I THINK I SHOULD DV THEM AND FORCE THEM TO PROVE TO ME THAT I AM LIABLE TO PAY THEM AND NOT T-MOBILE.

Also what liablility does T-Mobile face on this issue? If I pay this account off and they try to pass it off as a paid collections, can I sue them since I set up terms with them and they took payment but later tried to pass it off to Sunrise, even though SUNRISE DOESN'T OWN THE ACCOUNT?

LOOKING FOR GOOD ADVICE.

THANKS.

[nolo]

First, don't make any payments to anyone without a SIGNED, written payment agreement, including how the tradeline will be handled. Until you have it in writing, (SIGNED) you don't have an agreement, you only have a proposal. Also, how old is this debt? Is it within the SOL?

DV the CA (sunrise). If the debt is within the SOL and if the CA is authorized to collect this debt, make your payment offer. You could also make your offer directly to T-Mobile. If you know how much you can (and WILL) pay, who cares who takes the money? As long as you have your deal in writing. (always use certified mail with return receipt)

One other thing to keep in mind is that written offers to pay, in many states, reset the SOL for pursuing a judgement against you. So if the SOL is a factor in this case, be sure to check the laws of your state.

[QMAX21]

First, don't make any payments to anyone without a SIGNED, written payment agreement, including how the tradeline will be handled. Until you have it in writing, (SIGNED) you don't have an agreement, you only have a proposal. Also, how old is this debt? Is it within the SOL?

DV the CA (sunrise). If the debt is within the SOL and if the CA is authorized to collect this debt, make your payment offer. You could also make your offer directly to T-Mobile. If you know how much you can (and WILL) pay, who cares who takes the money? As long as you have your deal in writing. (always use certified mail with return receipt)

One other thing to keep in mind is that written offers to pay, in many states, reset the SOL for pursuing a judgement against you. So if the SOL is a factor in this case, be sure to check the laws of your state.

Que-Hi, I used Credit info center's information as the basis for my letter. I said that once this payment was received by T-Mobile they were mentioned as being understood and agreeing to the terms. I SENT PAYMENT DIRECTLY TO T-MOBILE. I sent this agreement and my first payment via priority mail and signature confirmation. So I have proof that they received the letter and cashed the money order. Also I'm not worried about the SOL because this debt is only a few months old anyway. As for the proposal part, if they didn't want to take the money or hold to the agreement they were informed to not accept payment, etc. They took the money so they are bound by my agreement. Basic contract law. As for the CA I think I am going to DV them and force them to prove to me that I owe the money to them instead of T-Mobile. This shouldn't be to difficult because they were only assigned my account.

Thanks for your advice. Always appreaciate more feedback.

[nolo]

First, don't make any payments to anyone without a SIGNED, written payment agreement, including how the tradeline will be handled. Until you have it in writing, (SIGNED) you don't have an agreement, you only have a proposal. Also, how old is this debt? Is it within the SOL?

DV the CA (sunrise). If the debt is within the SOL and if the CA is authorized to collect this debt, make your payment offer. You could also make your offer directly to T-Mobile. If you know how much you can (and WILL) pay, who cares who takes the money? As long as you have your deal in writing. (always use certified mail with return receipt)

One other thing to keep in mind is that written offers to pay, in many states, reset the SOL for pursuing a judgement against you. So if the SOL is a factor in this case, be sure to check the laws of your state.

Que-Hi, I used Credit info center's information as the basis for my letter. I said that once this payment was received by T-Mobile they were mentioned as being understood and agreeing to the terms. I SENT PAYMENT DIRECTLY TO T-MOBILE. I sent this agreement and my first payment via priority mail and signature confirmation. So I have proof that they received the letter and cashed the money order. Also I'm not worried about the SOL because this debt is only a few months old anyway. As for the proposal part, if they didn't want to take the money or hold to the agreement they were informed to not accept payment, etc. They took the money so they are bound by my agreement. Basic contract law. As for the CA I think I am going to DV them and force them to prove to me that I owe the money to them instead of T-Mobile. This shouldn't be to difficult because they were only assigned my account.

Thanks for your advice. Always appreaciate more feedback.

Simply accepting the money you sent, does not necessarily create a NEW contractural agreement. (remember, you already owed them the money under the terms of the existing agreement) Some states do allow for conditional endorsements of payment intruments and maybe this is what you have, depending on your state laws but I wouldn't count on it.

[QMAX21]

First, don't make any payments to anyone without a SIGNED, written payment agreement, including how the tradeline will be handled. Until you have it in writing, (SIGNED) you don't have an agreement, you only have a proposal. Also, how old is this debt? Is it within the SOL?

DV the CA (sunrise). If the debt is within the SOL and if the CA is authorized to collect this debt, make your payment offer. You could also make your offer directly to T-Mobile. If you know how much you can (and WILL) pay, who cares who takes the money? As long as you have your deal in writing. (always use certified mail with return receipt)

One other thing to keep in mind is that written offers to pay, in many states, reset the SOL for pursuing a judgement against you. So if the SOL is a factor in this case, be sure to check the laws of your state.

Que-Hi, I used Credit info center's information as the basis for my letter. I said that once this payment was received by T-Mobile they were mentioned as being understood and agreeing to the terms. I SENT PAYMENT DIRECTLY TO T-MOBILE. I sent this agreement and my first payment via priority mail and signature confirmation. So I have proof that they received the letter and cashed the money order. Also I'm not worried about the SOL because this debt is only a few months old anyway. As for the proposal part, if they didn't want to take the money or hold to the agreement they were informed to not accept payment, etc. They took the money so they are bound by my agreement. Basic contract law. As for the CA I think I am going to DV them and force them to prove to me that I owe the money to them instead of T-Mobile. This shouldn't be to difficult because they were only assigned my account.

Thanks for your advice. Always appreaciate more feedback.

Simply accepting the money you sent, does not necessarily create a NEW contractural agreement. (remember, you already owed them the money under the terms of the existing agreement) Some states do allow for conditional endorsements of payment intruments and maybe this is what you have, depending on your state laws but I wouldn't count on it.

Que-Hi Nolo, again thanks for your sound advice. Yes you are right. I am paying them. However the Collection agency was only assigned the debt, which I have verified as of today. I sent them a DV letter forcing them to prove to me that I owe them INSTEAD OF T-MOBILE. Even the CA mentioned that they only were assigned the debt. If the CA can't validate that the debt now belongs to them instead of T-Mobile then by law they aren't allowed to pursue collection on it.

My whole purpose was to pay T-Mobile which I have been doing w/o any collection agency trying to lay claim on my bill while reporting a bad mark on my credit report. This was the DV letter sent to the CA

Dear: Supervisor of Sunrise Credit Services Inc:

This letter is being sent in response to your solicitation to collect debt on behalf of T-Mobile. It is also a notice indicating your right to collection of this debt as disputed. Under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), I have the right to request validation of the debt you say I owe to you, & not the original creditor. I am requesting proof that I am indeed the party you are asking to pay this debt, & there is some contractual obligation which is binding on me to pay this debt to you. Under the FDCPA the original creditor is the original entity who loaned out money or service to the consumer:

TITLE VIII - DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]

§ 803. Definitions [15 USC 1692a]

As used in this title --

(4) The term "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.

You should also be aware that reporting such invalidated information to major credit bureaus might constitute defamation of character, as the negative marks on my credit report harm my credit & prevent me from enjoying all the benefits of good credit. I’m sure your legal staff will agree that non-compliance with this request could put your company in serious legal trouble with the FTC & other state or federal agencies. In addition please provide copies of:

• Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this debt if purchased by your agency under applicable FDCPA law.

• Agreement which bears my signature wherein my payments, issued to T-Mobile, belong to your agency.

• Agreement that bears my signature wherein I agreed to pay this debt to your agency.

• Any judgments (if any) or insurance (if any) claims made or obtained by the creditor regarding this account.

If the above isn’t satisfied in the appropriate manner, I therefore request that you CEASE & DESIST in your efforts in trying to solicit & collect on the above referenced account. What legal documents prove that you are legally authorized to collect on this debt? Where is the accounting of the debt, including all determination of interest & fees including the full payment history, the assignment of this debt to your agency, as required by legal precedent in the case Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, Donald L. Wilber & Kenneth Wilber, USCA-02-C-0072, 7th Circuit Court, Sept 2004.. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/034108p.pdf)? My personal policy is never to deal with outside collection agencies nor do we care to set up any terms or agreements with you since we have no proof this debt is owed to you instead of T-Mobile. Our payment is to T-Mobile and any alleged acknowledgment of payment to your agency is not recognized by us. You are hereby instructed to cease collection efforts immediately or face legal sanctions under applicable Federal & State law (FDCPA Sec. 805© & 809(, FTC opinion letter Cass from LeFevre) unless this debt can positively be VERIFIED & proven to be owned by your agency & not the alleged original creditor. You are also instructed not to report this debt as your own also if it can’t be validated in a satisfactory manner as required by legal precedent in ‘US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 00-15946, Nelson vs. Chase Manhattan’.

Best Regards,

QMAX

Que-I think this would be sufficient for now.

[ViktorVaughn]

What is more interesting is that T-Mobile seems to be playing with fire because Sunrise, who doesn't own this account claimed that they acknowledged my payment TO THEM FOR THIS ACCOUNT!!!

it doesn't matter who you pay. when an account is assigned to a collection agency and a payment is made to the original creditor (instead of the CA), the OC notifies the CA of the payment so they can post it in their system as well (in order to have a correct balance due).

some CA's systems state whether or not the payment was recieved as a forward form the OC or if it was recieved directly from the debtor, while others do not, so that may be why they state they recieved your payment directly (their system doesn't differentiate when payments are recieved from the OC or the debtor).

[QMAX21]

What is more interesting is that T-Mobile seems to be playing with fire because Sunrise, who doesn't own this account claimed that they acknowledged my payment TO THEM FOR THIS ACCOUNT!!!

it doesn't matter who you pay. when an account is assigned to a collection agency and a payment is made to the original creditor (instead of the CA), the OC notifies the CA of the payment so they can post it in their system as well (in order to have a correct balance due).

some CA's systems state whether or not the payment was recieved as a forward form the OC or if it was recieved directly from the debtor, while others do not, so that may be why they state they recieved your payment directly (their system doesn't differentiate when payments are recieved from the OC or the debtor).

Que-Therefore I should just continue to pay the OC instead of the CA then. The CA doesn't have a leg to stand on since I didn't send them any payment whatsoever along with DVing them.

[ViktorVaughn]

What is more interesting is that T-Mobile seems to be playing with fire because Sunrise, who doesn't own this account claimed that they acknowledged my payment TO THEM FOR THIS ACCOUNT!!!

it doesn't matter who you pay. when an account is assigned to a collection agency and a payment is made to the original creditor (instead of the CA), the OC notifies the CA of the payment so they can post it in their system as well (in order to have a correct balance due).

some CA's systems state whether or not the payment was recieved as a forward form the OC or if it was recieved directly from the debtor, while others do not, so that may be why they state they recieved your payment directly (their system doesn't differentiate when payments are recieved from the OC or the debtor).

Que-Therefore I should just continue to pay the OC instead of the CA then. The CA doesn't have a leg to stand on since I didn't send them any payment whatsoever along with DVing them.

it's irrelevant who you pay, as long as the OC is good at reporting payment to the CA (if they're not, you may experience quite a delay in getting your credit report updated). remember, the CA is the entity that reports to the credit bureau. your credit report will not reflect the account as being paid until the entity reporting the account (the CA), is notified of the payment. paying the OC is basically creating an additional step in the process, while paying the CA is directly paying the entity that is reporting (the confusion is eliminated).

it's entirely your choice, though.

[QMAX21]

What is more interesting is that T-Mobile seems to be playing with fire because Sunrise, who doesn't own this account claimed that they acknowledged my payment TO THEM FOR THIS ACCOUNT!!!

it doesn't matter who you pay. when an account is assigned to a collection agency and a payment is made to the original creditor (instead of the CA), the OC notifies the CA of the payment so they can post it in their system as well (in order to have a correct balance due).

some CA's systems state whether or not the payment was recieved as a forward form the OC or if it was recieved directly from the debtor, while others do not, so that may be why they state they recieved your payment directly (their system doesn't differentiate when payments are recieved from the OC or the debtor).

Que-Therefore I should just continue to pay the OC instead of the CA then. The CA doesn't have a leg to stand on since I didn't send them any payment whatsoever along with DVing them.

it's irrelevant who you pay, as long as the OC is good at reporting payment to the CA (if they're not, you may experience quite a delay in getting your credit report updated). remember, the CA is the entity that reports to the credit bureau. your credit report will not reflect the account as being paid until the entity reporting the account (the CA), is notified of the payment. paying the OC is basically creating an additional step in the process, while paying the CA is directly paying the entity that is reporting (the confusion is eliminated).

it's entirely your choice, though.

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

[ViktorVaughn]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

are you saying CAs cannot report assigned debts on someone's credit report?

[QMAX21]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

are you saying CAs cannot report assigned debts on someone's credit report?

Que-No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that after the CA has been sent a DV and fails to validate a debt as belonging to them along with validating it to the debtor, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT. The CA in this case was only assigned the debt, meaning they still work for the OC, who still owns the debt. If the CA purchased the debt then the debt is belongs to the CA. Even though you can still DV them and force them to prove it is accurate (based on FDCPA standards) before they can try and collect.

[ViktorVaughn]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA.

this is the 2nd time this has been pointed out to me today, so i went ahead and noted that in my sig (to show i'm not trying to hide this fact)

[ViktorVaughn]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

are you saying CAs cannot report assigned debts on someone's credit report?

Que-No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that after the CA has been sent a DV and fails to validate a debt as belonging to them along with validating it to the debtor, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT. The CA in this case was only assigned the debt, meaning they still work for the OC, who still owns the debt. If the CA purchased the debt then the debt is belongs to the CA. Even though you can still DV them and force them to prove it is accurate (based on FDCPA standards) before they can try and collect.

just making sure. most likely what will happen is they will send you the information you request, then report it. all i was saying was: once that happens (its reported), paying the OC is basically paying the middle man, as they're not the ones reporting the debt. this creates confusion at times, and may delay the updating of your credit report.

[QMAX21]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

are you saying CAs cannot report assigned debts on someone's credit report?

Que-No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that after the CA has been sent a DV and fails to validate a debt as belonging to them along with validating it to the debtor, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT. The CA in this case was only assigned the debt, meaning they still work for the OC, who still owns the debt. If the CA purchased the debt then the debt is belongs to the CA. Even though you can still DV them and force them to prove it is accurate (based on FDCPA standards) before they can try and collect.

just making sure. most likely what will happen is they will send you the information you request, then report it. all i was saying was: once that happens (its reported), paying the OC is basically paying the middle man, as they're not the ones reporting the debt. this creates confusion at times, and may delay the updating of your credit report.

Que-The OC being the middle man would be strange because the debt was originally from them in the first place. Even if the CA sends the information, they still must show where I am obligated to pay them instead of the OC, via a contract signed by me, etc.

[ViktorVaughn]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

are you saying CAs cannot report assigned debts on someone's credit report?

Que-No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that after the CA has been sent a DV and fails to validate a debt as belonging to them along with validating it to the debtor, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT. The CA in this case was only assigned the debt, meaning they still work for the OC, who still owns the debt. If the CA purchased the debt then the debt is belongs to the CA. Even though you can still DV them and force them to prove it is accurate (based on FDCPA standards) before they can try and collect.

just making sure. most likely what will happen is they will send you the information you request, then report it. all i was saying was: once that happens (its reported), paying the OC is basically paying the middle man, as they're not the ones reporting the debt. this creates confusion at times, and may delay the updating of your credit report.

Que-The OC being the middle man would be strange because the debt was originally from them in the first place. Even if the CA sends the information, they still must show where I am obligated to pay them instead of the OC, via a contract signed by me, etc.

i'm speaking within the context of credit reporting.

(once a debt is reported) there are 2 entities. one reporting, one not. paying the OC is paying the one that IS NOT reporting. your credit report gets updated when the one that IS reporting recieves or is notified of payment. you can either directly pay that entity, or pay the other entity and wait for them to notify the correct entity.

[QMAX21]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

are you saying CAs cannot report assigned debts on someone's credit report?

Que-No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that after the CA has been sent a DV and fails to validate a debt as belonging to them along with validating it to the debtor, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT. The CA in this case was only assigned the debt, meaning they still work for the OC, who still owns the debt. If the CA purchased the debt then the debt is belongs to the CA. Even though you can still DV them and force them to prove it is accurate (based on FDCPA standards) before they can try and collect.

just making sure. most likely what will happen is they will send you the information you request, then report it. all i was saying was: once that happens (its reported), paying the OC is basically paying the middle man, as they're not the ones reporting the debt. this creates confusion at times, and may delay the updating of your credit report.

Que-The OC being the middle man would be strange because the debt was originally from them in the first place. Even if the CA sends the information, they still must show where I am obligated to pay them instead of the OC, via a contract signed by me, etc.

i'm speaking within the context of credit reporting.

(once a debt is reported) there are 2 entities. one reporting, one not. paying the OC is paying the one that IS NOT reporting. your credit report gets updated when the one that IS reporting recieves or is notified of payment. you can either directly pay that entity, or pay the other entity and wait for them to notify the correct entity.

Que-Hi Vic. That I know. But my point is that the DV will take the CA out of the equation simply because they don't have contract on this debt with me and even the OC has mentioned that it was assigned to them and that the OC still owns the account.

[ViktorVaughn]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

are you saying CAs cannot report assigned debts on someone's credit report?

Que-No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that after the CA has been sent a DV and fails to validate a debt as belonging to them along with validating it to the debtor, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT. The CA in this case was only assigned the debt, meaning they still work for the OC, who still owns the debt. If the CA purchased the debt then the debt is belongs to the CA. Even though you can still DV them and force them to prove it is accurate (based on FDCPA standards) before they can try and collect.

just making sure. most likely what will happen is they will send you the information you request, then report it. all i was saying was: once that happens (its reported), paying the OC is basically paying the middle man, as they're not the ones reporting the debt. this creates confusion at times, and may delay the updating of your credit report.

Que-The OC being the middle man would be strange because the debt was originally from them in the first place. Even if the CA sends the information, they still must show where I am obligated to pay them instead of the OC, via a contract signed by me, etc.

i'm speaking within the context of credit reporting.

(once a debt is reported) there are 2 entities. one reporting, one not. paying the OC is paying the one that IS NOT reporting. your credit report gets updated when the one that IS reporting recieves or is notified of payment. you can either directly pay that entity, or pay the other entity and wait for them to notify the correct entity.

Que-Hi Vic. That I know. But my point is that the DV will take the CA out of the equation simply because they don't have contract on this debt with me and even the OC has mentioned that it was assigned to them and that the OC still owns the account.

now i'm lost again. if they prove the debt is valid, why can't they report it?

[QMAX21]

Que-Hello again Vic. I did find out that you work for a CA. Not that it matters but in this instance I already DV'd the CA hence they can't report it unless it is verified as their debt. Being assigned a debt doesn't make a debt the CA's, it is still the original creditor's debt. If the CA continues to report this debt inaccurately w/o validating that it belongs to them, they put themselves into legal hotwater. As for the OC I will continue to send them payment irregardless of the CA. If the CA wants to put themselves in hotwater, fine with me, could use the fine money from them.

are you saying CAs cannot report assigned debts on someone's credit report?

Que-No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that after the CA has been sent a DV and fails to validate a debt as belonging to them along with validating it to the debtor, THEY CAN'T REPORT IT. The CA in this case was only assigned the debt, meaning they still work for the OC, who still owns the debt. If the CA purchased the debt then the debt is belongs to the CA. Even though you can still DV them and force them to prove it is accurate (based on FDCPA standards) before they can try and collect.

just making sure. most likely what will happen is they will send you the information you request, then report it. all i was saying was: once that happens (its reported), paying the OC is basically paying the middle man, as they're not the ones reporting the debt. this creates confusion at times, and may delay the updating of your credit report.

Que-The OC being the middle man would be strange because the debt was originally from them in the first place. Even if the CA sends the information, they still must show where I am obligated to pay them instead of the OC, via a contract signed by me, etc.

i'm speaking within the context of credit reporting.

(once a debt is reported) there are 2 entities. one reporting, one not. paying the OC is paying the one that IS NOT reporting. your credit report gets updated when the one that IS reporting recieves or is notified of payment. you can either directly pay that entity, or pay the other entity and wait for them to notify the correct entity.

Que-Hi Vic. That I know. But my point is that the DV will take the CA out of the equation simply because they don't have contract on this debt with me and even the OC has mentioned that it was assigned to them and that the OC still owns the account.

now i'm lost again. if they prove the debt is valid, why can't they report it?

Que-Proving the debt to be valid is proving that they, the CA owns the debt and is the one I should pay too, not the OC. That is my point. I owe the money to the OC, not the CA. CA is working in behalf of the OC to get the money. Why send it to the CA when I can send it to the OC.

[ViktorVaughn]

Que-Proving the debt to be valid is proving that they, the CA owns the debt and is the one I should pay too, not the OC. That is my point. I owe the money to the OC, not the CA. CA is working in behalf of the OC to get the money. Why send it to the CA when I can send it to the OC.

when an OC contacts a CA to turn over an account, they're basically saying "here, collect this. if its not paid, i want it on their credit."

the CA doesn't have to own the account to report it. that's where you're losing me.

[nolo]

Hi again QMAX21,

I think you may be missing an important point here. If not, please forgive the intrusion.

The OC ALWAYS remains the original creditor. EVEN IF THE DEBT IS PURCHASED BY SOMEONE ELSE. (as long as the account was in default when the purchase was made)

The collection agency MAY own the debt OR the collection agency may be assigned the debt but the collection agency will NEVER be the original creditor.

All that is necessary for the collection agency to LEGALLY collect the debt in question is to have the debt assigned by the original creditor. (as long as the original contract between you and the OC allowed for assignment of debt collection activities and almost ALL contracts these days do.)

So, the collection agency does NOT have to own the debt in order to legally collect on it. ViktorVaughn is correct, once the collection agency has been assigned the debt, (per your contract with T-Mobile) it's the collection agency who makes reports to the CRA. If you send payments directly to the original creditor ( T-Mobile), then the original creditor (T-Mobile) will have to relay that information to the collection agency, so the collection agency can make accurate reports to the CRA.

....or the original creditor (T-Mobile) could elect to recall the debt from the collection agency (assuming the debt was assigned) and then collect the payments and make the reports to the CRA themselves.

An important distinction to remember here is, the FDCPA applies to collection agencies only, NOT original creditors. So in some ways, you are better protected by federal law if the collection agency stays involved. Just something to keep in mind.

[QMAX21]

Que-Proving the debt to be valid is proving that they, the CA owns the debt and is the one I should pay too, not the OC. That is my point. I owe the money to the OC, not the CA. CA is working in behalf of the OC to get the money. Why send it to the CA when I can send it to the OC.

when an OC contacts a CA to turn over an account, they're basically saying "here, collect this. if its not paid, i want it on their credit."

the CA doesn't have to own the account to report it. that's where you're losing me.

Que-Hi Vic, I was saying this in conjunction to them "if they fail to validate the debt". I just didn't want to keep repeating the same points. The CA can report it whether they own it or not. However if the CA is DV and they fail to adhere to the necessary steps as anyone can see from using this site, they are in violation of FDCPA. Didn't mean to cause confusion.

[QMAX21]

Hi again QMAX21,

I think you may be missing an important point here. If not, please forgive the intrusion.

Que-Feedback is always welcome, however I know what you are saying. See above post.

The OC ALWAYS remains the original creditor. EVEN IF THE DEBT IS PURCHASED BY SOMEONE ELSE. (as long as the account was in default when the purchase was made)

Que-Yes I know.

The collection agency MAY own the debt OR the collection agency may be assigned the debt but the collection agency will NEVER be the original creditor.

Que-I know that too.

All that is necessary for the collection agency to LEGALLY collect the debt in question is to have the debt assigned by the original creditor. (as long as the original contract between you and the OC allowed for assignment of debt collection activities and almost ALL contracts these days do.)

Que-True, but you still can DV the CA.

So, the collection agency does NOT have to own the debt in order to legally collect on it. ViktorVaughn is correct, once the collection agency has been assigned the debt, (per your contract with T-Mobile) it's the collection agency who makes reports to the CRA. If you send payments directly to the original creditor ( T-Mobile), then the original creditor (T-Mobile) will have to relay that information to the collection agency, so the collection agency can make accurate reports to the CRA.

Que-That I know already.

....or the original creditor (T-Mobile) could elect to recall the debt from the collection agency (assuming the debt was assigned) and then collect the payments and make the reports to the CRA themselves.

Que-Which is what I am shooting for.

An important distinction to remember here is, the FDCPA applies to collection agencies only, NOT original creditors. So in some ways, you are better protected by federal law if the collection agency stays involved. Just something to keep in mind.

Que-Yes I know. But if we pay the original creditor off, it would be better since T-Mobile usually restores service and doesn't report things as late.

[ViktorVaughn]

(back to what i originally said)

CA is working in behalf of the OC to get the money. Why send it to the CA when I can send it to the OC.

because (once the debt is validated), the CA would be the one reporting the debt to the credit bureaus (not the OC). paying the OC would add an extra step in getting the payment to the entity that is reporting the debt (the CA). this will delay the updating of your credit report.

then again, i guess that would only be of consequence to you if you were trying to get approved for something.

[QMAX21]

(back to what i originally said)

CA is working in behalf of the OC to get the money. Why send it to the CA when I can send it to the OC.

because (once the debt is validated), the CA would be the one reporting the debt to the credit bureaus (not the OC). paying the OC would add an extra step in getting the payment to the entity that is reporting the debt (the CA). this will delay the updating of your credit report.

then again, i guess that would only be of consequence to you if you were trying to get approved for something.

Que-That is only IF THE DEBT IS VALIDATED BY THE CA. They don't have any records.

[ViktorVaughn]

(back to what i originally said)

CA is working in behalf of the OC to get the money. Why send it to the CA when I can send it to the OC.

because (once the debt is validated), the CA would be the one reporting the debt to the credit bureaus (not the OC). paying the OC would add an extra step in getting the payment to the entity that is reporting the debt (the CA). this will delay the updating of your credit report.

then again, i guess that would only be of consequence to you if you were trying to get approved for something.

Que-That is only IF THE DEBT IS VALIDATED BY THE CA. They don't have any records.

they get them from the OC and send them to you. its a very simple process.