My credit repair attempt made it worse....:(

[Paladin_Roden]

I must have bad luck or something. I followed everything in the repair guide to the "T" and now I'm worse off then before. I first posted on this website about how Verizon wanted 1000 deposit for a phone and thats when I noticed 6 collections on my credit report, but they all showed "paid".

I get a huge run around with CSC, Equifax, Transunion, and Experian on the phone when trying to get account numbers on these medical collections, even the CA didn't want to talk to me. Well considering they are all paid and they are all over five years old, I figure my credit repair journey would be easier then most, but boy was I wrong.

I sent the debt valadation to all the CA's and despuited all my collections on my credit reports. I used one of the pre formated letters for Valadation and dispute and replaced all important information with my own and stuff that was on my credit report. I sent them all CCRR to all the CA's and the credit beauro. I wait a few weeks and get the green cards back on almost all of them, I pull my credit reports to see if any change has occured and boy was I suprised with what I saw.

The collection agiences I sent DV's to were West Assets Inc, and NCO Group and Bussiness and Professional Services. None of them have yet to send me valadations on anything, they have 12 more days left in the 30 day time period. Before the DV, NCO had two, West Assets had two, and Bussiness and Professional had two collections.

When I pulled my credit report today all of them changed from "paid" to "unpaid" and now instead of 6 collection accounts on my credit reports I have 26 collections on my credit report. NCO alone added 12 new collections to my report all from 07/2000, and I only went to the doctor once that month and I was covered by insurance. Now they are charging a whole bunch of stuff ranging from as small as $32 to $308.

West Asset Inc and NCO Group are reporting 5 charges that are all the same $174 for the same date. NCO reporting 3 times and West Asset reporting twice but with all different account numbers yet it accord the same time 07/2000. Bussiness and Professional added four new collections with a date of 9/2000.

I don't know what happen, but the orginal six collections were on my Equifax when I orginally checked them, and when I checked TU, and EX, only one collection from NCO group was on each of them. Now all 26 are now on ALL THREE CREDIT REPORTS!, my FICO score took a huge nose dive, my EQ score was 598, today 507. My TU and EQ are in the 490's. I don't know why my credit sucks, the only negetives on my credit reports are these trumped up medical collections. I have no credit cards, no credit card debts, no BK, no Liens, no Judgements, just 12k in student loans that I pay $158 a month for the last six months, and all are in good standing. I never financed a car, always paid in full, and I rent my apartment for the last eight years, never been late once, nor have I ever been late with my electric, cable or phone. I'm very good with my money and never owed a dime in my life other then these student loans. Yet banks run from me faster then they run from someone who just filed for BK. WHY ME LORD WHY ME!!!!!!!!!!! Life sucks

Anyways, what do I do now? Do I send out new DV's for all these new collections, and new disputes to the CB's for these new collections? Or do I wait for 45 days go by and send every one of these ***********!!!! to court and sue?

[Josh Mcgrath]

Someone correct me if I'm worng, but cant you send them one DV letter per CA disputing ALL accounts? CMRRR of course!!! If they validate with the CRA's without validating with you, SUE or make them take it off your report.

And don't worry about it. A Paid collection is just as bad as an UNPAID collection!

[tropicaljo]

Paladin_Roden, Okay, take a deep breath...hold it ...let it out...now, Relax. I'm not exactly sure what happened to spur all the additions on your credit reports...others will comment on that I'm very sure, but I understand your distress and I just wanted to say "RELAX". This is the best place I've found to get help with credit repair issues, so you're on the right track. I've seen this kind of thing come up around here, and the solution is usually pretty simple. I used to think I had the worst luck in the credit realm...then I found this place and now things are looking pretty good! So stop thinking about how bad your luck is and focus on how fortunate you are to have this wonderful, valuable resource at your fingertips!

[Josh Mcgrath]

another option is to send NCO a CMRRR letter with a different letter for each account number in the same envolope. Itll be cheaper that way. However, write the CMRRR number at the top of each of the DV letters. This is to ensure that they cant pull out a page in wet ink at court "this is what he sent us..." .

[DocDon]

If you think you're being wronged, there is an FTC, and each state has an Attorney General.

These agencies are paid for by your tax dollars to help protect you, the consumer, against bad business practices, amongst other things.

If it's discovered that NCO placed 12 new collections on your report in retaliation, SUE them into the ground.

All the form letters in the world mean nothing, if you're not ready to stand up and fight for your rights.

[canyouhelp?]

I agree with Jo......RELAX!! Ive only been on this site for 3 days and believe me its a great place as are the people on here, anyone who knows will try to help you to the best of there ability, dont panic and relax .........someone that can help will soon be on the way!!!!!

[wunderwoman]

Let me jump in here. First, I want to help you. You say you followed the book to a "T" but the book (repair guide?) clearly states to obtain a copy of your credit reports directly from the bureau. Not from an online source like Privacy guard, etc. I think you may have missed this step because they ALWAYS have the account number on them. Also, you should NEVER call a CA, which I think you did because you say "even they didn't want to talk to you?"

Do not call another soul. At all. Not one. Not even the CRA. NONE. NADA. Order copies of all three reports, direct from the CRA, right now. Tell them you were denied credit and you'll get it for free.

Next, I want you to send out a DV letter to each agency, if one agency has more than one account, include each account that you want validated in that letter. Let them know how pissed off you are about it. That you checked your report and you have NO IDEA what this mess is. Tell them you want to see records, your signature, all of that. Do not call.

Tell them in the past you have paid bills that are not yours simply because you were harrassed and that now you know your rights and that you will deal with this according to the FCRA and the FDCPA, and that you will seek legal counsel if need be because you have been victimized in the past.

Post a copy of every letter on this board so that we can review it before you send it off.

I know this is hard, but it can be rectified.

I know you wanna cry. I've been there. Cry and scream and then use your most intelligent anger and let's create some kick @ss letters!

Oh, also, print out the report that only had 6 collections on it, so that if we need to go to court, you'll have proof that they did this in retaliation.

Keep copies of everything. Do not put your signature on anything, just initial it.

[divemedic]

This is a common tactic, and there is a way to fight it. Just follow the procedures and all will be fine. These 2 CA's are particularly nasty and will most likely require you to file suit. That's the bad news. The good news it that they can be beaten.

I try to keep my DV letters vague, so that they cover more. That way they have to validate all of the items on your CR. You may want to try this:

You

Your address

CA

CA Address

DATE

This letter is being sent to you in response to (a letter I recently received/an entry in my credit file). Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( that your claim is disputed and validation is requested.

This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section. I request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay you, including the following:

• Name and address of Alleged Original Creditor

• Name, address and account number on file for alleged debtor

• Amount of alleged debt

• Date that this alleged debt became payable

• Date of original delinquency

Please include a copy the following:

• Any signed agreement I have made with your firm, or other verifiable proof that I have a contractual obligation to pay your firm.

• Any agreement that bears my signature, wherein I agreed to pay the creditor.

• Copy of all statements while this account was open.

• The agreement with your client that grants your organization the authority to collect this alleged debt.

If your offices are able to provide the proper documentation as requested, I will require at least 30 days to investigate this information. If your offices fail to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.

I wish to thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide in this matter.

YOU

[Paladin_Roden]

I did get a credit report from each credit Bearu, each cost me 9.95, and none of them had the complete account number on it, just the first three to four numbers followed by XXXXX. I tried very hard to get the complete account numbers first from the CB and then from the CA because the CB said they are not allowed to give out account numbers. I even requested such account numbers in writing but got a letter back from the CB that I need to order a credit report first and show more ID. I included in my letter of dispute a copy of my credit report, my Drivers License, my SS card, and a copy of my electric and phone bill, and yet they still requested more ID suggesting that I use the same stuff I sent them. I don't use privacey gaurd, or at least not yet, I went to there site after you mentioned it 2 bucks for the first two months is a good deal.

Anyway, I sent the exact same DV letter as the above poster showed, stating all account numbers I did have and followed it with the line "and all accounts related to my name stated above and stated in mentioned accounts". I got a letter back from NCO stating they need my SS and other info to investigate my claim further (of course I sent them nothing) and CSC asked me for more ID for my dispute, TransUnion asked for more ID and I have yet to hear from Experian on the matter. Only thing that has changed on my credit report are the added collections which are all false, and of course they changed all my paid collections to "unpaid". I contacted the orginal creditor which was Southwest Methodist hospital, and the one doctor I was seeing, and they stated I owed them nothing, and even mailed me a letter stating I have no outstanding accounts with them and gave me a list of all the visits I ever had to the hospital and doctor which only shows two times in the last 8 years with the last one being in 07/2000. I made a copy of each of them and sent them to all CB's with copies of more ID which include DL, SS, electric bill, phone bill, cable bill and copy of my lease (if that isn't enough ID I don't know what is) as well as a dispute letter for the new medical collections on my credit report. I also sent a copy to each CA (CMRRR) today attaching another letter of DV stating what account numbers I knew and followed by "and all accounts related to my name stated above and stated in mentioned accounts".

As soon as I get the green cards back from this new DV for these new accounts, I will wait a period of 30 days. If in those 30 days nothing has changed on my Credit Reports I will send a letter to all Credit bearuo about the CA's not valadating my debt and ask that they remove them from my credit reports. After an additional 15 days nothing happens and the collections are not removed I will go down to small claims court and file a seperate lawsuit for each CA and each CB. I will bring copies of old and current Credit Reports and all letters sent to me and letters i sent to them with orginal Returned Reciepts and CM recipts. I research and find each violation they made and sue to the fullest extent or up to the limit of small court claims which I think in my area is 5,000, if violations exceed limit. That is my plan, and I hope it works if not, I will be out of some hard cold cash and have to live with crap credit for the a long time which will lock me out of buying a home for a while.

[adminppdotcom]

After an additional 15 days nothing happens and the collections are not removed I will go down to small claims court and file a seperate lawsuit for each CA and each CB

Slooooow down there.

The focus should be on the consumer reporting agencies at this point. Since the collection agency accounts are so old, they are not required to talk to you or respond to your request for verification. This includes deleting the accounts.

Find out the correct status of the accounts, and dispute them with the consumer reporting agency(ies) and NOT the collection agencies. The collection agencies cannot be help liable to the consumer under the FDCPA unless they receive a dispute FROM the consumer reporting agency, NOT the consumer.

Good luck

[Paladin_Roden]

As I stated I called the OC and had them mail me a letter stating I don't owe them anything and showed all activity under my SS over the last eight years. All the new collections they are showing on my CR are in retalation to my DV letter which you can see a copy of what letter I sent them by scrolling up two post. All these new accounts are false purely made up. I sent a new dispute letter to all the CB's with a copy of the letters sent to me by the OC's. Hopefully this will provide me with results without having to go to court.

[adminppdotcom]

As I stated I called the OC and had them mail me a letter stating I don't owe them anything and showed all activity under my SS over the last eight years. All the new collections they are showing on my CR are in retalation to my DV letter which you can see a copy of what letter I sent them by scrolling up two post. All these new accounts are false purely made up. I sent a new dispute letter to all the CB's with a copy of the letters sent to me by the OC's. Hopefully this will provide me with results without having to go to court.

Yes, this is the right track:) But if the accounts were sold to the collection agencies, the original creditor may not have records of them. Just keep that in mind

It may take a court action to determine if the accounts were yours or not.

But in the meantime, see what the consumer reporting agencies say.

[luckyduck]

The focus should be on the consumer reporting agencies at this point. Since the collection agency accounts are so old, they are not required to talk to you or respond to your request for verification. This includes deleting the accounts.

Find out the correct status of the accounts, and dispute them with the consumer reporting agency(ies) and NOT the collection agencies. The collection agencies cannot be help liable to the consumer under the FDCPA unless they receive a dispute FROM the consumer reporting agency, NOT the consumer.

You absolutely can and should dispute with the CAs and the CRAs. FCRA requires the CA to investigate and prove that the account is accurate when it recives the dispute from the CRA. They are also required to perform an investigation if they receive a dispute directly from the consumer. So, do both. If they fail to investigate, it is a suit under both the FDCPA and the FCRA. They might be able to avoid validating under the FDCPA but not FCRA, they are still misrepresenting debts and using unfair and deceptive collection tactics, and will still be liable under the FDCPA.

The key to beating this would be to get all your proof from the insurance company. Get copies of all insurance activity for the time period that they are reporting these accounts as existing. Get proof that you had insurance this entire time, and that if a provider submitted a claim, it would have been paid. Try to find out who the OCs are, and get proof that they were contracted with the insurance provider. Then get a copy of the standard provider contract outlining billing procedures. Once you have that, you should be able to show either that these bills are fabrications, or that the OCs didn't properly bill insurance, and you are not responsible. The CA has a responsibility to investigate your insurance claims if you let them know this is the reason for your dispute. If they don't investigate, and just verify, then it's an FCRA liability as well.

Once you have everything, Sue Them All. Sue the CRAs, the CAs, and every OC that the CA named, and file complaints with the FTC and the state AG. Just dispute for now, and then get your proof. Once you have that, let the hammer down. They'll all start pointing fingers at each other. That's when it gets fun.

[Josh Mcgrath]

umm... I don't see how the CA's do not have to validate with anyone because its so old?? Are we talking about paid collections?

[adminppdotcom]

They are also required to perform an investigation if they receive a dispute directly from the consumer.

Luckyduck. This is a huge misunderstanding which most consumers have. The section you are referring to is 15 USC 1681s-2, subsection (a):

623 (a) (8 ) ABILITY OF CONSUMER TO DISPUTE INFORMATION DIRECTLY WITH

FURNISHER.—(E) DUTY OF PERSON AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF DISPUTE.—AFTER RECEIVING A NOTICE OF DISPUTE FROM A CONSUMER PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (D), THE PERSON THAT PROVIDED THE INFORMATION IN DISPUTE TO A CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY SHALL—

(I) CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED

INFORMATION;

The problem is, section (a) PROVIDES NO private right of action. Meaning a consumer CANNOT sue for this. ONLY if the consumer sends a dispute to the conumer reporting agency, can the consumer sue the debt collector for not conducting a reasonable investigation. That is contained in subsection (b ).

umm... I don't see how the CA's do not have to validate with anyone because its so old?? Are we talking about paid collections?

Does not matter if its paid or not, the effective validation period is limited, 30-days. If the consumer sends a TARDY request for verification, the debt collector is not required to respond, nor are they required to cease collection efforts. They are only required to mark the account in dispute.

[luckyduck]

Quote:

They are also required to perform an investigation if they receive a dispute directly from the consumer.

Luckyduck. This is a huge misunderstanding which most consumers have. The section you are referring to is 15 USC 1681s-2, subsection (a):

623 (a) (8 ) ABILITY OF CONSUMER TO DISPUTE INFORMATION DIRECTLY WITH

FURNISHER.—(E) DUTY OF PERSON AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF DISPUTE.—AFTER RECEIVING A NOTICE OF DISPUTE FROM A CONSUMER PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (D), THE PERSON THAT PROVIDED THE INFORMATION IN DISPUTE TO A CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY SHALL—

(I) CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE DISPUTED

INFORMATION;

The problem is, section (a) PROVIDES NO private right of action. Meaning a consumer CANNOT sue for this. ONLY if the consumer sends a dispute to the conumer reporting agency, can the consumer sue the debt collector for not conducting a reasonable investigation. That is contained in subsection (b ).

Ahhh, but let's not take my post out of context. You are absolutely correct that there is no private right of action if they don't investigate your dispute directly with them. However, if you dispute with them and the CRA, they cannot say they didn't recieve the information, complaint, or reasons for dispute. If the CRA says the CA verified, then you go after the CA for not taking into consideration the consumer information received, and not doing a proper investigation under 623(.

Does not matter if its paid or not, the effective validation period is limited, 30-days. If the consumer sends a TARDY request for verification, the debt collector is not required to respond, nor are they required to cease collection efforts. They are only required to mark the account in dispute.

Yes, CAs lawyer says to me, all they have to do is mark it as disputed (even though they knew it was incorrect). You get around that by disputing with the CRA and claiming failure to investigate per FCRA 623(.

Tardy or not, a consumer has a right to dispute at any time. It only says if they don't dispute within 30 days the debt will be assumed valid. It does not say the debt IS valid, and in fact specifically says that failure to submit a dispute does not make the debt valid.

I agree that they are not required either to cease collection or to provide validation after the 30 day period. But in this case, when was the first communication? OP knew nothing of these bills until it was found on the CRs. However, if they cannot validate their claims, they can be held liable under FDCPA for misrepresenting the amount, status, and character of a debt, for attempting to collect money they are not legally entitled to collect, using unfair and deceptive collection tactics, etc.

Under FCRA 623( they have to do a full fledged investigation and prove the info is correct. They absolutely cannot just leave inaccurate information marked as disputed. And who cares if they don't validate per FDCPA, they are still liable under FDCPA for other reasons. By failing to do a full investigation in response to the CRA dispute, they are liable under FCRA. See Johnson v. MBNA.

Well, to make a long story short, upon making it clear to this CAs lawyer that they can't leave inaccurate information marked as disputed indefinitely and that they were required to do an investigation under FCRA, which they failed to do, the markings just started falling off the reports like flies (even the debt they validated).

It took me three months of disputing with the OC, the CA and the CRAs, and the magic was in the insurance proof.

Paladin_Roden, you said there was insurance at the time of these alleged debts. This goes way beyond FDCPA and FCRA, and gets into Privacy violations, billing fraud, insurance fraud, etc... You said you have no idea what these are. If they aren't your bills, and they continue to report, then it doesn't matter what laws they are violating. They are breaking the laws, and you just need to do whatever it takes to show that you took every step you could to get this fixed.

You simply need to use every resource available and then nail them if you need to. That includes the FTC, the state AG, your insurance company, the state Insurance Department, and the Office of Civil Rights. And, a good question, are all of these being reported as Paid, and do you have the before and after reports. Keep them to show that they added the extras in retaliation to your dispute. It means punitive damages.

The intent is removal from CAs, but you need to build it up so that they know if they don't remove, they are going to pay for this lunacy. Medical bills are difficult enough as it is, but to have paid medical bills being reported, and bills that probably aren't even yours on top of that, well that's worth suing the hell out of someone over. Don't rely on them to prove your innocence. Get your insurance proof, and investigate yourself. It will go a long way toward helping you, and it will pay off in the end.

[adminppdotcom]

I agree that they are not required either to cease collection or to provide validation after the 30 day period. But in this case, when was the first communication? OP knew nothing of these bills until it was found on the CRs.

Simply listing the account on a credit report does not qualify as the initial communication under the validation section, FDCPA 809.

However, if they cannot validate their claims, they can be held liable under FDCPA for misrepresenting the amount, status, and character of a debt, for attempting to collect money they are not legally entitled to collect, using unfair and deceptive collection tactics, etc.

This may be true if they failed to send verification and did not cease collection efforts after receiving a TIMELY request. But a lot of consumers are under the impression that the debt collector can be held liable under the FDCPA even if the request for verification was TARDY. But there is no case law on this that I am aware of. Can you post any as reference? I think it makes perfect sense, but at this point and time, there is a lack of court support.

[Josh Mcgrath]

I still disagree. Every single CA I sent a DV to, even 5 years old, has stopped all collection activity, taken off my credit and sent back to the OC. Unless you speak of something new with the FACTa?

However, maybe they just go away to avoid the trouble. Also, I am in Texas which REQUIRES them to respond in 30 days or delete...maybe thats what it is. Texas FDCPA

[DocDon]

Just continue to do what works. We've been doing just fine.....

[luckyduck]

Simply listing the account on a credit report does not qualify as the initial communication under the validation section, FDCPA 809.

The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium

Therefore, I must disagree. Reporting a debt to a CRA is a communication as defined by FDCPA. Do you have something to support your claim that it is not? I have a quote from the statutes that seems to confirm my stance.

If they never sent a notice of right to validation, then they violated by not sending it within 5 days of reporting, and they never began the 30 day clock. So, there is no such thing as an UNTIMELY request for validation in this case. It's 30 days from the date they send the notice of rights, not 30 days from the initial communication.

This may be true if they failed to send verification and did not cease collection efforts after receiving a TIMELY request. But a lot of consumers are under the impression that the debt collector can be held liable under the FDCPA even if the request for verification was TARDY. But there is no case law on this that I am aware of. Can you post any as reference? I think it makes perfect sense, but at this point and time, there is a lack of court support.

Again, lacking a notice of FDCPA rights, there is no such thing as an untimely request. Regarding liability, even when the request is tardy, the plain and simple fact is that if a CA is trying to collect a debt that they have no right to collect because they are pinning it on the wrong person, it doesn't matter if there ever was a request for validation. They are in violation. Validation is only one part of the Act. placing several unsubstantiable markings on someone's credit report is false, misleading, and deceptive, regardless of whether there has been a request for validation, and regardless of whether that request was timely. CAs have a misconception that if a debtor does not send a timely request, they waive all their FDCPA rights. This is not true. Validation is only one right. Being free from harrassment, oppression, deception, and unfairness are other rights, which are NEVER waived.

This thread has been highjacked. The OP was simply posting to find out how to deal with this crap that the CA dished out, and to get some support.

Regardless of the legal arguments, if these numerous debts are invalid, they are invalid, and the debtor is being victimized. There is protection under several different aspects of the law. First course of action is contacting every involved business, and clearing ?his/her? name in whatever way possible. If it doesn't get resolved, next course of action is determining what to take legal action over.

Plain and simple fact: We are available to point out the laws that MAY work to the advantage, and to lead each other on the right track to utilize those laws and protections. It's the court's job to interpret the specifics of the law, not ours. If it could go either way, it should be pleaded, and argued. Then the court can determine exactly what the statutes mean. If something is questionable, then assume the law is on your side until you find precedence stating that it isn't.

McGrath. The CAs back off even with untimely requests because they know it's in their best interest to do so. There is no precedence (that I've seen) stating that a consumer gives up their rights by failing to file a timely request, and it's smarter not to take the chances. In fact I have a letter from a CA collecting on a debt for which the OC didn't post a payment (I have a copy of the check that was cashed.) Letter states that because DH didn't respond within 30 days, he waived his rights. Well, let's see how the courts like that one. The debt was paid. The OC screwed up, and whether or not we sent a timely request, they violated his rights in several ways.

adminppdotcom, I look forward to posting how much they pay out in the class action, even though we DID NOT send a timely request, and specifically, how much DH personally gets for them attempting to collect an invalid debt, which he actually was going to pay again, just to keep them from putting it on his report. Good example: CA sends envelopes out that clearly say "Security Center Collection Services" on the outside. Don't need to request validation to get a class action going for that one. Again, validation is only one little section of the act.

As I said, there are other sections that this CA would be held liable to the OP for, even if not the validation section.