the aussie

Question on Re-aging Account

Recommended Posts

G'day Mates...

Ok, this concerns the infamous NCO (or MedClr, or whatever they are calling themselves now). After inition dispute with CRA, an account held by them was updated and I presume as verified. DOLA was in 2000, however updated status now reflects the account is open, current status is 120 day past due (which is coming up as a current delinquent) and the DOLP was in 2005....

Question is...are these updates an apparent attempt to make the account look more current than it truly is....I have no idea what this account is for and checked back through all my banking statements....I made no payment to anyone last year for that amount....so that entry was bogus.

I have just DV'd them with a statement "As it appears you have verified this account with CRA's, it is obvious that you hold the needed documentation . Therefore I am requesting..blah blah blah for validation.

It will be interesting to see the response as in Florida I understand that medical records can't be shared without the written consent of the cunsumer.

If they do happen to drop the TL,s....can I still sue for violations?

Thanks Mate....'ave a g'day!

The Aussie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G'day Mates...Ok, this concerns the infamous NCO (or MedClr, or whatever they are calling themselves now). After inition dispute with CRA, an account held by them was updated and I presume as verified.

DOLA was in 2000, however updated status now reflects the account is open, current status is 120 day past due (which is coming up as a current delinquent) and the DOLP was in 2005....Question is...are these updates an apparent attempt to make the account look more current than it truly is

....I have no idea what this account is for and checked back through all my banking statements....I made no payment to anyone last year for that amount....so that entry was bogus. It will be interesting to see the response as in Florida I understand that medical records can't be shared without the written consent of the cunsumer.

If they do happen to drop the TL,s....can I still sue for violations?

Thanks Mate....'ave a g'day!

The Aussie

Those are some serious violations. This is Re-Aging coupled with fraudulent activity. Making a bogus payment (WITHOUT decreasing the Balance Amount - I'm sure) to restart the SOL to bring suit. Disclosure of Medical Records or any records for that matter is not going to happen. NCO will quickly transfer/sell to another JDB before that happens

FICO Scores look at the MOST RECENT Date in any category of Derogs. Re-aging and Recent Payments on Delinquent Accounts highly impact credit scores. That's why the thugs do it.

You have suffered damages. Of course, you can still sue, if NCO happens to drop the TLs. Their violations and your damages had already occurred. Be aware that the Florida Statute of Limitations on a Collections Harassment matter is two years under Chapter 559 - Part VI and one year for Federal claims.

Don't forget to file your Complaints with the FTC and State Attorney General with documentation in support of your claim. The enforcers must be informed about NCO. NCO is always up to something illegal. If the FTC and SAG receive enough complaints, they can file suit or hit them with huge fine$$$. Remember, it is never a waste of time to file a complaint. I find that the CAs and JDBs want to avoid complaints and lawsuits.

Best Regards,

June

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they actually report that you made a payment when you didn't, then that would certainly be a violation.

If they simply reported that you are late in paying on an account that they hold, then that is not a violation.

I didn't know that there is such a thing as "Date of Last Payment" on credit reports. I know of Date of Last Activity. DOLA can be updated monthly if the CA chooses to report on a monthly basis. And updating the DOLA will result in the account becoming more recent. It is not illegal - it's the nature of things. You disputed, they verfied. In their verification, they said, "Yes, this info is accurate and the consumer has not paid for over 120 days." This, by itself, isn't a violation.

Now, if they failed to conduct an investigation, that's a violation. If they didn't mark the TL in dispute, that would be also. If you DV'd within the 30 day period after first contact, and they didn't verify, but continue collection activity, then that is a violation also. In your case, this was way outside of 30 days, so I don't think that applies.

I would definitely try to get them to remove it if they cannot provide any proof of the debt. And I would try to get the CRA to remove on the basis that they cannot prove the debt. I just do not see grounds for a lawsuit here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EQ has a DOLP field for OCs which is rarely used. They may use the DOLP which is the same date as the DOLA (if used) and it is FIXED.

On EQ "Items As Of Date Reported" changes monthly or on each Update NOT the DOLP or DOLA, which pertain to the actions of the consumer NOT the Lenders' acts.

Note that the CAs do not report under "Credit Account Information". The CAs must report under "Collection Agency Information" with a "Collection Reported Date" (or Opened Date) with the "Date Of First Delinquency" (DOFD).

If the Lender's Data Entry Person is reporting in the incorrect Section of the Credit Report (that's a violation) and constantly changing either one of the two dates (DOLP or DOLA) whenever they do Update, they are Re-aging that account and making it appear as a Tradeline when it is a CA account. It is ILLEGAL. It is a violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one account on all of my EQ reports it shows a last payment of 3/2006... but still reports the DOLA at 11/2004. Apparantly they use the DOLA as the DOFD (so I'm told)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For one account on all of my EQ reports it shows a last payment of 3/2006... but still reports the DOLA at 11/2004. Apparantly they use the DOLA as the DOFD (so I'm told)

Is it a CA account? If so, the CA is stating that you made a most RECENT payment 03/2006, WITHOUT reducing the debt. They are very sneaky that way. The CA had willfully Re-aged your account (by 16 months). On my EQ reports, both the DOLA and DOLP have the same exact date, or DOLP is left blank. That's the way it should be listed. DOLA and DOLP are recorded actions by the Debtor NOT the CA or OC.

File a complaint with the FTC and provide proof of the Re-aging and inaccurate information. Complain to your state attorney general with evidence of Re-aging and inaccurate information.

Have you DV'd the CA? If not, DV them now and they may sell/transfer/ assign the debt to another crooked CA and remove their listing from EQ.

Best Regards, xcanex

June

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's an OC. And yeah.. I've done the whole nine yards with them (actually went to court with them last Friday...waiting on the judge's decision)

They're all sneaky... it's like they actually have a vendetta against the consumer to want to screw them over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's an OC. And yeah.. I've done the whole nine yards with them (actually went to court with them last Friday...waiting on the judge's decision)

They're all sneaky... it's like they actually have a vendetta against the consumer to want to screw them over

How can they be an OC? The guru's out there correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that purchasing a debt that is in default at the time of purchase still makes the purchaser a collector not an OC. As I have never had any contractual obligation with the purchaser nor any agreement with them concerning any medical information nor was I ever treated by them. . And when it comes to medical debt in Florida, I thought privacy issues come into play.

The Aussie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted by Jess1120

No, it's an OC. And yeah.. I've done the whole nine yards with them

(actually went to court with them last Friday...waiting on the judge's decision). They're all sneaky... it's like they actually have a vendetta against the consumer to want to screw them over.

How can they be an OC? The guru's out there correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that purchasing a debt that is in default at the time of purchase still makes the purchaser a collector not an OC. As I have never had any contractual obligation with the purchaser nor any agreement with them concerning any medical information nor was I ever treated by them. And when it comes to medical debt in Florida, I thought privacy issues come into play.The Aussie

Respectfully, AUSSIE I think you may be a litte confused. I was there for a moment or two. JESS1120 had posted comments (in between our discussion) referring to the Original Creditor (OC) on their EQ Credit Report.

Your Original Post is about the debt collector NCO on one of your CRAs reports for a medical collection.

So as it pertains to JESS1120 post, an OC had reported some recent bogus payment with the "FIXED" DOLA, which still is a violation.

As it pertains to Your Post, EVERYTHING you had stated and I quoted above (in this Post) is true and correct.

Happy 'olidays, xcanex xcanex xcanex

June

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.