Mov not provided

[radioactiveman]

I recently disputed an item on my credit report. It came back verified. I then sent a MOV. Today I got mail from TU that was just another verification. No MOV was providied. What is my next step? Try sending another MOV to TU?

[stancil1]

Did you dispute via regular mail or online ?

[radioactiveman]

Regular mail.

[stancil1]

I would send them another MOV using slightly stronger language. This time CMRRR.

[TheRoadBack]

I have sent MOV numerous times cmrrr and never ever have I received a response. Just a form letter saying absolutely nothing. Maybe someone else has had luck but myself and many others I know, the cra just ignore it.

[radioactiveman]

aren't they required to provide mov by law?

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

Yeah (if you request it), but if they don't, you can't sue them for it. You can however report them to the FTC (like they're going to do anything).

[MadinKS]

The statute states:

§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

(6) Notice of Results of Reinvestigation

( Contents. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under subparagraph (A), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before

the expiration of the 5-day period referred to in subparagraph

(iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the

procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the

information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency,

including the business name and address of any furnisher of

information contacted in connection with such information and the

telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available;

(7) Description of reinvestigation procedure. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph (6)((iii) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description.

I don't see anywhere in the statute that says your request must be in writing. I may be wrong but regardless, they are required by law to provide you the information. If they tell you again that you are not allowed that info, tell them the FCRA (A FEDERAL LAW) begs to differ.

EarthAngel,

You said:

Yeah (if you request it), but if they don't, you can't sue them for it

Isn't that why the FCRA is in existence? So if there is willful non-compliance we can use the legal system to make it right? I don't understand your comment.

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

Isn't that why the FCRA is in existence? So if there is willful non-compliance we can use the legal system to make it right? I don't understand your comment.

The purpose of the FCRA is to protect the consumer, not to give consumers more power over companies and agencies. Most of the FCRA doesn't allow for private right of action, meaning as a private citizen, you cannot sue for most violations. The only violation that I'm aware of that a consumer can sue for is §623 ( (or better known as the s-2b violation). You can do a search for that violation to learn more about it. Divemedic is especially knowledgeable about it. The FTC governs the FCRA, so any violations that a CRA or data furnisher commits, you should report it to them so that they can take the appropriate actions. In my experience, the FTC hasn't helped much. If they receive enough complaints, then perhaps they will take action. So by all means, do send in your complaints. The more they get, the hotter the heat will be on the CRA and data furnishers' @$$e$. But in the meantime, don't expect the lack of a MOV to get you a deletion or anything immediate in your favor. Just use it as papertrail in case you want to use it as evidence in a lawsuit.

[stancil1]

You can also try reporting to your states AG and the BBB, chances are that you'll piss them off though if you do....MOV's are a good thing but if I were you, I'd concentrate more on the CA because they are more likely to crater than the CRA's. I have reported CA's to their local BBB and both my AG and the AG of the state that they're located in and it has worked really well for me. If anything, send another request for MOV along with the first one point out that obviously there was a mistake or that your request was misunderstood. What you are requesting is the Method That They use to Verify the debt as well as the Name of the furnisher, their address and if they have it, their telephone number.

[MadinKS]

Just use it as papertrail in case you want to use it as evidence in a lawsuit.

A lawsuit against who? The CRA? I don't mean to be stubborn but it sounds like contradiction to your prior statements. I am definitely not tryinig to piss you off, I am just trying to learn like most everyone else on this board. So, please don't take it the wrong way.

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

A lawsuit against who? The CRA?

As I said, you can sue for the s-2b violation, which would be a lawsuit against the data furnisher. If you're trying to convince a judge how you did everything in your power to get the DF to cooperate (if you're trying to get a TL reported correctly or removed for example), the MOV could possibly show how you even went thru the CRA to get them to cooperate to get the matter resolved. It's just additional paper trail. It's not a slam dunk by itself, but it could give a consumer additional leverage in case they want to sue the DF. Needless to say, if the CRA doesn't respond to the MOV, then it wouldn't be used as evidence.

Also note that CAs are data furnishers as well...and consumers can surely sue for FDCPA violations. A MOV can be included in the papertrail in his/her lawsuit (for FDCPA violations) against a CA. It just can't be used as the basis for the lawsuit.

[MadinKS]

Okay. Now I am on the same page. Thanks.

[hiblues]

has anyone tried a on-line MOV?

[radioactiveman]

So what should I do? Try asking again for an MOV from TU? Or should my next letter simply be telling them that they are in violation of the FCRA and legal action will be taken.

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

So what should I do? Try asking again for an MOV from TU? Or should my next letter simply be telling them that they are in violation of the FCRA and legal action will be taken.

Read my previous posts. IMO, you should be DVing the CA or disputing directly w/ the OC. Your next step depends on what type of item you disputed.

[radioactiveman]

Read my previous posts. IMO, you should be DVing the CA or disputing directly w/ the OC. Your next step depends on what type of item you disputed.

It is a CA; LVNV. I validated them. They came back with some account statements, and a partially legible 'application'. No correspondence b/w them and the origninal creditor was provided i.e. a letter/agreement authorizing collection/selling of the account. As of this month, they are also claiming $760 more than the charge off, without accounting for that increased balance. Unless I'm misinterpreting something what they have provided isn't complete validation.

Contacting them won't really do me any good now, because I already gave them the 'cease and desit' letter.

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

It is a CA; LVNV. I validated them. They came back with some account statements, and a partially legible 'application'. No correspondence b/w them and the origninal creditor was provided i.e. a letter/agreement authorizing collection/selling of the account. As of this month, they are also claiming $760 more than the charge off, without accounting for that increased balance. Unless I'm misinterpreting something what they have provided isn't complete validation.

But that's not a violation, as long as they responded to your request b4 verifying w/ the CRA (if you requested DV w/in 30 days of initial communication). You only have reason for not paying the extra $760. You would need to send them a follow up letter asking for an accounting for the extra $760. Since LVNV is now the new owner of the account, depending on the contract, they still may be able to continue accruing interest on the debt.

Contacting them won't really do me any good now, because I already gave them the 'cease and desit' letter.

Then you just limited yourself to getting any resolution. If it's past SOL, then you'll have a defense if they sue you; however, that still won't get you a deletion. Unless you can get them on violations or can prove that they have the wrong person, then more than likely, LVNV isn't going to remove the TL from your CR.

[radioactiveman]

But if they didn't (can't) provide an argeement with the original creditor authorizing collection and don't provide a specific listing/detail for the increased balance then they didn't validate, which means they've fraudulently reported the account to the CB's and continue to do so each month.

The 30 day period prevents further action being taken during the dispute period, you can still ask for validation any point thereafter, they just can continue attempts.

Regardless of the situation with them, TU was the one that didn't provide MOV which in it self is a violation.

Complicating things further is the orignnal creditor (which is now deleted for some reason) waited 210 days to charge off the account, well past the 120 days where they suppose to charge off...so 90 days or 3+ months of fees and interest were ineligble to be added by the OC to begin with.

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

But if they didn't (can't) provide an argeement with the original creditor authorizing collection and don't provide a specific listing/detail for the increased balance then they didn't validate, which means they've fraudulently reported the account to the CB's and continue to do so each month.

If you believe it's fraud, then sue them for it. If they can provide the proof to the courts (although most can't), then you'll probably be stuck paying the debt and their attorney's fees. If the OC says that they sold the debt to this JDB, then more than likely, the JDB will have the documentation to show the sale (but not necessarily the detailed account documents, i.e. statements and application).

The 30 day period prevents further action being taken during the dispute period, you can still ask for validation any point thereafter, they just can continue attempts.

I'm not clear on what you're saying. Are you saying this: The "30-day" period applies only to the amount of time a consumer has to dv a debt once they receive initial communication w/ a CA/JDB. If the consumer requests it w/in the 30 days, then the CA/JDB must cease collection activities until providing that validation to the consumer. If the consumers requests dv after 30 days, then the CA/JDB can continue collection activities w/o providing any validation. As far as what "validation" is, you would need to rely on specific court cases as the FDCPA is quite vague. If they verify the TL (if you dispute after they received your dv request) w/ the CRAs BEFORE providing that validation to you, then THAT'S a violation b/c they continued collection b4 responding to the request.

Regardless of the situation with them, TU was the one that didn't provide MOV which in it self is a violation.

A violation that you cannot sue for.

Complicating things further is the orignnal creditor (which is now deleted for some reason) waited 210 days to charge off the account, well past the 120 days where they suppose to charge off...so 90 days or 3+ months of fees and interest were ineligble to be added by the OC to begin with.

There are many posts and threads on what a CO is, if the OC can continue to add interest, and how many days they have to CO a delinquent debt (it's generally 180 days). Here's a very informative thread on it: http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261979

Now, if the debt was written off w/ the IRS, then it shouldn't have been sold to a JDB...and most definitely shouldn't be accruing interest. If the OC violated some bank laws by not charging off the debt accordingly and for charging interest, were they forced to write off the debt? If not, were they prohibited from selling the debt? If not, then they were well w/in their rights to sell it to a JDB. Did you report the OC? Did the authorizing agency forbid the OC from adding interest? If so, then did you inform the JDB of this? Once again though, even so...it doesn't mean that you still don't owe it. If you have proof that the JDB should not be accruing interest and you informed them of this and they STILL continue to report the interest to the CRAs, then that's a violation.

When dealing w/ JDBs, sometimes court is your only option to a resolution. Make sure you have the proof and documentation to support your claims.