Advice Needed Regarding Collection Situation!

[Thoth73]

Greetings fellow boardmembers.

THIS IS LONG!

I am writing this because of a credit reporting and collections situation my gf has been experiencing. Please excuse the length of this but I feel it is important to provide all the information upfront. She currently has had her on hold, she can't view her activity online and the account placed into a collections situation. This was an older account that she left open through MBNA which was then transferred over to Bank of America.

She received a letter titled "First Notice" from Advance Call Center Technologies collections agency on 3/12/2007. She then wrote a dispute letter challenging the validity of the debt and sent it out 3/19/2007. She however did not mail this certified mail!

She then received a written response to that March letter on 4/7/2007 from Bank of America, NOT the collections agency, which basically acknowledges she asked about the delinquency appearing on my credit report and after review of their records it indicates NO bank errors have been made concerning my payment record and therefore, the delinquency on my credit report is valid and will not be removed.

I did have her RE-SEND another letter this time "CERTIFIED" challenging the validity of the debt on 4/6/2007 with signature request.

(They received this certified letter on 4/10/2007)

On 4/7/2007 She received a collections call to collect from this agent name Stacy she DID NOT announce who she was or who she represented. She simply started in by quoting that she owed a debt and when the original First Notice was sent to my girlfriend. She never referenced account information etc. My girlfriend asked her who she was with and she was apprehensive to provide that, even going as far as placing my gf on hold and when she came back onto the line it was another rep.

She asked this rep the same question who then announced that they were with Advance Call Center Technologies. She explained to this rep that she had submitted a letter requesting verification of the debt and had NOT received any verification whatsoever. They proceeded to mention the amount of the debt. My gf responded by saying you must verify this debt BEFORE you can collect on it per FCDPA. (I taught her a thing or two in my readings lol) The rep was silent and my gf said goodbye.

As I understand they should not have the ability to attempt to collect on this debt without first verifying it in writing providing proof positive that it is her debt. She has not received a payment history, signature, or any other validation substantiating this whatsoever and the collections agency is still calling.

She ended up sending out a 3rd letter "certified" on April 8th that basically went in depth for them not to call, write, or correspond with her unless it was to provide validation or release of liability of the debt. It also requested IN DETAIL a payment history, proof of signature and explanation of how they calculated what she owes, prove that the statue of imitations has not expired on her account provide her with their license numbers and registered agent etc etc.

READY TO GET CONFUSED? She JUST received on 4/16/2007 this letter was titled "FIRST NOTICE" the letter on the inside was dated 4/9/2007 from the same collection agency Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC and is 100%

This notice is IDENTICAL to the ORIGINAL "First Notice" I'm not sure why they did this???

Since mailing the 2nd letter which went out "Certified" I understand they have 30 days to respond to our request to provide proof positive that this is her debt the date they received this request would be April 10th and the 30 day mark is May 10th. I am uncertain what would be our next move now that we have received this 2nd First Notice?

I am looking for help and direction on what her rights are at this point and how we can fight this situation from others with experience who have been there. Your input is appreciated!

-Tim

[willingtocope]

Welcome...we'll help if we can.

First, realize that CA are for the most part staffed by people who aren't the brightest bulb on the tree...if they were, they'd be out parking cars or something. So, unfamiliarity with the script, mailing duplicate letters, etc, are all par for the course. Just keep everything they send you for future reference...including court, if it comes to that.

Now...

Since mailing the 2nd letter which went out "Certified" I understand they have 30 days to respond to our request to provide proof positive that this is her debt the date they received this request would be April 10th and the 30 day mark is May 10th. I am uncertain what would be our next move now that we have received this 2nd First Notice?

No...there's nothing that says they only have 30 days to respond. The only thing they need to do with 30 days is, if they have a TL on her CR, is to mark it "in dispute". They can take as long as they want to respond.

[buckeyechick1219]

No...there's nothing that says they only have 30 days to respond. The only thing they need to do with 30 days is, if they have a TL on her CR, is to mark it "in dispute". They can take as long as they want to respond.

So the mini-miranda they include on their first contact indicating that they will provide validation if you respond within 30 days doesn't legally obligate them to provide a response if you do dispute the debt within the first 30 days?

That aside...the whole situation sounds to me like they received the first DV, but since it wasn't CMRRR the CA knew you didn't have proof that they had received it. They sent it back to the OC for verification, which the OC supposedly did, and then sent it back to the CA. The CA called your gf, and knowing that she had some knowledge of the FDCPA, sent their "1st notice" within 5 days of contacting her.

Basically, they're trying to create a papertrail to say "We contacted her by phone on 4/7 and sent the letter 4/9, which is within the five day timeframe required by law" and pretending that the first contact never occurred.

That's just the impression I get from it. I could be totally off base.

[willingtocope]

So the mini-miranda they include on their first contact indicating that they will provide validation if you respond within 30 days doesn't legally obligate them to provide a response if you do dispute the debt within the first 30 days?

You have 30 days from receipt of the letter to respond...but they can take as long as they like to respond to your response. Two different things....

[buckeyechick1219]

So what exactly is the point in responding to the 30 day window?

I mean, from what I've been told through various posts on this site they don't have to respond to you in any specific amount of time, they can still report it on your credit report, the only thing they can't do is contact you to collect without first validating.

So basically, if they want to be total jerks about it, they can just never respond to you and never try to collect and they get to ruin your credit for the length of time that it appears on your CR?

Sorry, a little off topic, but I'm just wondering what the whole DV process is about if they determine that they can't collect, but don't have to respond to you regardless.

ETA: So, I was thinking about this while I was at lunch, and I realized that the 1-2 Punch comes into play, but if a CA never responds to your DV and you dispute with the CRA, do they have to delete or verify with you, or are they able to just mark it "Verfied, disputed by customer"?

[jasen]

If a DV is sent within 30 days of first contact, then they must cease collection activities (including calling you or sending more threatening letters) until they provide this verification. As well as mark a tradeline as disputed. They don't have to respond to the DV ever, but if they don't they're not supposed to continue collection efforts.

Most CA's choose to simply ignore this part of the law, probably figuring they can just lie about when they first contacted you to get around this requirement. This is why we keep all our green cards. And many people have won court cases against them for this practice.

They technically broke the law by continuing to call after recieving the DV.

The second "first notice" they sent was certainly just some automated form letter, or one of their slackeys sending out the monthly junk mail and picked the wrong form letter to send you.

[Thoth73]

Well my gf ended up sending another DV in response to the 2nd "1st Notice" This one said almost the same thing except it stated specifically that she is disputing this alleged debt. Then the letter went onto state that if their office reports invalidated info to any of the 3 Major Bureau's this action would constitute fraud under the Federal and State Laws.

It goes on to say that if that is found to be true that she would not hesitate bringing legal action against them for violating the FCRA REPORTING Inaccurate information and continuing collection activity on debt which has not been validated.

Well since that final DV there has been no response and no collection calls. BUT She just pulled her credit and It shows that Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion all are report that this creditor, (her alleged creditor) is reporting this debt is 120 days or more delinquent, past due and the Account was closed by credit grantors request. The challenge is I'm uncertain of her next step?

I have not had her write to the credit bureaus yet, is that the next step?

[buckeyechick1219]

Have her dispute the TL with all CRA's. That's the second step of the 1-2 punch.

[willingtocope]

There's a couple points you need to clear up...

1. If the account was delinquent when it was transferred from MBNA to BofA, then in effect, BofA is a "junk debt buyer" and you can treat them a little differently (see below).

2. If the account went delinquent after BofA bought it, then they're considered the "new" original creditor....which means they can indeed report lates and so on, and the DV process doesn't affect them.

3. As far as Advance whoever, they're a collection agency. Your GF DV'd them...they haven't responded. If they are reporting on the CRs, it should be marked "in dispute". If they're not reporting, then they've probably sent it back to BofA. If BofA fits the JDB category, then send the next DV to them directly. You can DV JDBs as well as CAs.

(In general, sending any "evidence" to a CRA is a waste of time. They'll claim they only report what their clients (OC, CA, JDB) tell them.)

[Thoth73]

I want to make sure I'm clear on this.

When she sent the letter to DV with the CA she really should DV the JDB as well?

If the CRA is reporting this delinquency that hasn't been validated, would they not now be in violation at that point? They are reporting on a debt that hasn't been validated. Shouldn't they at least list it as "in dispute" and if so does writing a letter to the CRA accomplish this or am I missing something?

[willingtocope]

When she sent the letter to DV with the CA she really should DV the JDB as well?

If the CRA is reporting this delinquency that hasn't been validated, would they not now be in violation at that point? They are reporting on a debt that hasn't been validated. Shouldn't they at least list it as "in dispute" and if so does writing a letter to the CRA accomplish this or am I missing something?

You can DV a JDB...you don't have to to. Deal with the CAs first. My point was, if BofA fits the JDB category, and they report something you want to dispute, you can use the FDCPA to deal with them.

As far as the CRA being "in violation", the problem is that they will claim to only reporting what they're told. You can, if you wish, send a copy of any dispute letter you send to a CA, but, it may not accomplish anything....

[Thoth73]

willingtocope There's a couple points you need to clear up...

1. If the account was delinquent when it was transferred from MBNA to BofA, then in effect, BofA is a "junk debt buyer" and you can treat them a little differently

They do fit the JDB category. The alleged account was transferred to B of A after the fact.

You can DV a JDB...you don't have to to. Deal with the CAs first. My point was, if BofA fits the JDB category, and they report something you want to dispute, you can use the FDCPA to deal with them.

Because my gf did a DV with the CA regarding this alleged debt and they haven't responded, what would be her next step to remove these reports on her creidt ? Would her best bet be to now DV directly with B of A as well?

She would like to remove from her credit report where all 3 reporting agencies Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion show the debt is 120 days or more delinquent, past due and the Account was closed by credit grantors request.

What is her next move?

[willingtocope]

If the CA is reporting, and their TL does not say "in dispute", then I beleive the next step is to dispute with the CRAs...do a search on the "1-2 punch".

As far as BofA's reporting, if its accurate, there's not much you can do to have it removed.

[2fatkats]

Hey I've sent DV letters to my CA's at the same time I disputed my CR and many things came back verified, but I never recieved any verified proof and there is no comment in my reports stating disputed by consumer. They all just say verfied in May 2007, due to stay on report untill xxxx. What do I do now?

[Thoth73]

Update guys. Today a call comes in and it's a recording for my Gf. I listen at it says This law office who specialize in debt collection. They provided a phone number and a reference # for when she calls, it was quite vague.

This is obviously regarding the alleged debt, we DV the CA and now they sent it over to this firm. It still has yet to be validated. What's our next move?

[Thoth73]

I have another question also..... My gf ordered her 3 in 1 credit report and I can't find an exact date of when they reported it delinquent it just says 4/2007.

We know the CA received and signed for the certified letter on 4/10/2007. I understand if they report on the debt before they validate they would be in violation. Is there a better credit report showing the exact days they reported the delinquency?

What would be the best book recommendation to further inform me of what to do next? Thanks!