Palisades

[mzsyd]

I've disputed the accounts through the CRA's because they are listing one account two times on all 3 CRA's with different amount and different dates. This is for a AT&T wireless bill. Today I recieved a call at home to please call Tim with Palisades. The dispute is still within the 30 day period and I am still waiting for the results. I dispute it as inaccurate, and duplicate account. Should I DV them? If I do which account do I refer too? Both?

[MadinKS]

Should I DV them? If I do which account do I refer too? Both?

DV both accounts. How are you able to tell they are duplicates if they have different account numbers?

[SecretAgentWoman]

DV is ALWAYS the first move, I'm not sure why people don't understand that...

DV them, now.

And look for my thread "Nutcase letters are fun" for more info on Palisades.

[geekspeed]

I agree with SAW -- DV is always the first move -- if anything, it stops the phone calls -- which can get rather annoying late at night. Once the green slips come back, send a dispute to the CRAs asking for a verification as well...All this is summed up here on the board by searching for "1 2 punch"

[mzsyd]

I only had one At&t wireless under my name for a sister who failed to pay I didnt know until it went to collections and the amounts are 202.00 and 252.00. It have to be the same account.

I KNOW that I have to DV but also that I must first dispute with the CRA. What I wasn't sure on was if I should write one letter to DV both accounts or send two separate letter to Palisades.

[MadinKS]

Well, just because you owe on one, doesn't mean you owe on the other. How do you know they don't have another MZSYD that owes that? That's why you should definitely DV both accounts and dispute again w/CRAs. Make them either validate or violate. Good luck.

[mzsyd]

Thanks for all the replies!

[DeeT]

I have the same problem I originally disputed with ATT directly and had a great person contact me from ATT. She explained the telephone number is not listed under me anywhere even in their old system.

I asked why there was a Palisades Collections on my credit report collecting for them. She didn't know, I asked if I could be put on a three way conversation with Palisades, her and myself.

Palisades were actually very polite while she was on the phone but they told me they could not discuss anything with my because it was under a law firm now.

The ATT person said I was no where in their files with the number I was being billed for and that this number was not mine. Palisades said that Wolpoff and Abramson bought the paper and we need to talk to them.

The ATT lady stayed on the phone when I called W & A. We actually had a nice lady on the phone there too. She told the ATT lady the same thing they purchased the paper. ATT lady when away then after telling the W & A person I never had that telephone number.

The W & A lady told me to send her a certified letter requesting a MOV. She also asked me why I have not return any of their phone calls I asked what number they were calling and she gave me another telephone number I had never heard of. I sent that April 15 and am waiting for response.

I really don't think anyone would have been as helpful if ATT was n ot on the phone.

[mzsyd]

UPDATE:

So I now have the results back from disputing the two Palisades Collection accounts. EX: DELETED both TU: Verifed both accounts EQ: Verified both accounts.

Now waiting to get a DV for both the accounts from Palisades. I know at least one of these suckers are definately NOT mines! Makes me so mad! Anything else I can do to attack them?

[lyle7289]

C O U R T!!

[mzsyd]

Another update:

I DV (untimely) for one of the two accounts (acct1) and the other account (acct2) I Dv'd but have never received anything from them in regards to the account. After i received the green cards back, two later I received a collection letter to (acct1).

So far I updated on TC and both the accts are gone from my TU. I'm crossing my fingers they don't reinsert! As for EQ both the accts are still showing as collections.

[jetscarbie]

I ended up having to sue Palisades and the other secret names they go by.

Good luck

[hopelesscred]

I am dealing with Palisades as well....I disputed with the Big 3, waiting for results. It appears as of yesterday, its gone from my TU CR but I'll wait just be sure. I sent them a DV letter..now waiting for the results.

[razr]

I am also dealing with Palisades. I disputed with the Big 3, they were removed from TU and EX, but for some reason they verified on EQ. What's really weird is that I truly never had an ATT account and Palisades has never even contacted me about the debt, it just showed up on my CR.

-r

[hopelesscred]

We need to keep this thread going and update our experiences with this crappy CA. My understanding is that they are actually a JDB--so they purchase the debt for cents on the dollar then try to collect--they'll even hire another CA. In my case--which is now out of SOL, PHEWW!!..they sent me a dunning letter years ago and I simply ignored it--in the next few years that account was sent to several other CAs, 2 tried to sue--on the first suit, I showed up but they did not---dismissed. The other time, I dodged the process server and was never served-(dont think a summary judgement can be held without being served)---to be honest all I needed to do was to answer as it was out of SOL even then.

So...now I've started to build a case against them, Make sure all of you are submitting BBB, AG and FTC complaints on this CA.

My only answer to why some CRA delete the TL while other do not--human error? or they may decide to allow it to fall off one or two and keep screwing you on the one CRA u most likely will use. I am sure it cost money for them to keep reporting on a debt with no hope of ever collecting

check out the link below reg SAW's dealings with them

www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267817&highlight=lawsuit

Newbies unite!!!...lol

[jetscarbie]

Sometimes I think these blood suckers mess with people's credit out of spite. Why else one day it is not there, you DV them (or contact someone about the account) , then check your credit and it's there. Sometimes it is x's 3 or 4 with different account number.

It really makes me mad that there are not better laws that can stop things like this. We, the consumer, end up having to spend every single free moment fighting this.

What's to say some of these credit bureaus are not leg tied with these collectors?

[rmiller0410]

this ca had three accounts listed on my tu and eq. i sent then a dv letter to which i received no response. i also didputed them with the cb. i got a letter from eq saying that additional time was needed. tu sent back a letter saying verified. i sent a copy of the dv letter and a copy of my return reciept from the certified letter to both agencies and ask tu how it was verified since i had not received validation. i looked at my reports today and all three listings on both reports are gone.

[merkurfan]

What's to say some of these credit bureaus are not leg tied with these collectors?

They are in bed with each other. They do little to hide that. CRA's sell your information, JDB's buy it to see who is most likely to pay. They actually offer a service (Most of us here think it's illegal) of running reports on portfolios they are thinking about buying. Basically, they are given our information from our reports before they own the debt, and thus, they have NO PP to access the report.

[jetscarbie]

merkurfan..I definitely agree with you there. Way before Palisades owned my Providian account (it's been owned by over 12 JDB in 11 years)

another one of their same companies owned it.

I think it should be illegal for anybody to do any kind of pull on your credit that you personally don't give signed permission for. I also think you shouldn't ever have to pay for ANY of your credit reports ever.

My word of advice about Palisades...make sure you check regularly at the courthouse for any suits against you. The ONLY reason I knew they filed suit was because I got a sales thingy in from another attorney saying he would love to represent me because he knew they had a suit against me.

[Flyingifr]

I agree with SAW -- DV is always the first move -- if anything, it stops the phone calls -- which can get rather annoying late at night. Once the green slips come back, send a dispute to the CRAs asking for a verification as well...All this is summed up here on the board by searching for "1 2 punch"

Actually there is a more important reason for a DV to be the first, and automatic response to any CA or JDB - it protects your rights under FDCPA Section 809( which reads:

( If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

If they send you a single collection letter or make a single collection call before providing the VOD then they owe you $1,000.

[resse4JC]

Palisades did the same thing to me with a suit. I didn't find out I had a default judgment against me until one of their idiot reps called me at work and said they would garnish my wages unless I agreed to monthly payments.

After my dealings with them, I realized that their paperwork is shoddy and most times they don't even have anything with your name on it but their own computer print out.

Resse4JC

[mrg]

I am dealing with Palisades and will keep you posted. I entered another thread 3 weeks ago about being sued. As things become more discovered with my case I am finding out that Palisades boought the acount from bankone 4 years ago and they assigned it to Unifund and now they are trying to collect upon suit. I responded back before they even filed in court. My attorney is in shock that they are trying to collect the debt. They filed suit 5 years and 11 months after last account activity. We said it was out of SOL and they responded back that in WA its 6 years for credit cards. All they can provide is 2 credit card statements from First USA. They said they were affiliated with BankOne. In the state of WA they have to have a Biz Lic to operate. Palisades is not lic but Unifund was lic 2 months before they contacted me via a law firm in WA.

[hopelesscred]

They've updated on EX but missed the 30 day window on EQ so they are off my EQ CR, still waiting on TU. To date no answer to my DV/VER letter. I will send part II next. Not sure whether it will be ITS or nutcase.