Pinnacle re-aging, need next step

[gbe]

I recently disputed many TL's on my reports as "unfamiliar/not mine". One of the listings, a Pinnacle account whose original creditor is listed as "Maryland National Bank", came back as verified. What surprised me was that the date thate the TL shows itself to expire on EX is now listed as 04/2013. Pinnacle is listed as expiring on 2/2010 on TU, and not listed at all on EQ.

Brief research shows Maryland National Bank to be MBNA. The Bank of America TL corresponding to an old MBNA account shows date of last payment to be July 2003, with no list of DOFD. It does show 30 days late in February 2003, 60 in March 2003, and so on until the payment in July 2003. (all of these numbers are from my EQ report).

Is Pinnacle indeed guilty of re-aging the TL? My next step seems to be requesting MOV from EX. I've never received any correspondence from Pinnacle - I will be sending a DV as soon as I can.

I apologize for the rambling nature of this post - surgery yesterday has left me with a very tired, medicated head that makes moving thoughts from my brain to my hand difficult.

Thanks in advance...

[MadinKS]

What surprised me was that the date thate the TL shows itself to expire on EX is now listed as 04/2013. Pinnacle is listed as expiring on 2/2010 on TU, and not listed at all on EQ.

Do you have a CR that shows the old DOR before the disputes? If you can prove the re-age, send a letter to Pinnacle explaining that you are on to their tactic of re-aging the account. As soon as they get the letter and you get the green card back, dispute w/the CRAs again. Dispute the accuracy of the dates and tell the CRAs you are suspicious of Pinnacles attempt to re-age. This will force them to either verify and violate, or correct the dates, or they may even drop it like it's hot and delete. If they verify the re-age, they are in violation and then you will send a lot harsher letter to Pinnacle to inform them of the violation and you will not be afraid to sue to resolve this. It's a huge pain in the arse, but if they are in violation, they need to be dealt with.

Here is a sample of the letter I had to send another slimy CA for the same thing.

Re: Account: xxxxxxxx

Date: April 13, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

I recently disputed this account on my credit reports and discovered that you have made a mistake in the information

you provided to the credit bureaus. I can tell you that, according to my records, you are reporting inaccurate dates.

At this time, I am requesting documentation from you that will substantiate your claim to collect on this alleged debt.

By the looks of it, you are making an attempt to re-age this account to lengthen the time you think you have to collect,

which is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and an actionable offense under Federal law, as well as Kansas

state law.

At this point, I am giving your company the benefit of the doubt, but I will have no problem reporting your company to

the FTC, the BBB, and both, Michigan and Kansas AG’s, as well as contact a lawyer to file suit for the violations

of Federal and Kansas state laws. I require DIRTBAG COLLECTORS to provide documentation of chain of custody, a contract,

an agreement, or anything from the original creditor, on their letterhead, that validates the debt between us. The valid

documentation must establish, and substantiate, the dates your company has reported to the credit bureaus, as well as,

your ability to collect on this. If you cannot provide this information, you must delete this account and notify all three

credit bureaus, including, but not limited to, Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. I have added the reference to the

FCRA and Kansas statute, K.S.A. 60-511, for you to use as reference. I sincerely hope that this was a mix up on the part

of Asset Acceptance and we can come to an expeditious conclusion to this.

FCRA § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. §1681c]

© Running of Reporting Period

(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)

3 of subsection

(a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection

(internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and

loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period

beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately

preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

K.S.A. 60-512. Actions limited to three years. The following actions shall be brought within three (3) years: (1) All actions upon

contracts, obligations or liabilities, expressed or implied but not in writing.

I’d also like to add that, from this point on; I will require you to limit your correspondence with me to written

communication only. I have given you my address for correspondence and you may not contact friends or relatives, or

my place of employment, phishing for contact information.

I look forward to your response and an agreeable conclusion to this matter. Thank you.

Sincerely,

[gbe]

Do you have a CR that shows the old DOR before the disputes?

Pinnacle's entry on my old copies of EX do not show either a date of last payment or anticipated DOR. Pinnacle's dual entries on TU (yes, they've reported the same account as two seperate TLs on TU - CRA investigation is still pending on that one) have a DOR listed of 2/2010 and 7/2010.

If indeed this is a collection on the MBNA account that lists last payment in 7/2003, the July 2010 DOR is in the right ballpark. I imagine a DV should provide enough rope to hang themselves with should they confirm MBNA as the OC.

If you can prove the re-age, send a letter to Pinnacle explaining that you are on to their tactic of re-aging the account. As soon as they get the letter and you get the green card back, dispute w/the CRAs again. Dispute the accuracy of the dates and tell the CRAs you are suspicious of Pinnacles attempt to re-age. This will force them to either verify and violate, or correct the dates, or they may even drop it like it's hot and delete. If they verify the re-age, they are in violation and then you will send a lot harsher letter to Pinnacle to inform them of the violation and you will not be afraid to sue to resolve this. It's a huge pain in the arse, but if they are in violation, they need to be dealt with.

Yes, these guys do need to be dealt with. As I note above, they've listed the same account twice with TU, and don't even list consistent information in both listings. Once the CRA dispute finishes up, I very well may have more leverage against them.

As far as what a DV will yield, I've DV'd an "attorney" collecting for Pinnacle (Mitchell Kay), and that DV resulted in a message that "The OC has none of the records you asked for, accordingly we are closing our file". I'm not sure what exactly they'll come up with, if anything

Thanks for your reply

[answer2prayer]

Thats great, If they say they are closing their file wait to see what comes back from the CRA and then you'll know what your next step will be.

Good luck.