Midland Credit Mgmt.

[dburnham]

I've taken the following step to have an account reported by Midland Credit Management removed from my Equifax report and am at a deadend.

3/21/07 Certified Letter to Midland requesting verification and disputed with Equifax.

Received no reply from Midland and Equifax verified debt is valid.

4/30/07 Certified letter to Equifax requesting method of verification and follow-up letter to Midland.

Received no reply from Midland, yet Equifax verified debt is valid.

I spoke to Equifax this morning and requested verbally their method of verification and all they could tell me is that it was done electronically and anything would need to come from Midland.

I called Midland to today and they advised me they don't have any paperwork showing the debt is mine (from MCI) and because they originally sent me a letter October of last year (I never received) that the burden of proof is on me.

Is there anything else I can do?

Thanks

Dennis

[dburnham]

I'm really at a lost know. I just contacted the original creditor MCI. The account is old and they've purged all information from their system and have nothing to send me. Also, they originally reported this to CBCS who I guess, then sold it to Midland.

[bigjohnstud4200]

I called Midland to today and they advised me they don't have any paperwork showing the debt is mine (from MCI) and because they originally sent me a letter October of last year (I never received) that the burden of proof is on me.

That's one of the FDCPA rights you lose when you don't DV in a timely manner. IMO you can try to contact Midland and ask them for the proof they used to validate the alleged debt to the CRA's (it's part of the FCRA). If they don't respond, your next step might be ITS, follow-up by an actual lawsuit where they will have to show proof. Of course, if this is within SOL and they show with proof, you are SOL and I don't mean statute of limitations.

[dburnham]

Thanks John. I did ask Midland for any paperwork they did use to validate the debt. They advised me they never received or requested anything from the original creditor because I never requested validation after they sent their initial letter.

This really stinks because this account truly is not mine. I did some digging with MCI and there is another name on the account along with an address of someone I don't know.

[merkurfan]

Get that information from MCI. See if you can work that angle. Also, call (I hate to say that) the collection company again, only record it this time and see if you can get them to admit, again, they have nothing on the debt paperwork wise. You'll have to check state laws to see if you are going to have to notify them you are recording. I am not sure if them notifying you they are recording the call for "quality and training" is enough to allow you to roll tape as well.

If you can get it on tape, you can use that aginest them in court. If it's with-in SOL and they somehow magicly crea..er find the paperwork, be ready to fight them on the debt and possiably loose.

[bigjohnstud4200]

Thanks John. I did ask Midland for any paperwork they did use to validate the debt. They advised me they never received or requested anything from the original creditor because I never requested validation after they sent their initial letter.

This really stinks because this account truly is not mine. I did some digging with MCI and there is another name on the account along with an address of someone I don't know.

IMO, if it were me, I would take any information that leaves a doubt of me being the owner and I would send it back to the CA as "not mine". If the CA's are still claiming you own the debt, then it's time to get dirty. You can start counting up the violations they've committed, you can fill out the FTC "identity theft affidavit" and fax/send it to the CA, file FTC complaints, file AG complaints, etc. There are many options.

Good luck!

[divemedic]

Just because they do not have to supply validation does not mean that a CA can ignore the FDCPA. Many CA's claim that if you do not DV within the 30 days, that they may assume the debt is valid and are free from FDCPA liability. They will claim that a debtor's FDCPA claim is barred as a matter of law, because sending the information required by section 1692g and not getting a reply in the form of a dispute absolves debt collectors of any liability under the FDCPA.

In so doing, a CA fails to come to grips with a basic feature of the FDCPA: It is a strict liability statute. Congress responded to “abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a), by enacting a comprehensive, detailed, remedial scheme that imposes civil liability on debt collectors who engage in a range of prohibited conduct, and in establishing this prohibited conduct, Congress established a core of liability that prohibits debt collectors from engaging in “any” harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct, 15 U.S.C. § 1692d; making “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation,” § 1692e; and using “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect “any debt,” § 1692f.

In subsections following the general prohibitions, “each of these provisions includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of proscribed conduct.” Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., 15 F.3d 1507, 1516 (9th Cir. 1994). If FDCPA claims for these proscribed activities were barred by simply including in the initial communication the language required by 1692g, this would circumvent the statute’s other provisions and upset the system of rewards and incentives created by Congress. This position would scrap Congress’ carrot-and-stick approach, encouraging debt collectors to send the 1692g notice, and then be free to violate all of the other provisions of the FDCPA with abandon, thus putting consumers, as well as scrupulous debt collectors, at a competitive disadvantage.

[IHateCAs]

Based on your limited information, they have done nothing wrong.