EdwinRamos Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Can anyone advise me, if the latest dunning letter I received from Portfolio Recovery can possibly be seen as overshadowing, since they threaten possible legal action, by stating, "May hire local counsel in your state" to intimidate me in settling this matter at hand ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 It does sound threatening, but probably not enough for a violation.Send them a DV letter immediately, and let them try and prove you owe it. My bet is that this is just another JDB that has no proof you owe the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgip2000 Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Not sure about overshadowing, but they list fees for using a credit card for making a payment. The charge of such fees is a violation of the merchant agreement for Visa and Mastercard. Possibly Discover and AMEX as well.Not much of a payback but a payback none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Overshadowing is saying you have to do something before the 30 day limit is up (written at the bottom of that page).Example: If this is the first contact letter and the third paragraph stated 10/21/2007 when the date of the letter is 10/12/2007 that would be overshadowing. If they indicated you have to call now or immediate payment required to avoid action then that is overshadowing.By using the word 'may' they did not say 'they are going to' which would be a threat under FDCPA (possible false intent violation).Step back and look at this one carefully. By uising current creditor and previous creditor in RE: implies this is a JDB. Check SOL and make sure you get full validation documentation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Problem with this one, is the trade line for the original creditor fell off two of the three CRA's, I did earlier request Verification, all they sent was a computer printout from their own computer network, and nothing from the original creditor.As to the DOFD, I am at a lose, Question is, did the original trade lines from the OC fall off by some error on the other two CRA's ? or,did they fall off since the 7 year reporting status as been reached, and there fore SOL has long ago passed on this debt, and what is being reported on the last remaining CRA is in fact an error ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Original Creditor: Providian Bank - My thoughts are, I would be hard pressed to believe they would pull their TL off if not paid or past 7 years old. I highly suspect this is a JDB trying to collect on a past SOL debt. OC documentation is a requirement to prove you are responsible for this debt. You say OC is still listed on one CR? I do not mean the CA listing. I mean the OC listing this as a charge off, R-9, etc. Then you should be able to get the information for SOL from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Textoy Look at this thread for what I mean, and please give me your thoughts...http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268851Washington Mutual/Providian Trade LineLatest Tradeline ..Washington Mutual/Providian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 The date you need is Date of Last Activity (DOLA) with Providian. The 2/23/04 date is the date PRD purchased the account from Providian. Your account went deliquent before that date. Using 2/23/04 for SOL would be reaging. You will also notice, that your providian information was closed on the month that they transfered (2/04). That account already reflects deliquent. Now what you need from the CB (ie TransUnion) is the DOLA (the month the last payment was made). That date plus 180 days is basically the date SOL is based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Understand, but now looks at this...And in fact the OC Tradeline did fall off on Transunion on 9/2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 In your post above, look at the 3-1 report that has all 3 CBs reporting (Washington Mutual/Providian Trade Line). You will see the history date for EFX says 2002-10. That means the top left block is 10/2002. The block below it (60) is 10/2001. The 30 is 9/2001. That means the date of last payment was in 8/2001. It looks like DOLA is 9/2001 (first missed payment). Still, you need the original documentation to confirm all that. The CR data would most likely not stand up in court. I didn't see it in either this or the other thread, did you ever call the OC to try and get account information? They already sold this but may have information in computer (you need DOLP information). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Washington Mutual took over Providian National Bank in 2005 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Mutual, and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providian_Financial_Corporation I have disputed the last remaining trade line from Washington/Providian with the CRA, still waiting for their reply to the investigation.But, from what you relate, the 6 year sol has been reached, and yet, why TransUnion Dropped it in 9/2007 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Edwin, your not grasping what is being said. Your 'problems' with the OC are for all intent over (out of your states SOL and have aged off you CR). You still have a battle with the CA. The CA appears to be reaging (2/2004) your account info meaning the CA line will stay on your report until you can prove they have done this. I am trying to get you to get the original documentation from the OC so that you have documented proof that it is out of SOL and PRD is in violation. The CA will fight tooth and nail to avoid giving the DOLA to you because they know it's outside of SOL. They may not be able to sue, but there is nothing that says they cannot keep trying to get you from paying the debt. Once you have proof of DOLA you can send a Cease and Desist letter without worry becasue you can prove in court that it is SOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Just found this on an older Equifax Report earlier this year, DOLA is being noted as 10/2002 ?? and I know for certain, I didn't make any payment prior to the date mentioned??and why did it drop off from TransUnion this year as reported 9/2007 ?. as well as Equifax on 10/2007 ?Obviously there are error's here being reported, but, now it appears I have the burden of clearing up this mess...Here is an updated Experian Report showing the OC's Trade Line, and the only one reporting it, exactly as the 3-1 reports... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Welcome to the growing problem of JDBs. Once caught, they back off a year, resale the debt and the cycle starts over with another CA. The FDCPA has a 1 year litigation clause that keeps you from going after the seller. Save all documentation for potential future use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 What is also amazing, is the fact, that the OC (Washington Mutual/Providian) Tradline falls of Transunion and Equafax, but, Portfolio Recovery's Tradeline still remained on all Three Credit Reports.Shouldn't the Tradeline of both the OC and CA fall off at the same time ?Obviously Portfolio continues to report on all Three CRA's, but, still wonder how two OC tradelines fall off, was that just an error in my favor, or is the final one still being reported by experian an error ???The other problem is the fact that Washington Mutual took over Providian, what paperwork will Washington Mutual have regarding the Providian account ?As I related earlier, I have made contact with Experian regarding the tradeline reported as Washington Mutual/Providian, and hope they drop it as unverifiable, there bye I can than go after Portfolio Recovery on their reported trade lines, fingers/toes crossed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 A reputable CA (did I really say that? ), would use the correct dates of the original account. In that case, the 7 rule would have been observed for bothWhat you see the gripping about on these boards is the ones (like this one) who are not following the rules. Many CA's are only interested in how much $ they can intimidate out of you. The FDCPA was developed to combat this very thing. From our perspective, it doesn't do enough. From the CA perspective it is to restricting. AT first glance one might think the CAs would want a debtewrs prison. Then you wait, then I would not be able to cheat, steal, and perform fradulant activities designed to cheat them out of thier $. The people here are using the violations to get the CAs to follow the rules and in many cases get a benifits (cleaner CR). THe CBs want the bad data in thier systems so they can demonstrate that they are performing a valuble service. THe worst you look, the better they appear to be doing that job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 PArdon my typing mistakes, I am a hunt and pecker typist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Many Thanks for the time and effort you have given me regarding this situation, I also would surmise , after seeing what has occurred here with me,"these JDB's pray on their victims-hoping they are ignorant, and don't even consider looking at any of their credit reports to see the countless errors being placed on them, by these JDB's"...."Just like sending a dunning letter, and not answering it with in the 30 day period, so they can go to court and obtain a judgement to take their money".I guess that is why they are always referred to as Low Life's.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 yep - btw, watch that attorney question thread. Question 3 is of direct interest to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanpetersonesquire Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 If recovery portfolio is in fact a JDB, then there are several issues - is the SOL up for your debt?If so, they are threatening legal action that cannot legally be taken.If they are not a JDB, but just a regular CA, then they are not overshadowing, but violating the "deceptive practices" section of the FDCPA by saying they may hire a lawyer. A third party cannot hire a lawyer on behalf of the OC.Additionally, it would be the threat of legal action that cannot be taken.What State are you in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Portfolio has in fact purchased the debt from the OC, SOL is the Question, since there are problems with it being reported to all three CRA's, but, as this thread shows, two of the OC's tradelines have already been removed from two CRA's, and since it requires 7 years for that to occur, It reveals that the SOL has possibly already run its path, but, One OC tradeline still remains, which is being disputed in hopes that it to will be removed. also note all three tadelines by Portfolo are still being reported to the CRA's, I am located in New York... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Go look at Attorney taking all questions thread, you can read it for yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Thanks, Just saw the answer he had given, am still waiting the response from the CRA, regarding the dispute on Washington Mutual/Providian tradeline.Thank You for asking Question #3 as to my situation, and can't wait ti hear further from his response on case law regarding Question 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Textoy Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 He had also provided a response in this thread Post #20. You will notice his response to question 3 was very direct. I know you are nervous about all this but you may only be able to solve this in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwinRamos Posted October 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Fully understand, Q: can I request through all three CRA's the DOLA being reported by Washington Mutual/Providian and Portfolio Recovery??Just to see if there is obvious differences being reported to all three CRA's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts