Jump to content

First Premier Responds - Not obligated...


Freak
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wasn't sure if this needed to go in the BK section or here...it is a little bit of both:

I sent a request for investigation to First Premier Bank. They are negatively reporting a discharged debt, and reporting the BK date incorrectly (post discharge). I sent them a request for an investigation under the FCRA section 623, and they VALIDATED, and told me I AM BOUND TO THE DEBT. they also stated that because they are not a debt collector they were not bound to the FDCPA (No cr@p sparky) that I referenced (which I didn't).

Not only did they validate a discharged debt, they told me if I had any further questions to contact their collections department.

This account is gone from 2 CRAs already, and the last one - CSC - is due to come off in March or April. That's not the point now.

I think the best route is to respond with a copy of the original letter advising them, that in fact I did not quote the FDCPA but the FCRA which, as the data furnisher, they are bound. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found another thread related to this here, and it looks like this is common practice for them.

I am also thinking, after reading the above thread, that I will in no uncertain terms let them know that I am from Texas, which allow me to request validation at any time (one I read the statute and confirm).

Bottom line, I don't think they have any data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I can't see where validation - or lack thereof - does anything for me. since the debt has been discharged. I'm not disputing the debt. It's gone. They just added more stuff when they validated a discharged debt - I think.

The problem is, they didn't read the letter I sent, or the guy's an idiot - maybe both. However, the 30 day period doesn't end until 1/9. I'm going to wait until it is over before responding just in case. It also gives me time to ponder it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They tried to pull that crap with me. I wrote to the president, Miles K. Beacom and the TL disappeared from my CR's.

In the letter to the president I simply stated all of their FCRA violations as well as the bankruptcy discharge violation. I told him that they could either delete the TL or face fines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they reporting a balance post BK? If so that is a violation of the permanent injunction. The discharge means the amount is $0...period.

You can file a motion for sanctions against them in the bankruptcy court you were discharged in. Since the letter openly says they intend to continue to "[bind] the debt to you" that would make it a willful violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they reporting a balance post BK? If so that is a violation of the permanent injunction. The discharge means the amount is $0...period.

You can file a motion for sanctions against them in the bankruptcy court you were discharged in. Since the letter openly says they intend to continue to "[bind] the debt to you" that would make it a willful violation.

They had my TL listed with a balance, currently late, and current CO post BK. After writing Miles Beacom and stating the possible sanctions, they deleted the TL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they reporting a balance post BK? If so that is a violation of the permanent injunction. The discharge means the amount is $0...period.

You can file a motion for sanctions against them in the bankruptcy court you were discharged in. Since the letter openly says they intend to continue to "[bind] the debt to you" that would make it a willful violation.

They are not reporting a balance, but in the letter, they still say I am obligated to the debt. It is listed as derogatory on the CR but it is unclear if it was in that status before or after the discharge. Since the date of discharge is listed as later than the actual discharge, and they changed after it after a dispute by a year, something is up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not reporting a balance, but in the letter, they still say I am obligated to the debt. It is listed as derogatory on the CR but it is unclear if it was in that status before or after the discharge. Since the date of discharge is listed as later than the actual discharge, and they changed after it after a dispute by a year, something is up.

If they are saying, in writing, you are still obligated to a debt that was discharged, proceed with a motion to sanction. What they are doing is a flat out violation of the permanent injunction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.