Not exactly REAGING but how do I deal with it?

[vickinicole]

I opened a Capital One account in 1998, i defaulted on it about a year later and my Date of Last Activity was in 2001

This debt will be falling off my credit report in 2 months

HOWEVER

A Collection Agency recently put a new account on my credit reports from thier purchase of this debt showing date of last activity in 2007

It has a different account number

but it's the same debt, it shows the original creditor as Capital One and the original amount

• Do I have to wait another 7 years for this to come off?
  
• What can I do to make them take this off my reports since I have signed no contracts with that Collection Agency, etc...
  
• Whats the point of debts having a Statue of Limitations on them if a CA can just put it back on your report under a different account number?
  
• Where do I start with this?
  
• Do I DV and Dispute?
  
• What are the violations if I decide I need to sue?
  

[lovebug5]

SOL is based upon DOFD (Date of First Delinquency).

Are you sure that the field you're reading on your CR isn't the date of last reporting, or the date that the CA was assigned this debt?

Press forward and request documentation from them.

[vickinicole]

SOL is based upon DOFD (Date of First Delinquency).

Are you sure that the field you're reading on your CR isn't the date of last reporting, or the date that the CA was assigned this debt?

Press forward and request documentation from them.

Ok I am looking at my Equifax report

under Negative accounts there are two OC's;

1. Capital One ($2,100)- Date of Last Activityy: 04/2001 - The Date of First Deliquency Field is blank - Charge Off

2. First Consumers National Bank (FCNB Spiegal) ($3,108) - Date of Last Activity: 09/2001 - The Date of First Deliquency Field is blank - Charge Off, Account transferred or sold

under Negative accounts there are also CA's reporting for the above accounts;

1. Portfolio Recovery Assoc purchased Capital One account - They raised the payment up to $4,935 - Date of Last Activity: 10/2001 - Date Major Delinquency First Reported: 12/2007 (The account number here starts with the letters CAPIT such as: "CAPIT-3507XXX...", it is a different account number from the OC)

2. Midland Credit Management; purchased account FCNB Spiegal account - Date of Last Activity: 09/2001 - The Date of First Deliquency Field is blank

The two OC's and also the MCM account should be falling off this year.

But that PRA account is reporting as brand new.

• So I should DV PRA?
  
• Do I mention that the original account is near SOL?
  
• If they verify that they purchased the account, is that validation and even so isn't it still SOL?
  
• If not, again what is the point of SOL if CA's can purchase the accounts and put them as new on your CR?
  

[lovebug5]

So I should DV PRA?

* Yep - I would go ahead and do that. Go for the 1-2 punch, making sure that you dispute with the CRA's first.

Do I mention that the original account is near SOL?

* You never want to give a CA that information because it's one of your most solid defenses should this ever proceed forward.

If they verify that they purchased the account, is that validation and even so isn't it still SOL?

* Just because they purchased the account doesn't mean that they don't have to abide by the SOL. If your DOFD was in 2001 and you haven't paid anything to anyone on the account since, the account cannot be re-aged. Therefore, if this CA is reporting a DOFD in 12/2007 when it was 2001, that's an attempt at re-aging. I would get a strong paper trail going.

If not, again what is the point of SOL if CA's can purchase the accounts and put them as new on your CR?

* They can't. They can purchase accounts and/or reassign them as many times as they want, but that doesn't reset the SOL on the account. The SOL is based off of your DOFD and not when they were assigned the debt.

[vickinicole]

So I should DV PRA?

* Yep - I would go ahead and do that. Go for the 1-2 punch, making sure that you dispute with the CRA's first.

Do I mention that the original account is near SOL?

* You never want to give a CA that information because it's one of your most solid defenses should this ever proceed forward.

If they verify that they purchased the account, is that validation and even so isn't it still SOL?

* Just because they purchased the account doesn't mean that they don't have to abide by the SOL. If your DOFD was in 2001 and you haven't paid anything to anyone on the account since, the account cannot be re-aged. Therefore, if this CA is reporting a DOFD in 12/2007 when it was 2001, that's an attempt at re-aging. I would get a strong paper trail going.

If not, again what is the point of SOL if CA's can purchase the accounts and put them as new on your CR?

* They can't. They can purchase accounts and/or reassign them as many times as they want, but that doesn't reset the SOL on the account. The SOL is based off of your DOFD and not when they were assigned the debt.

OK so just to clarify,

Portfolio Recovery Assoc has stated that the Date Major Delinquency First Reported is 12/2007

they purchased a capital one account whose SOL is up in 4/2008

This means PRA is lying correct?

My action is to:

• One two punch: disupute with CRA, and DV with Portfolio Recovery Assoc
  
• Wait for my responses from both
  
• If CRA says it's verified the next step is to request MOV from CRA?
  
• There is no way for PRA to validate because their date of first delinquency is simply untrue. But if they send some sort of paperwork that they pass off as validation what do I do? if they can't validate, I can demand they remove the account? Do I also send something to the CRA if they can't validate?
  

[kevin3344]

A Collection Agency recently put a new account on my credit reports from thier purchase of this debt showing date of last activity in 2007

It has a different account number

It is important to follow the 1-2 punch carefully. Do not dispute first and DV second. Always DV the moment a CA hits your report (or if they contact you by mail with the mini-miranda "unless you dispute the validity of this debt within 30 days..."). Next, dispute with the CRAs.

[vickinicole]

It is important to follow the 1-2 punch carefully. Do not dispute first and DV second. Always DV the moment a CA hits your report (or if they contact you by mail with the mini-miranda "unless you dispute the validity of this debt within 30 days..."). Next, dispute with the CRAs.

Ah ok so I must do it in that order, didn't realize that

also what if:

the CA hit my report years ago

and

they've sent me many letters over the years that I immediately put in the trash without even opening (burying head in sand) and have no record of except that the debts are on my credit report and I am now paying attention

I still DV first?

[kevin3344]

Yes. Of course, it's easier if you DV within the first 30 days but most of us didn't find out about this site until months or years after the fact.

[vickinicole]

Yes. Of course, it's easier if you DV within the first 30 days but most of us didn't find out about this site until months or years after the fact.

ok awesome, thanks for your help with this as well

[Magdalen77]

ok awesome, thanks for your help with this as well

You can DV a collector in an untimely manner, but they don't have to respond to you. I think that's why you want to request the collector do an investiagtion in accordance with section 623 of the FCRA. With that they either need to respond in 30 days with their investigation results or respond in 5 days if they consider your request frivolous. Usually these guys don't respond and you can use that lack of response as leverage for getting them removed from your CR.