never received dunning letter

[cliffaz780]

OK as I am moving along I missed something in the process...

I have an item from AFNI on my credit report stating I owe cingular $524.00.

1. I never had an account with them or a phone from them.

2. I have not received a dunning letter from AFNI.

3. I DV'd AFNI and they sent me a letter to update my information to them.

4. I just read all about timely dv and I am confused now.

Question is, what do I do at this point. I do not know what the debt is, and I really believe this is not my debt. The only cell phones I have had were with GTE 1995-1997 sprint 1998-2003 and t-mobile 2003-present.

So they will not validate and I disputed with CRA and it comes back as verified. but I think this all does not matter since I never received a dunning letter so I did not reply to it... kinda confused here as to what to do now... I do not want to pay for something that I dont even know what it is???

AND it is the only neg on my report... ugh.

Help me obe one kanobi your my only hope... lol

[LoveToGod]

OK as I am moving along I missed something in the process...

I have an item from AFNI on my credit report stating I owe cingular $524.00.

3. I DV'd AFNI and they sent me a letter to update my information to them.

:

Whatever you do, DO NOT update your information with them. They just want you to help validate the debt. Without this info they cant, and you can get it kicked off your credit reports. If it went to court, they would not have a case. DO NOT give that info. Send them another DV with wording that says they can be sued if they don't comply. Check the form letters on this website

[cliffaz780]

no doubt that I will not reply to that request... but do I stand a chance that they are not validating, and I dont know what the debt is... and I truely believe this is not my debt... what can I do to have it removed from my credit report?

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I can only tell you what I would do...you'll have to decide if this makes sense for you!

Personally, I'd request of them, one last time to substantiate this debt...tell them that you've kept careful records of your financial affairs and you know of no such debt or account that you've ever had that this alleged debt could possibly be related to...tell them unless they can show good cause/evidence to the contrary, that you must assume that...

1. They have, either through incompetence or malice, misidentified you as the debtor for this account and erronerously reported false information to the credit bureaus, or

2. That someone else has committed a fraud and used your personal information to open an account in your name.

Give the a reasonable amount of time to respond (perhaps 30 days or so)...if they don't respond and/or if their response is as stupid as their last one; come back here and someone will help you go from that point.

[LoveToGod]

no doubt that I will not reply to that request... but do I stand a chance that they are not validating, and I dont know what the debt is... and I truely believe this is not my debt... what can I do to have it removed from my credit report?

You could try the DV again as suggested here. I have done that, and that has worked for me on one CA.

If it has been exactly 30 days I would wait to say anything to the CRA, but it has been closer to 45 days or more I would send a letter to the CRA stated that the CA failed to verify and that it needs to be deleted from the CRA.

If the CA ignores your second DV letter or fails again, then I would step it up and send a letter listing their violations and that you will file a lawsuit if they don't delete it.

When I write this kind of the letter my last paragraph always starts out like this:

"To avoid a lawsuit you must do one of the following: (1) provide my signature that shows that I agreed to pay this debt or (2) delete this from all 3 CRAs and never report it again."

Sometimes I include the following in the same letter in the same paragraph. Sometimes I send it in a follow up letter:

"You have X days to comply and either provide my signature or send me a letter of deletion stating that this will be deleted and not reported again."

This has worked for me! I say X days.. If it is a local CA as one of mine was I only gave them 7 days. If it is from out of state I give them 14 days, as it would be harder to make good on my threat to sue, and what I really want is a deletion.

For me the one from out state sent me a delete letter. PTL!

The one from in my city did not send me anything, but very promptly removed it from all three CRAs. Now that is fine. I am done with those two clowns.

But I have credit monitoring service, and if I see it pop up again, I will immediately file suit in a small claims court and serve them notice. I eluded to this possibility in the last letter that I sent them.

[cliffaz780]

Thanks gonna sue them since they refuse to reply. I was denied credit due to thier reporting to the CRA and it cost me thousands in credit... I am going to hang them since they refuse to even respond.

Here comes the ITS letter... grab your ankles!!!

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Thanks gonna sue them since they refuse to reply. I was denied credit due to thier reporting to the CRA and it cost me thousands in credit... I am going to hang them since they refuse to even respond.

Here comes the ITS letter... grab your ankles!!!

I think it's far too early to talk about sueing anyone unless you just like to spend time and money going to court.

THey are not required to send you a dunning letter before or after they report to the bureaus nor do they have to reply to a DV unless it is timely.

You can claim your DV is timely but if their position is that it isn't then only a judge could decide.

If you KNOW the debt isn't your debt then file an ID theft report and police report.

[betam4x]

AFNI is NOTORIOUS for doing this. I'm about to hit them with a lawsuit and I'm well within SOL. contacted the OC and the CO has incomplete records, no signature, no detailed calling info, NOTHING that i can use to verify that it's mine. AFNI has ignored me as well. I'm going down to the courthouse to pickup some papers in preparation to sue these bastards.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Look fellows,

Some of you need to do a LOT more reading and learning before yelling about going to court and sueing someone.

The standards the CA has to meet to show that a debt is the debtor's account is VERY limited compared to what is required for court...they don't have to have documents with signatures and such.

It is Great to request such data but not only will you alomst never get it but they don't have to supply it.

Rushing to court is a great next step only if your intention is to make bad case law.

[cliffaz780]

So robert what is the venue to force them to prove it is your debt? If I report something on your credit report dont I have to prove it really is your debt... and if you deny it is yours wont the burden of proof be on the one whom is reporting it to the CRA??

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I don’t have the laws in front of me however, I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.

They are not required to "prove" it's your debt. I believe that all that is really required of a data furnisher such as a CA is that the records they do have, match the data they are reporting.

They do not have to have nor are they expected to have tons of records/documents, etc. Likewise when responding to a validation request; there is very little that they have to supply to meet the requirements of the law (copy of a judgment, a statement from the OC, etc.).

You can ask for all the documentation you want and I certainly would never pay a debt to a CA or anyone else until they were properly vetted and I had the information I felt I needed before paying. However, the law does not require them to have or to supply that sort of documentation to me.

If they have actually committed violations of the FDCPA/FCRA then fine, take them to court – just make sure you understand exactly what the violations are and be able to prove your case. However, if the issue is that you know/believe the account isn’t your account then file the appropriate ID theft reports with the FTC and police.

[betam4x]

With all due respect Robert, a CA may not have to prove it's "your" debt, but they due have the responsibility to ensure the information reported is accurate. If the information reported is not accurate they have the responsibility to correct that information.

In my case, I have evidence that their information being reported isn't accurate, nor is AFNI interested in correcting this information, therefore I have a case. The evidence is not related to it "not being mine", but i use this as a starting point to get me in the door.

The account in question is not mine. During the discovery process you can demand all documentation from the other party regarding the debt. If the documentation they have is insufficient to prove it's yours (and is therefore inaccurate), then you can challenge the validity of the debt. It's been done before on many occasions.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

With all due respect Robert, a CA may not have to prove it's "your" debt, but they due have the responsibility to ensure the information reported is accurate. If the information reported is not accurate they have the responsibility to correct that information.

In my case, I have evidence that their information being reported isn't accurate, nor is AFNI interested in correcting this information, therefore I have a case. The evidence is not related to it "not being mine", but i use this as a starting point to get me in the door.

The account in question is not mine. During the discovery process you can demand all documentation from the other party regarding the debt. If the documentation they have is insufficient to prove it's yours (and is therefore inaccurate), then you can challenge the validity of the debt. It's been done before on many occasions.

We are really talking about two different things.

An information furnisher does have the responsibility to report accurate information but the standards for their "ensuring" the data is accurate are less difficult to meet than most people want to believe.

I would say that it is perfectly possible for an information furnisher to be in compliance with the standards for reporting imposed by the FCRA, and still be "wrong" such as misidentifying you as the debtor when you are not, etc. which is one of the reasons we now have laws to handle the issue of ID Theft.

The begs the question, if you know the account isn't yours, why take the uphill route? There is a much easier remedy; file an ID theft report with the FTC and a police report...if you do that and they still don't remove the account then you truly have a significant (and easy to prove) violation.

[LoveToGod]

Look fellows,

Some of you need to do a LOT more reading and learning before yelling about going to court and sueing someone.

The standards the CA has to meet to show that a debt is the debtor's account is VERY limited compared to what is required for court...they don't have to have documents with signatures and such.

It is Great to request such data but not only will you alomst never get it but they don't have to supply it.

Rushing to court is a great next step only if your intention is to make bad case law.

Suing in small claims court is a bit easier.

[LoveToGod]

We are really talking about two different things.

An information furnisher does have the responsibility to report accurate information but the standards for their "ensuring" the data is accurate are less difficult to meet than most people want to believe.

I would say that it is perfectly possible for an information furnisher to be in compliance with the standards for reporting imposed by the FCRA, and still be "wrong" such as misidentifying you as the debtor when you are not, etc. which is one of the reasons we now have laws to handle the issue of ID Theft.

The begs the question, if you know the account isn't yours, why take the uphill route? There is a much easier remedy; file an ID theft report with the FTC and a police report...if you do that and they still don't remove the account then you truly have a significant (and easy to prove) violation.

He is right though. Through the process of discovery you can call their hand. At that point they are required to validate it. I live in Texas and they are required to by Texas law regardless. He may have laws in his state that require the creditor to do so.

The FCRA does say though that accounts through identity theft have to be blocked, but the poster has grounds to sue if they are reporting inaccurate information.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Suing in small claims court is a bit easier.

If you mean easier to 'do" yes...if you mean easier in the sense of a favorable decision; probably not.

When sueing under Federal Law for violations of the FDCPA/FCRA, etc. you can expect better results from a Federal cout than a local small claims court.

Small claims courts are courts of equity meaning, to put it simply, they care a lot less about the "facts" or even the statutes than they do about what is most 'fair"...if a small claims judge think you are just being a court wh**e and sueing for this and that and he thinks you DO actually owe the debt, you probably won't get a very favorable decision.

Federal courts DO care about the facts and Federal law but they do take more work and you had better have a truly good case.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

He is right though. Through the process of discovery you can call their hand. At that point they are required to validate it. I live in Texas and they are required to by Texas law regardless. He may have laws in his state that require the creditor to do so.

The FCRA does say though that accounts through identity theft have to be blocked, but the poster has grounds to sue if they are reporting inaccurate information.

I wasn't disagreeing with him but pointing out that two very different standards exist.

Also, you realy should avoid giving "Texas" advice to non-Texas residents or assuming other states have similare protections...VERY few states have debt collectin/consumer laws like Texas; the overwhelming majority of the country operate only under the Federal statutes.

[LoveToGod]

Look fellows,

Some of you need to do a LOT more reading and learning before yelling about going to court and sueing someone.

The standards the CA has to meet to show that a debt is the debtor's account is VERY limited compared to what is required for court...they don't have to have documents with signatures and such.

It is Great to request such data but not only will you alomst never get it but they don't have to supply it.

Rushing to court is a great next step only if your intention is to make bad case law.

I know this is from a couple of days ago, but here is another thought. Going to court can be an intimidating and scary experience, but if one has done their homework and research and they know their stuff they can go in with confidence.

[LoveToGod]

If you mean easier to 'do" yes...if you mean easier in the sense of a favorable decision; probably not.

When sueing under Federal Law for violations of the FDCPA/FCRA, etc. you can expect better results from a Federal cout than a local small claims court.

Small claims courts are courts of equity meaning, to put it simply, they care a lot less about the "facts" or even the statutes than they do about what is most 'fair"...if a small claims judge think you are just being a court wh**e and sueing for this and that and he thinks you DO actually owe the debt, you probably won't get a very favorable decision.

Federal courts DO care about the facts and Federal law but they do take more work and you had better have a truly good case.

That is true, because you still have to prove your case wherever you go.