legend

failure to validate and reinsertion

Recommended Posts

Sorry for the long post but it has been a long road and just keeps going. This is what I wrote up for Midlands Complaince analyst. Is this something I should send or just let them continue doing their thing? Also I searched for MCM, Midland under the BBB in Oaks, PA and none listed?

Mr. Lusk,

I am sure you are aware of the FDCPA and FCRA laws that protect consumers. Assuming that my information is correct and you are indeed the Compliance Analyst, I am in hopes that you can look into this and educate those collectors working for commission or minimum wage.

Last year I had taken the opportunity to review my credit reports and found that Midland Credit Management had a derogatory listing on all of them. I had never heard from Midland in any way via phone, letters, email etc. I sent them out a letter return receipt requested informing them that they had a derogatory listing on my credit bureaus and that I had never heard from them and demanded that under § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] they either send me proper validation or immediately remove the negative from my records.

Rather than somebody contacting me to assist me in this effort, I received a computerized letter, which was the very first initial communication with no mini Miranda to say the least. This letter also had different alleged dollar amounts owed from what was found to be listed on my credit reports. I had responded no less than 4 more letters to no avail. All I ever received were more computer-generated letters, offers of discounted amounts etc.

I realized I wasn’t going to get any assistance from Midland so I contacted the Original Creditor and asked them if they could help me clear this up. I had no information for this account and they based on my social security number and personal information stated that they had no account there for me, and that it appears that what they themselves were listing on my credit report was that the account was sold to another company. Because of this they couldn’t help me in any way. To this day they too refuse to remove the item in question.

With nowhere else to turn I notified the Credit Bureaus and after a very long drawn out battle with them, they continued to come back with their investigation as the account has been confirmed as being mine! So. I copied ALL letters sent to Midland, Household bank along with the return receipt cards and sent them off to the Credit reporting companies informing them that obviously Midland doesn’t have a problem verifying this alleged account with them but have refused to even contact me for anything! I demanded that the Credit reporting company send me the proof that Midland had been sending them because they refuse to send me anything.

Equifax removed the mis-information from my credit reports after several months of fighting with Midland. Yesterday 5/27/08, I received a phone call from a number that was listed as "Unavailable" from a woman who claimed her name to be Luanda from Midland. After completely disregarding everything I had to say she finally gave me an 800 number to what she called consumer relations who deals with any and all validations. Midland has ignored my pleas for over a year and now has the audacity to call my cell phone and make false claims that I owe this money on the alleged account.

I have credit reports dating back to 1998 long before Midland ever showed up unannounced onto my credit reports. Reviewing each report year by year shows clear re-aging on this account. Balances have climbed higher than triple the alleged original creditors amount and yet to this day I have received absolutely nothing. To add insult to injury, I was informed by Luanda that Midland has indeed reported this and added it back onto my bureaus 3/13/08, 4/14/08, and again 5/15/08! I am supposed to be protected under FCRA and FDCPA laws at the Federal and state levels. I have not received a single notice of reinsertion from any of the credit reporting agencies!

Between Midland and the credit bureaus it appears that there is a very serious lack of communication. Worse yet is if this ever gets cleared up with Midland, it will just get sold to another junk debt buyer and I get to start the whole process over again! Americans should not have to go through this total lack of humanity and lack of respect for the laws that govern this free nation!

I have given up counting the numerous violations between Midland and all 3 credit bureaus. I am demanding that this trade line be removed once and for all from any and all of my credit bureaus. It is obvious Midland cannot show me anything at all that I am responsible for the alleged account. Be advised that I am aware that there are no laws that make Midland have to respond to my requests for validation, they must however stop collection activity until such a response is given! This is still being ignored and all of this continued collection activity is against the law!

I have pasted the Wollman letter below for your reference. Though it is an opinion letter only, it clearly states the FTC position on these types of actions. Midland is to get verification of the alleged debt from HOUSEHOLD THEMSELVES who couldn’t help me when I called, then they (Midland) is to mail me that information! Because the alleged Original Creditor is showing a much much lower balance than Midland, and the fact Midland has at least 5 different dates of last activity indicating re-aging, I need an explanation of these dates as well. I need an accounting along with definitive proof I am the one responsible for this account. Seriously I can’t believe this is still being reported after over a year of pleading for help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude you have them on violations!!!!!! What are you waiting for? SUE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know but I went to my local town court, then the county court and nobody knows what to do to assist me in filing suit. Even the county attorney says he has never heard of either FCRA or the FDCPA. I need to know things like are there forms or what is involved in sueing them.

Both Midland AND the CB's are in violation and I know it just no clue if my own courts have no clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean, SCC's are not consumer friendly as it is, let alone the judges and clerks having any knowledge about FDCPA or FCRA laws as it pertains to your rights. Start by reading the thread here "if your suing or being sued" if you feel as though your not comfortable with handling your case Pro Se then go to www.ncac.net and look for consumer attorney in your area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your letter contains far too much information. It sounds like you are frustrated and trying to convey an entire scenario, but you reveal information that is not in your best interests. You may wish to edit and remove some of that.

For example, from the 4th paragraph: "...Original Creditor...stated they had no account for me...". Any additional info is moot. It's also counterproductive to mention that the OC wouldn't remove their TL. The point should be that the OC has nothing to tie the debt to you. Leave it at that.

"...credit reports dating back to 1998...dates of last activity...re-aging..."

Illegal re-aging occurs when the Data Furnisher changes (what this board refers to as) the DOFD, not DOLA. "Activity' can be anything, including many actions performed by the creditor/collector. Changing the DOLA does not constitute re-aging. Most likely, they know that and will scoff at your letter and these supposed 'violations'.

That having been said, as justincase mentioned, they won't likely respond favorably to a letter mentioning these things. They will respond to a lawsuit for a pattern of noncompliance or repeated violations. You are going to need a lot more than your letter to get their attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illegal re-aging occurs when the Data Furnisher changes (what this board refers to as) the DOFD, not DOLA. "Activity' can be anything, including many actions performed by the creditor/collector. Changing the DOLA does not constitute re-aging. Most likely, they know that and will scoff at your letter and these supposed 'violations'.

I have a quick question or few. I understand that "technically" that's not re-aging but I always thought it was a form of re-aging. Because don't the CAs manipulate the DOLA to impact your score, the more recent the DOLA, the higher the impact is on your score?

If there haven't been any payments made shouldn't that DOLA stay the same?

Also, I was wondering did EQ or do they still use the DOLA field as the DOFD? TIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...CAs manipulate the DOLA to impact your score..."

Supposedly, that's a theory some people hold to; that scoring deductions are triggered by changes in DOLA. I have another.

I believe that the 'date last reported' plus any (number of) datafield(s) in the TL (which indicate default) combine to cause the deductions. The update makes the TL appear to be recent to FICO-based scoring programs. That's why disputing, PIF, and anything that generates a data transfer may cause a drop in scores. It depends on how/when the TL was previously reported. A Crap One collection is going to have max impact on scores cuz they typically update each month, per company policy.

I'm sure that Data Furnishers, including CA's, know the impact of their actions. But the consumer needs to understand that the functions of reporting are separate from the function of credit scoring programs. They are two distinct issues that relate to the same root item (the collection account).

"...DOLA stay the same..."

"Activity" can be any number of things, including actions by the creditor or the CA. DOLA is not synonomous with 'last payment'.

"...EQ..."

Equifax uses whatever data the DF provides for this field. They recently added the DOFD field to consumer-oriented reports (hopefully in response to millions of requests for this info). TU has an 'estimated date of removal' or some nonsense like that. Experian still just has 'status date' or DOLA. You have to contact EXP directly and request the month/year they have been provided (per the FCRA 1681s-2, Subsection 623) by the DF as the beginning of Reporting Period. Changing THAT date is the only thing that constitutes illegal re-aging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply and info. I was a little confused, I knew changing the DOFD is re-aging, but I also thought them keeping the DOLA within a 2 year range just to make it appear that it's more recent of a collection, so it would continue to hurt your score.

So, changing the DOLA alone really shouldn't be a big deal then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that some consider the DOLA datafield to be a FICO trigger. Truth is, nothing in the TL changes without the 'date last reported' changing. So it may be a trigger, just like the many datafields which indicate delinquency/default. But the primary indicators (IMO) are an Update plus default status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that has been mentioned, I may be wrong, but re-insertion without notifying is not a violation.

You have them on not validating the debt.

Have you sent letters to the AG and BBB yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also remember that sometimes the CA will change the account number to try to get by the reinsertion clause. :rollingpin:xrulesx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any violation so long as the DB is reporting the tradeline "disputed". It appears to me that the DV was not timely. Thus, the DB has no requirement to either cease communication or to respond to the DV.

I think you are confused with the legal issue. This is a civil matter not a criminal one. Also, it is my understanding that small claims court lacks the jurisdiction in regard to a federal statute and the creditor defendants routinely move those lawsuits to federal court. It is not impossible but is much more difficult for a pro se plaintiff to navigate federal court.

If you really think there is a violation, talk to an attorney who knows how to handle this. If your case is solid, FDCPA provides for the award of your attorney fees. Try NACA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midland is the biggests Weasels around, Check the BBB of San diego, they have so many complaints filed against them, keep trying, I had success...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.