Jump to content

JDB on EQ, anything look odd about this?


Recommended Posts

I've become confused about the consensus about "factoring account" as far as being FCRA compliant so I'm asking on my own in hopes of some clarification.

As reported by EQ, just got this today

Acct Number: XXXXX

Date Opened: 5/2008

High Credit: 1000

Credit Limit: 0

Terms Duration: *Blank*

Terms Frequency: *Blank*

Months Revd: 1 What exactly does this mean

Activity Description: *Blank*

Creditor Classification: Financial

Item As of Date Reported 9/2008

Balance Amount: 1000

Amount Due: 1000

Date of Last Payment: *Blank*

Actual Payment Amount: 0

Scheduled Payment Amount: 0

DOFD: 10/2007

DOLA: *Blank*

Date Major Delinquency First Reported: 7/2008

Charge Off Amount: 0

Deferred Pay Start Date: *Blank*

Balloon Pay Amount: 0

Balloon Pay Date: *Blank*

Date Closed: *Blank*

Current Status: Collection Account

Type of Account: Open

Type of Loan: Factoring Company Account

Whose Account: Individual

Additional Information: consumer disputes this account information; collection account

Now, TU and EX have already deleted

I've sent a 623 request to LVNV.

Perhaps a 611 MOV is also required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey LUser,

I rarely post but, I've replied to your thread on creditboards:


Use that info I've copied again here.

Well, there is a way to use South Carolina's own credit laws which BTW, mirror the FDCPA. File a complaint with the Administrator of the SC Dept. of Consumer Affairs. This gets their attention. Report the known linkage between LVNV, Resurgent, Sherman, CreditOne, et al. I believe this is also obligatory anyway.


(6) No action at law claiming unconscionable debt collection may be commenced in any court until at least thirty days after the facts and circumstances of any claim of unconscionable conduct in collecting a debt arising out of a consumer credit transaction has been filed in writing with the administrator of the Department of Consumer Affairs. The administrator shall immediately provide to the person or organization complained against with a copy of any complaint alleging unconscionable debt collection practices filed with the Department of Consumer Affairs. The administrator shall immediately provide to the Director of the Consumer Finance Division of the Board of Financial Institutions a copy of any written claim of unconscionable conduct in collecting a debt filed against a supervised lender under this title or a restricted lender under Title 34. A creditor or debt collector may only take such action as is authorized by law to protect its collateral during the thirty-day state agency review period. The administrator shall take immediate steps to investigate, evaluate, and attempt to resolve such complaints. The administrator and director shall jointly take immediate steps to investigate, evaluate, and attempt to resolve complaints involving supervised and restricted lenders. If in an action, properly filed after the thirty-day state agency review period with regard to conduct in collecting a debt arising out of a consumer credit transaction, in which unconscionability is claimed the court finds unconscionability pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), the court shall award reasonable fees to the attorney for the consumer or debtor. If the court does not find unconscionability and the consumer or debtor claiming unconscionability has brought or maintained an action he knew to be groundless, the court may award reasonable fees to the attorney for the party against whom the claim is made. In determining attorney's fees, the amount of the recovery on behalf of the consumer is not controlling.

Now, here is the section to write them up about, one which will give them pause:

(d) causing or threatening to cause injury to the consumer's reputation or economic status by disclosing information affecting the consumer's reputation for creditworthiness with knowledge or reason to know that the information is false; communicating with the consumer's employer before obtaining a final judgment against the consumer, except as permitted by statute or to verify the consumer's employment; disclosing to a person, with knowledge or reason to know that the person does not have a legitimate business need for the information, or in any way prohibited by statute, information affecting the consumer's credit or other reputation; or disclosing information concerning the existence of a debt known to be disputed by the consumer without disclosing that fact;

Oh, of course make a copy of this complaint to the SC AG and let the Sherman dysfunctional family know this. This worked wonders for me. 'Course I like giving em hell. My alledged debt is 13 years old and they did the usual pass it around to different CA's, I skipped them after the first and sent a DV directly to LVNV with Resurgent's name on it also and the term all Sherman's companies. I let em know up front I'm dead serious. Oh, forgot, also sent it to their SC registered agent.

You have to let them know that you will destroy their reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to let them know that you will destroy their reputation.

If only it were that easy.

From what we've been told in this post so far, I can't really see anything they've done illegal, that they should be scared of.

As far as "factoring account", I don't think anyone has proven that it hurts you any worse at all than having it marked as a "collection account."

A factoring company is one that buys the accounts receivable from another company, for less than full value, and in return get to keep the full value that the debting party pays back. For it to be a factored account, it's one in good standing, not written off or past due--that's a collection account.

It's entirely possible the company does do factoring as well as collections though. I can't see anything illegal about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm using a generalization here. Whether we like it or not using the factoring notation is not illegal and they can do this. I'm simply replying to yet another LVNV victim that there are better ways to attack them. Tying together the multi-headed hydra is one way. If you can show/demonstrate collusion between their many company shells in complaints to the proper authoritities, then this makes the job of sueing them or defending against them easier. Essentially you want to make the "sum of its parts" the "whole" as an entity for any type of litigation.

Heres the place to start:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Months Reviewed' relates to the history displayed by the TL. For a relatively new CO/collection account, it's moot, which is why this TL only has 1 mo reviewed.

It's more important in an OC's TL. For example: Your Citibank CO has 24 mos. reviewed, and yet, shows a 30-day delinquency dated 04/2003. That's not kosher. It's not a violation, but it's not accurate either. The MR needs to cover the time period accounting for ALL derogatory data in the TL.

Hope this is clearer than mud...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a ridiculous battle back and forth against this grotesque monster of a company.

The time line went something like this:

Acct shows up July/08

I call them Aug 11 08

I DV Aug 12 08

They re report Aug 14th 08 no dispute

They re report Aug 28th showing DIspute

I dispute wiht CRAs Sept 2

I send 623 on Sept 2 to JDB

Sept 10- TU deletes

Sep 18 EXperian deletes

Sep 22- Equifax verifies. delete notation still there.

I sent 623 again to JDB on Sept 28th

About to Send 611 MOV to EQ today.

And am filing suit in Two days.

But Thanks Ahntara, Your post actually did make sense in some kind of odd way in my brain.

Still think Months reviewed should be 3 since they opened it in July. But maybe I'm off base again. Happens a lot when you're learning this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After an account goes into default and is sold/transferred/assigned to a CA, the history is irrelevant. MR is moot for collection accounts. The entire balance is due and payable in full upon default. That's standard to all loan contracts/account agreements.

The history is a factor in the OC's TL, but not in a CA's TL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.