Jump to content

The saga continues...First Premier Bank


misbhavn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's a brief synopsis of my run-ins with FPB thus far. This is a legitimate debt that FPB sold to Arrow in 1/08. Arrow has bowed out and deleted the TL's from my CR, but the TL from FPB remains.

I have disputed with the CRA's numerous times and finally went after FPB directly. I sent them a 623 dispute in January 09 to which they responded with a form letter saying I had to dispute with the CRA's. I sent them a 2nd 623 dipute telling them that their response wasn't good enough and that they were willfully refusing to comply with my request for an investigation. Their response to that was the same form letter they previously sent to me. I sent out a 3rd 623 dipute a few weeks ago outlining all of the violations of the FCRA and TFC that I could think of and told them if the still refused to comply with my request I would sue them. At that time, I also sent out another round of disputes to the CRA's along with all of the documentation of my communications with FPB showing their refusal to investigate.

That brings us to today. I received a letter from FPB saying that they received a dispute verification from the CRA's indicating that this account was received fraudulently. They also enclosed an ID theft afiidavit and want me to return it within 10 days. As I said before, this was a legit debt and I have no intention of filling out the affidavit.

Here are my questions...

1) Is there any way this could be construed as a reply to my request for an investigation of this account? AFAIK, this is a response to the CRA's verification request.

2)Are they still required to respond to my 623 dispute? Will my not returning this affidavit give them an "out" for not responding to my request based on non-cooperation on my part?

I'm at a point to where I am seriously considering filing suit for violations of the TFC. They have repeatedly refused to supply me with any documentation on this account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a brief synopsis of my run-ins with FPB thus far. This is a legitimate debt that FPB sold to Arrow in 1/08. Arrow has bowed out and deleted the TL's from my CR, but the TL from FPB remains.

I have disputed with the CRA's numerous times and finally went after FPB directly. I sent them a 623 dispute in January 09 to which they responded with a form letter saying I had to dispute with the CRA's. I sent them a 2nd 623 dipute telling them that their response wasn't good enough and that they were willfully refusing to comply with my request for an investigation. Their response to that was the same form letter they previously sent to me. I sent out a 3rd 623 dipute a few weeks ago outlining all of the violations of the FCRA and TFC that I could think of and told them if the still refused to comply with my request I would sue them. At that time, I also sent out another round of disputes to the CRA's along with all of the documentation of my communications with FPB showing their refusal to investigate.

That brings us to today. I received a letter from FPB saying that they received a dispute verification from the CRA's indicating that this account was received fraudulently. They also enclosed an ID theft afiidavit and want me to return it within 10 days. As I said before, this was a legit debt and I have no intention of filling out the affidavit.

Here are my questions...

1) Is there any way this could be construed as a reply to my request for an investigation of this account? AFAIK, this is a response to the CRA's verification request.

2)Are they still required to respond to my 623 dispute? Will my not returning this affidavit give them an "out" for not responding to my request based on non-cooperation on my part?

I'm at a point to where I am seriously considering filing suit for violations of the TFC. They have repeatedly refused to supply me with any documentation on this account.

I'm curious as to what the basis of your dispute is?

You started out (above) by saying the debt is a legitimate debt...if it's a legitimate debt, and unless the allowable reporting period has passed; they have no obligation to remove the tradeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to what the basis of your dispute is?

You started out (above) by saying the debt is a legitimate debt...if it's a legitimate debt, and unless the allowable reporting period has passed; they have no obligation to remove the tradeline.

But they do have an obligation under FCRA 623 (B) to investigate the account at my request. If they have no records (which that have verbally admitted that they do not) to prove that the tradeline is accurate, how can they continue to verify the tradeline?

I have maintained all along that all I wanted was to try to get a deletion. If they can produce the documentation, I'm done. So far, they have either been unwilling or unable to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Robert, if its really yours then why go after them.

But....If the tradeline is being resported incorrectly in any way, go after them for the error in the tradeline.

Chances are if they sold it they are reporting the balance as 0, and since it is a few years old and probably out of statute, removing it will only add a few points to your score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they do have an obligation under FCRA 623 (B) to investigate the account at my request. If they have no records (which that have verbally admitted that they do not) to prove that the tradeline is accurate, how can they continue to verify the tradeline?

I have maintained all along that all I wanted was to try to get a deletion. If they can produce the documentation, I'm done. So far, they have either been unwilling or unable to do that.

I claim no special expertise in the FCRA. However, as I read the statute, my understanding is that it is not sufficient to just "dispute" the tradeline with the data furnisher, rather, that you need to specify what is wrong with the tradeline as it's being reported and it's only by specifying what is wrong that obligates them to investigate the issue(s) you raise and either agree and correct or pull the tradeline or say you are wrong and leave the tradeline unchanged.

As such; just saying something like "it's not my account" or "prove to me it is my account" can likely either be ignored as a frivolous dispute OR (and this is what sounds to me has happened), the information furnisher will assume you are claiming the account isn't your account (i.e. ID Theft) and will act accordingly.

Now, if you want to go that route then file the appropriate ID Theft affidavit with the FTC and a complaint with your local police/law enforcement and send copies of the documents to the data furnisher and the CRAs. However, I don't recommend lying to the police and if you know the account is yours/was not the result of ID Theft that that's exactly what you would be doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I claim no special expertise in the FCRA. However, as I read the statute, my understanding is that it is not sufficient to just "dispute" the tradeline with the data furnisher, rather, that you need to specify what is wrong with the tradeline as it's being reported and it's only by specifying what is wrong that obligates them to investigate the issue(s) you raise and either agree and correct or pull the tradeline or say you are wrong and leave the tradeline unchanged.

As such; just saying something like "it's not my account" or "prove to me it is my account" can likely either be ignored as a frivolous dispute OR (and this is what sounds to me has happened), the information furnisher will assume you are claiming the account isn't your account (i.e. ID Theft) and will act accordingly.

Now, if you want to go that route then file the appropriate ID Theft affidavit with the FTC and a complaint with your local police/law enforcement and send copies of the documents to the data furnisher and the CRAs. However, I don't recommend lying to the police and if you know the account is yours/was not the result of ID Theft that that's exactly what you would be doing.

That is why I have no intention of filling out an ID theft affidavit. xangelx

What you say does make some sense, but if they deem a dispute frivolous, they are required to give them written notification stating such. Maybe my understanding of the 623 dipute method is skewed.

So, in theory, if I disputed the amount owed and they couldn't produce statements to verify the accuracy, then what? Would they have to delete?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With credit cards the card issuer sends out monthly statements. First Prem issued monthly statements prior to the account being charged-off and sold.

Your duties as a card holder in the event there is a frivelous charge is to notify the card issuer and they will investigate the item in question.

If you did not dispute during the time the card was active the amounts are correct. You cannot go back and challenge them.

Most card issuers are good with stopping interest and excessive fees after the account was charged off with the exception of Capital One.

At the most you will gain 7 points for a delete, is it really worth it if you really have nothing legitimate to fight them about.

Like I said before, if they are reporting anything in the tradeline innaccurately, you have a legitimate claim, but all of the heartache, stress and grief are not worth 7 points or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why I have no intention of filling out an ID theft affidavit. xangelx

What you say does make some sense, but if they deem a dispute frivolous, they are required to give them written notification stating such. Maybe my understanding of the 623 dipute method is skewed.

So, in theory, if I disputed the amount owed and they couldn't produce statements to verify the accuracy, then what? Would they have to delete?

I don't believe they deemed it frivilious; I think they are calling your bluff and/or assuming you are maintaining that the account isn't your account at all.

As to disputing the amount; do you have any evidence that the amount reported it incorrect? I think you'll also find that the FCRA expects the consumer not just to say something is "wrong" but to supply some evidence that something is wrong...the less evidence you supply the easier it is for the furnisher to ignore your claim.

However, let's assume the amount is incorrect; why do you assume they must delete the tradeline? They always have the option of "correcting" the tradeline if they agree that something is incorrect in the way they were reporting it.

As per the advice Legal has already given, is all this worth it do delete an accurate account that you know is your account???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your duties as a card holder in the event there is a frivelous charge is to notify the card issuer and they will investigate the item in question.

If you're referring to the consumer's right to dispute suspect charges on a monthly statement, I don't see how that relates to his/her rights under the FCRA. The accuracy of the furnished data can be disputed at any time, and is not limited by statutes regarding billing practices.

A consumer is permitted to dispute information directly with the furnisher and here, the furnisher appears determined not to respond. If the consumer's disputes are not frivolous, and they are framed properly, FP has an obligation to investigate and respond accordingly, valid debt or not.

I think the OP's frustration simply comes from FP's continued refusal to comply with their legal obligation, and from the lack of reasonable recourse to force them to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When i sent FP a 623 letter they investigated the Trade line and sent me the complete statement history. Then i tired to pay them and they informed them the debt was sold and theu would not accept payment from me... So it will sit on my CR till 2012... I will attempt to dispute it yearly to see if i can get it removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is often said that an informed consumer is a collector's worse nightmare.

I submit that is might also be true that a well prepared creditor who's records are in order is the bane of any consumer seeking to "repair" his credit history by having accurate, albeit negative, data removed.

While I understand the desire of consumers to have a credit history that only reflects "positive" information, some things are better left alone. xcoffx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Robert... I never thought they would have all of that information, i assumed they would have "lost" it or it was miss filed...

I've worked in enough very large businesses to know that their records often are in poor shape or so difficult and time consuming to retrieve that it simply isn't worth their time.

However, when it comes to banks and/or those who extend credit as their primary business along with the current age of digitizing and databasing everything, those problems are becoming a thing of the past.

That of course has it's positive and negative sides for consumers; it makes mistakes a bit less likely (more accurate reporting) but also makes it more difficult for a consumer to dispute information and win (if the reporting is truly accurate).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the OP's frustration simply comes from FP's continued refusal to comply with their legal obligation, and from the lack of reasonable recourse to force them to do so.

That sums it all up in a nutshell. Whether I dispute the amount, the DOLA, the DOFD or anything else with the account, my question remains...if FP has no documentation to prove any of it, how can they continue to verify this account??? Maybe I wasn't 100% clear on exactly what I was disputing but if they did not deem it frivolous, they are obligated by the FCRA to investigate.

We can debate whether or not I should dispute it at all since it was a legit debt. The fact of the matter is that I have no statements from this account anymore and I have no way of knowing whether the information they are reporting is 100% accurate or not. Obviously, I defaulted on a debt and I'm simply looking to delete a few baddies if I can. I think that's how most of us stumbled upon this site to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked in enough very large businesses to know that their records often are in poor shape or so difficult and time consuming to retrieve that it simply isn't worth their time.

However, when it comes to banks and/or those who extend credit as their primary business along with the current age of digitizing and databasing everything, those problems are becoming a thing of the past.

That of course has it's positive and negative sides for consumers; it makes mistakes a bit less likely (more accurate reporting) but also makes it more difficult for a consumer to dispute information and win (if the reporting is truly accurate).

I agree with this and I'm well aware that if pushed far enough, they could probably dig up the documentation for this account. They have told me verbally that they had no documentation anymore since it was sold to Arrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this and I'm well aware that if pushed far enough, they could probably dig up the documentation for this account. They have told me verbally that they had no documentation anymore since it was sold to Arrow.

Which probably isn't true (that they don't have the information)...more likely; you communicated with someone who simply doesn't want to be bothered with your request.

On the other hand, if they truly don't have the information then they really don't have any business reporting.

Whether they actually do or don't have the information, you would have a fairly strong position had they told you that in writing. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they truly don't have the information then they really don't have any business reporting.

That is exactly how I feel about it. It would also seem reasonable that if they can't produce it then they certainly can't verify the information with the CRA's as accurate either. Unfortunately, I really don't know if they have it or not. What I do know is that they have refused to comply with my requests for an investigation 3 times now. I have disputed with each CRA at least 4 times and they have NEVER marked the account in dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly how I feel about it. It would also seem reasonable that if they can't produce it then they certainly can't verify the information with the CRA's as accurate either. Unfortunately, I really don't know if they have it or not. What I do know is that they have refused to comply with my requests for an investigation 3 times now. I have disputed with each CRA at least 4 times and they have NEVER marked the account in dispute.

What? You know, my fellow Texan, that they have to mark it in dispute if they received your dispute. Furthermore, the Texas Finance Code applies to the OC, (FP). They don't really have any special rights just because they are the original creditor here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this and I'm well aware that if pushed far enough, they could probably dig up the documentation for this account. They have told me verbally that they had no documentation anymore since it was sold to Arrow.

That is exactly what they told me, but they prodiced all the information and i got a real person with a hand signed letter and everything. so do not push your luck with them, i am willing to bet they will produce all of the informationand forward it to Arrow and Arrow will sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which probably isn't true (that they don't have the information)...more likely; you communicated with someone who simply doesn't want to be bothered with your request.

I've found that many times they don't have the information, which doesn't surprise me. Having worked in many IT departments, I know that electronic records can be more difficult to keep track of than paper ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? You know, my fellow Texan, that they have to mark it in dispute if they received your dispute. Furthermore, the Texas Finance Code applies to the OC, (FP). They don't really have any special rights just because they are the original creditor here.

Yes, I am aware of this. I know I have them on AT LEAST 10 violations. The amount of the original debt was $477. The CA had it at about double that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly what they told me, but they prodiced all the information and i got a real person with a hand signed letter and everything. so do not push your luck with them, i am willing to bet they will produce all of the informationand forward it to Arrow and Arrow will sue

Honestly, I'm not really worried about that. It's a relativeley small amount and the SOL is very close to expiring. If they were going to sue, they most likely would have already done it.

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.