Jump to content

Poking the bear...Portfolio Recovery Assoc and me


creditcrunched
 Share

Recommended Posts

. Last but not least - Is PRA a JDB or a CA? Since they are not the OC I know that the FDCRA governs their actions but what exactly is the difference legally speaking?

They can be both. Portfolio is one of the bigger and successful ones.

---------------------------

President, CEO, Chairman of Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. (PRAA) Steven D Fredrickson sells 4,300 shares of PRAA on 02/14/2011 at an average price of $79.16 a share.

Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. has a market cap of $1.36 billion; its shares were traded at around $79.58 with a P/E ratio of 20.3 and P/S ratio of 4.8. Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. had an annual average earning growth of 20.5% over the past 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short version:

Citifinancial Auto repo'd a vehicle with the DOFD being 11/05. Completely broke, judgement proof, and overwhelmed I chose willful ignorance.

Fast forward to present:

All 3 CRA's are reporting OC correctly. However, the ever evil Portfolio Recovery Associates (who btw sent a dunning letter last week over a 10 yr old zombie debt which I promptly sent a C&D to) "own" the debt according to the reports. To my knowledge I never received a dunning letter in regards to this debt but I wouldn't swear to it in court.

The problem is how they are reporting the debt. They are claiming to be a "Factoring Company" as an open account to two CRAs and a closed on one. On two of the CRAs they are listed as an installment account and harming my debt to credit ratio. But the kicker is the date which shows placed for collection in 09! I understand they are able to update date, not the DOLA/DOFD. Only TU shows it as a collections account while the other 2 with the wrong date and classified as open or closed installment with 120+ days late and past due balance and a last payment!!!

Now that I've spilled my guts the questions I have are:

1) I contacted OC, Santander, because they purchased all Citi Auto accounts and they have no records of me in their system but they do show my husbands records as it was a joint account. Why would they have his and not my info? Shouldn't those records be purged by now? And should I request investigation into mine knowing full well they won't be able to verify and hopefully get the OC TL removed?

2) Since it would be an untimely DV should I request investigation per FCRA ยง623(a)(8)? I'm not trying to get out of paying a legitimate debt but before I do I want to make sure they have legal right to collect. After all, they just tried to bring a zombie debt back from the dead. Even their dunning letter said they have purchased the debt in 2002 :rolleyes:

3) How do I dispute the inaccuracies without basically admitting debt is valid?

4) What does the FDCPA say about reporting as factoring company...open vs. closed vs. installment accounts? Do they have to be reported as a CA? Can't find anywhere in the language that addresses this directly.

5) The debt is within SOL and I understand I may be poking the bear but if you were me what would you do in this situation? We can PIF but if they don't validate they won't get a single cent except by court order.

6) Last but not least - Is PRA a JDB or a CA? Since they are not the OC I know that the FDCRA governs their actions but what exactly is the difference legally speaking?

Any thoughts, suggestions, tips, tricks...? TIA:wink:

Naw...don't poke this bear...hand 'em a jar of vaseline and say "kiss me you fool"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say they report it as "placed for collection in '09", where are you getting that date?

If this is the 10 year old zombie debt, and you defaulted over 7 years ago, it shouldn't even be on your CR.

I don't if the FDCPA directly addresses a JDB reporting as a factoring company. The FCRA, however, states that reporting must be accurate. Most JDBs are not factoring companies. JDBs buy defaulted debts. Factoring companies do not. The problem might be proving the bulk of the JDB's purchases are defaulted, but you can still dispute it. If Portfolio Recovery is reporting other things inaccurately and verify those inaccuracies, you can add "factoring company" to the list of violations.

If the "open", "installment", "revolving", is used to describe "Type of Account", that is allowed as along as the account was one of those. They are simply describing the type of account it was before it was closed. A JDB cannot state "open" or "installment" when describing "status of account". That would be inaccurate.

The main difference between a CA and a JDB is that some CAs don't purchase debts. They strictly collect debts for the owners of the debts. A CA collecting for someone else will not file suit, because they don't own the debt. A JDB can file suit, because they've "purchased" the debt.

Some JDBs will collect for others who own a debt, but for the most part, they purchase and sue.

Edited by BV80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If as you have indicated.."All 3 CRA's are reporting OC correctly. However, the ever evil Portfolio Recovery Associates (who btw sent a dunning letter last week over a 10 yr old zombie debt which I promptly sent a C&D to) "own" the debt according to the reports. To my knowledge I never received a dunning letter in regards to this debt but I wouldn't swear to it in court."

...the debt is way out of SOL, AND THEY ARE BLOWING SMOKE AT YOU.

The word 'factoring" is a smoke screen to hide the fact that they are a JDB.

My suggestion is this:

Remember, you don't have to prove SQUAT at this juncture..."THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE PLAINTIIF"....make them prove everything !

SEND THESE GUYS A CERTIFIED LETTER, DISPUTING THIS MATTER IN IT'S ENTIRETY, AND DEMAND STRICT PROOF THEREOF, by:

"WE DEMAND A FULL INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER, and

DEMAND PROOF that this alleged debt is in fact MINE, AND IN THE EVENT IT IS MY DEBT, SHOW PROOF OF THE DATE OF LAST ACTIVITY AND SHOW PROOF THAT IT IS STILL WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN MY STATE.

DEMAND PROOF of a properly executed assignment/s document/s and all entities in the chain of title, and show proof that each entity, including PRA HAS/HAD CLEAR TITLE AT THE TIME THE ASSIGNMENT WAS EXECUTED AND SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES and showing the amount of "valuable consideration paid"

DEMAND PROOF OF HOW THEY DETERMINED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION, with a detailed explanation of how the charges were estimated in accordance with THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, REGULATION Z, AND AUTHENTICATED( signed) BY AN EXECUTIVE WITHIN PRA.

Please be advised that absent such proof, you are in violation of SECTION 5 OF THE FTC ACT...AND SUBJECT TO SEVERE PENALTY.

PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED, that absent proof, you may be held liable for mail fraud under " US CODE TITLE 18, CHAPTER 63 ( COLLECTIONS..FRAUD AND SWINDLES), which provides for severe penalty including up to 10 years in prison and up to $1000,000.00 FINE.

PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED THAT ABSENT SUCH PROOF, your reporting this matter to the CRA's WILL BE CONSIDERED VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, and as such will be considered WIRE FRAUD under the above US Code Title 18, Chapter 63, as well as considered "slander and defamation of character"( Note: WIRE FRAUD is committed when FALSE INFORMATION is submitted to anyone BY FAX, E-MAIL, OR E-FILE including CRA"S, and or attorney's )

YOU ARE FURTHER ADVISED THAT YOUR ATTORNEY'S MAY BE LIABLE UNDER

"THE ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995"

PROSECUTING A MATTER SUCH AS THIS, MAY RESULT IN CHARGES OF "MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" AS WELL AS "COMMITTING FRAUD UPON THE COURT"

You are also advised that it is my intention to hold all parties to whom this is addressed" PERSONALLY AS WELL AS CORPORATELY LIABLE" in this regard.

If you cannot provide documentation as I have requested, you are requested to ''CEASE AND DESIST"...OTHERWISE WE WILL FILE COMPLAINTS WITH THE State Attorney General's Office, Department of Consumer Affairs, the US Postal Service Fraud Division, and request that they investigate this matter directly with your firm. And of course we will file a complaint with the FTC.

ADDRESS YOUR LETTER TO:

The Chief Executive officer and General Manager of Accounts, at PRA

and include this notation:

This letter is sent to your firm in an effort to establish the validity of this 'alleged" debt, as well as to determine PRA"S LEGAL INVOLVEMENT, and as such, any and all information furnished by your officers and firm will be used for that purpose in the event litigation becomes necessary.

Your reply is to be signed by the Officer in your firm who conducted a thorough and meaningful review of this matter. Please reply within 30 days.

You have been advised, please govern your actions accordingly !

Sincerely yours,

___________________________________________

"I hereby certify that this letter has been sent by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, Article Number xxxxxxxxxx on ( day/month/year)to the above officers at the address so indicated . A copy of the returned "Green Card" bearing the signature, and date received will be included in my legal file.

Edited by Prosay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually, "date opened" on a JDB TL means the date the JDB purchased the debt. In this case, since the "date placed for collection" AND the "date opened" are the same, I'm assuming they are claiming it was placed for collection with them when they purchased it.

You can dispute their TLs and demand proof that they have the right to report, but it doesn't mean they'll provide the proof, correct the TLs, or stop reporting. You may have to dispute with the CRAs as well, or take it even farther than that. And, yes, since it's within the SOL, you could be poking the bear.

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.