Flipper

CRA Validates/MCM offers Settlement/MCM claims they need more info...what now?

Recommended Posts

Disputed a collection TL reported by MCM on my Experian CR...Experian updated (in other words, claims they validated)...MCM sent a settlement offer to me in a letter dated June 24, 2011...THEN sent a "we need more information from you, such as a contract with the original creditor" on June 29, 2011 (aren't they admitting they don't have that information by requesting it from me?)...they knew the account well enough when they sent the settlement offer and on the "we need more info" letter, they referenced the same account number...this seems like a bit of a game they are playing with me...what should my next move be? Go back at the CRA with MCM's b.s. letter and ask for MOV?

This is all over the place and I don't know which move I should make next. Any help would be so greatly appreciated!! Thank you!

Flip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reinforce that you are disputing the alleged debt... also, you may want to remind MCM that they need to report accurately per the FCRA - the fact that they have no information certainly raises some red flags.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely send a MOV letter and include a copy of their letter basically admitting they have no proof the debt is yours.

I would also follow up with the CA stating you have no proof of what they're asking for because the debt isn't yours and demand they immediately delete it because according to the FDCPA it is a violation to report erronious debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Thanks to you and your advice, today I spent the better part of my afternoon sending MOV letters to Equifax & Experian (with all corresponding documentation), with more MOV letters to be drafted for TU....I also sent replies not only to Midland, but to LVNV/Resurgent/Credit One Bank as well. Amazing how these places all seem to develop amnesia the second a DV letter appears on their doorstep!

The Midland situation is relatively cut & dry...LVNV is quite another story. I dv'd LVNV and sent a 623 to Credit One Bank last month after I disputed with the CRAs and they verified.

Credit One replied and stated they sold the debt to Sherman Financial (okay, but still not an acceptable response)...I received a separate letter from Resurgent stating they are the servicing party for LVNV. Neither Resurgent nor Sherman have ever sent a demand for payment or reported to any CRB. This has been all LVNV and Credit One from the start.

For that reason, I did not DV Sherman Financial, as they have never contacted me and without that involvement, I feel it's irrelevant to contact them at this time. I did cc Resurgent on the 2nd request for DV I sent to LVNV today since they have inserted themselves as an active party with regard to this account and I sent a repeat request to Credit One Bank for an investigation. I would need to DV Sherman Financial whereas I am sending a 623 to Credit One as the original creditor.

Then I sent all of that crap along with the documentation from both Credit One and LVNV showing non-compliance, with an MOV request to Equifax asking them for proof of how they have been able to verify this debt three times and I have yet to be able to verify it once, since neither party they've contacted claims they have any knowledge of this debt at this time. Closed it out by demanding they delete both Credit One and LVNV reportings from my credit file.

I plan to also send MOV to Experian (for Credit One/LVNV) and TU (for Credit One/LVNV and Midland) on Monday. I simply ran out of time after compiling letters, copying, scanning and filling out green cards...I'm exhausted! :D

*Edit*

I'm thinking I might have a way around this maze that is Credit One....

Credit One states they sold the debt to Sherman Financial. Sherman Financial has not contacted me to collect and that's probably because they are not a licensed Collection Agency or Coll Agency Branch Office in the State of Illnois.

However, LVNV and Resurgent are both licensed, both current until 5/31/2012. So basically, these two are assuming collection activity and unless they state Sherman sold or assigned the debt to them, they can't continue collection activity, as the debt belongs to another entity, as stated in writing by Credit One Bank, the OC. What I'm trying to do at this point is remove LVNV/Resurgent from the picture and force Sherman Financial into the picture as an unlicensed collection agency and as a means to get this whole thing deleted off my CRs.

Edited by Flipper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you start looking at FCRA violations against the CRA remember this - a CRA could verify the fact that you are Shamu the Killer Whale if a creditor put that in your credit file. Some years ago, Len Bennett,a well known NACA attorney, testified before Congress about what a CRA's "investigation" is - it is a sham. When you tell a CRA that a TL in inaccurate, they simply go back to the source of the inaccurate TL and ask "Is this what your files show?" Of course the source will say "yes", and congratulations - you just became Shamu the Killer Whale, and it has been verified. Any further dispute that you are not Shamu is frivolous.

The way to deal with this is the 1-2 punch - notify the source of the TL that they are reporting inaccurately by CMRR. Wait about 30 days and then dispute with the CRA. When it comes back as "verified" you have a FCRA and FDCPA violation against the SOURCE of the TL and you file suit against THEM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before you start looking at FCRA violations against the CRA remember this - a CRA could verify the fact that you are Shamu the Killer Whale if a creditor put that in your credit file. Some years ago, Len Bennett,a well known NACA attorney, testified before Congress about what a CRA's "investigation" is - it is a sham. When you tell a CRA that a TL in inaccurate, they simply go back to the source of the inaccurate TL and ask "Is this what your files show?" Of course the source will say "yes", and congratulations - you just became Shamu the Killer Whale, and it has been verified. Any further dispute that you are not Shamu is frivolous.

The way to deal with this is the 1-2 punch - notify the source of the TL that they are reporting inaccurately by CMRR. Wait about 30 days and then dispute with the CRA. When it comes back as "verified" you have a FCRA and FDCPA violation against the SOURCE of the TL and you file suit against THEM.

I agree with what you're saying...I am including the CRAs in cc communications primarily so they cannot come back at any time and state they were never informed of these inaccuracies. I don't plan to pursue legal action against the Big 3 ... I have memberships with all three and tend to get very good service when I call them. Possibly they will see these communication pieces and simply delete (that's my hope, anyway). Can't hurt to try.

For the purposes of this exercise, the Big 3 are being asked for MOV, as none of the creditors they have "verified" have validated the debts in have in fact, stated the debts are no longer in their possession....trying basically to nail the CAs in a roundabout way. ;)

Edited by Flipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
Send them a debt validation. Require them to only communicate by mail. Do not acknowledge the debt as valid.

I am quite certain that there is no such thing as a "limited" Cease & Desist letter. If you tell them not to call but to only communicate via a letter(s) they will not contact you in any manner.

Also, check out the sticky for LVN on this wonderful site. It has a long list of LVN's many subsidiaries.

Good Luck:)++

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quite certain that there is no such thing as a "limited" Cease & Desist letter. If you tell them not to call but to only communicate via a letter(s) they will not contact you in any manner.

Also, check out the sticky for LVN on this wonderful site. It has a long list of LVN's many subsidiaries.

Good Luck:)++

I've read it...and I needed a drink and a nap afterward. I also have a settlement offer letter from Northland Group out of MN (DV on its way!)...yet another subsidiary. So now, as I save all the correspondence, there are two entities in two states attempting to collect the same debt, showing different amounts as the amount due.

I plan to also gather all correspondence and file complaints with the IL AG and IL Department of Professional & Financial Regulation. Neither Sherman or LVNV have been disciplined in IL...which I find ODD, insofar as a case LVNV was involved in here was dismissed as they were found guilty of criminal acts by attempting to collect a debt without being registered here. They registered on 8/28/2008. IL considers LVNV a collection agency...now, how is it that two other companies are contacting me on LVNV's behalf and that's kosher?

There simply has to be a way to nail them on this basis if for no other...Thoughts?

Edited by Flipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quite certain that there is no such thing as a "limited" Cease & Desist letter. If you tell them not to call but to only communicate via a letter(s) they will not contact you in any manner.

Also, check out the sticky for LVN on this wonderful site. It has a long list of LVN's many subsidiaries.

Good Luck:)++

There is. It's no different than sending a letter to a debt collector telling them NOT to call you at work. They can and still will call you at home. Typically, most don't seem interested in doing business with you via mail because it gives you what they don't want you to have...a paper trail. Nothing useful is communicated via phone. If their mouth is moving, they're lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quite certain that there is no such thing as a "limited" Cease & Desist letter. If you tell them not to call but to only communicate via a letter(s) they will not contact you in any manner.

Also, check out the sticky for LVN on this wonderful site. It has a long list of LVN's many subsidiaries.

Good Luck:)++

Your statement about a limited C & D letter is correct to a point. The FDCPA does not mention a limited C & D. However, I have sent such a letter before, and the JDB ceased making calls and only sent collection letters.

That being said, a limited C & D may work better for JDBs than for CAs who are collecting for the OC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, update. Checked the mail today, after I sent 6 CMs out.

Resurgent, "servicer" for LVNV, sent me a validation letter (after they claimed amnesia in late June). The validation states the following,

"LVNV Funding, LLC currently owns account number ************-3745. The account was previously sold by CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. on or about 03/12/2009 and at that time, the balance on this account was $348.97. As of the date of this communication, the account balance is $509.77. Because interest, payments, credits, fees, and/or other permissable charges can continue to cause the account balance to vary from day to day, you should contact us at 1-866-464-1187 to determine the exact balance."

So Credit One Bank, sent me a letter stating the account was sold to Sherman Financial, not LVNV. In a letter dated 5/27/2011, I received a settlement offer from Northland Group listing their client as LVNV regarding Credit One Bank and showing a current account balance of $430.04.

First, is that validation letter acceptable by most standards?

Second, what should I be doing about Northland?

Link to post
Share on other sites

LVNV and Resurgent are subsidiaries of Sherman Financial. Sherman Financial bought the debt and assigned it to LVNV who appears to have assigned the collection activity to Resurgent. I'm not sure if Northland (who is possibly NCO) is a subsidiary of Sherman or not.

They're validation is acceptable. The FDCPA is does not specify that validation must be proven to come from the records of the OC. In my opinion, the FDCPA needs to be amended and updated.

I would DV Northland just for the paperwork. There's obviously a discrepancy in the current balance. Who knows? That discrepancy might come in handy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quite certain that there is no such thing as a "limited" Cease & Desist letter. If you tell them not to call but to only communicate via a letter(s) they will not contact you in any manner.

Also, check out the sticky for LVN on this wonderful site. It has a long list of LVN's many subsidiaries.

Good Luck:)++

I can assure you that a limited C&D will preserve your rights under the FDCPA.

It is actually very useful as it keeps one from getting phone harassment without a violation, still allows the collector to violate the FDCPA by violating the limited C&D, and leaves the door open for communication, therefore usually not having the creditor jump right into a lawsuit.

A full C&D, while useful in certain situations, does cutoff all communication. That can sometimes lead to a quicker lawsuit. Of course there are times that can be just what you are hoping for. A debt that is past the SOL is a good time to use a full C&D. One can then hope they ignore the request or sue you.

Another huge advantage, in my opinion, with a limited C&D is that you have the communication in writing. There can be no dispute what was said or not said if the communication is in writing. While a collector will obviously be more careful about violating a law when communicating only in writing, it does leave no wiggle room when they still do violate.

Personally, I have been amazed at some of the threats and blatant violations that I have seen in writing. On the flip side, a perceived intimidated consumer, in a one party state, talking to a collector on the phone with a recorder running, can usually guarantee a violation is going to be made.

A law or statute does not have to lay out certain rights. There are rights that every person simply has. The right to restrict how one communicates with you in a collection matter, is one such right. It does not have to be spelled out.

While there are certain actions you cannot changed into a right simply by invoking or requesting it be a right, the way you choose for a debt collector to communicate with you is one such right you have control over.

What immediately comes to mind when thinking about asserting rights you cannot legally assert, are the bumper stickers that gravel trucks seem to always have. It will state not responsible for damage or glass breakage, keep back 500 feet, and then they drive in the slow lane on the interstate.

Of course you cannot disclaim tort liability with a simple bumper sticker. In my opinion, a consumer needs to make sure they are not trying to enforce the equivalent of a gravel truck's not responsible for glass breakage bumper sticker by making requests or demands they have no right to make.

However, in my opinion, one should not simply assume a right has to be or not be spelled out in the statue for a right to be proper and enforceable. It is also very important to also not assume that just because one states they have a right to something or attempts to assert a certain right, they do not automatically assume it is valid just because they said it or put it in writing.

In my opinion, a limited C&D is a powerful weapon for the consumer and can easily hold up to a legal challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're validation is acceptable. The FDCPA is does not specify that validation must be proven to come from the records of the OC. In my opinion, the FDCPA needs to be amended and updated.

Unfortunately, I would agree. The information must come from the O.C. and not just a, "yep we checked our file and we were right." The problem is proving the information did not come from the O.C.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the only use in DV is that it at least makes the collector do some work and automatically puts you into a different category in the collectors eyes. You are at least in the 5% that is perceived will fight. That is not a very attractive person for a collector to pursue, especially if the information, in fact, did not come from the O.C.

Personally, after I receive a response like the one the OP received, I send a follow up letter that I continue to dispute the alleged account and debt in full.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, I would agree. The information must come from the O.C. and not just a, "yep we checked our file and we were right." The problem is proving the information did not come from the O.C.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the only use in DV is that it at least makes the collector do some work and automatically puts you into a different category in the collectors eyes. You are at least in the 5% that is perceived will fight. That is not a very attractive person for a collector to pursue, especially if the information, in fact, did not come from the O.C.

Personally, after I receive a response like the one the OP received, I send a follow up letter that I continue to dispute the alleged account and debt in full.

I agree about the DV. I am not a proponent of lawsuits, but I know they're sometimes necessary. If one had to file suit, a DV and follow-up letters would show that you tried to resolve the issue outside of court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree about the DV. I am not a proponent of lawsuits, but I know they're sometimes necessary. If one had to file suit, a DV and follow-up letters would show that you tried to resolve the issue outside of court.

Is it relevant or irrelevant that LVNV is the entity reporting on my CRs and they have yet to directly reply to my DV requests? Resurgent is their "servicer"...yet LVNV is the one who allegedly verified with the CRBs. So as of right now, LVNV has not validated.

They also claim that LVNV Funding, LLC bought the debt from Credit One Bank, N.A. - however, Credit One Bank asserts that the debt was sold to Sherman Financial. hmmmm. That seems to not be passing the smell test...unless they plan to just simply come out and admit they are all the same company! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking I need to write to Resurgent one more time, because after re-reading this:

"LVNV Funding, LLC currently owns account number ************-3745. The account was previously sold by CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. on or about 03/12/2009"

It doesn't state to whom the account was sold on or about 03/12/2009. I want them to claim LVNV bought it...and I want it in writing so I can slap them in court with Credit One's letter claiming the debt was sold to Sherman Financial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking I need to write to Resurgent one more time, because after re-reading this:

"LVNV Funding, LLC currently owns account number ************-3745. The account was previously sold by CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. on or about 03/12/2009"

It doesn't state to whom the account was sold on or about 03/12/2009. I want them to claim LVNV bought it...and I want it in writing so I can slap them in court with Credit One's letter claiming the debt was sold to Sherman Financial.

Okay...I apologize. I misread. Resurgent validated, but not LVNV. I could be missing something. Did you dispute the LVNV TL directly with the CRAs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay...I apologize. I misread. Resurgent validated, but not LVNV. I could be missing something. Did you dispute the LVNV TL directly with the CRAs?

That is correct...Resurgent validated...on an otherwise blank piece of paper, some b.s. that I quoted above...the DV letter is not even on letterhead. However, the accompanying letter, which was on Resurgent letterhead shows the following:

Previous Creditor: CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.

Current Creditor: LVNV Funding, LLC

Same exact account number as the OC, Credit One Bank, no mention of debt being assigned or sold to LVNV by Sherman Financial after "purchase" from Credit One.

I have disputed the LVNV Funding TL directly with the CRAs. At least twice already, with a third letter being sent to the CRAs asking for MOV since LVNV has yet to validate.

To be clear, I am merely setting the stage to sue. If they delete, great...but this outfit is so sleazy, I think it's time for the IL Department of Professional Regulation to take more than a passing glance at their business practices.

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