Jump to content

midland credit managment


sanchezrc2
 Share

Recommended Posts

i had an old hsbc credit card, that of course went unpaid, i sent a dv letter to midland, and finally got a response today in the mail, and what the sent me was i guess the agreement between them and hsbc to purchase my debt but nothing at all in regards to my account or acct # or signature, its looks like a page off a contract they just sent me and included a bill of sale witha bunch of signatures. so my question is that they havent done anything to prove the debt is mine, so what should i do now??? please help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they only included a hearsay bill of sale and nothing that even states what you allegedly owe, and you did ask for valadation, hope they contact you again. It takes very little to meet the burden of debt valadation. However, no matter how low the burden, what they sent you is not DV.

If they keep trying to collect they have violated the FDCPA. You can then sue them or more importantly have a counterclaim if they sue you. You can get more agressive if you wish. If they are reporting on your credit you can start disputing their reporting on your CR.

If you can take any positive out of this, Midland is not exactly the toughest to beat if they do sue. With a little defense you can usually make them go away. Generally speaking they can't even get past the issue of standing.

You might want to send them another letter electing arbitration to settle any disputes. Assuming there is an arbitration clause in the contract (probably is), it would be a violation of the FDCPA if they sued you in court after your arbitration election. Word your election how written in the contract. They usually say if either party elects arbitration blah, blah. If it says choose then tell them you choose, just whatever the language in the contract.

Personally, I would just wait and see. I'm not a big fan of arbitration but it has incredible success when used against JDB. The JDB simply does not have enough invested to shell out the money to take a case all the way through arbitration. Once in a blue moon they will pay the initial fee to start arb, but have never heard of them not dropping out if that bluff does not get a settlement from the debtor.

Good Luck, if you must have somebody after you, it could be a lot worse than Midland. Play your cards right and it won't take much before they will be cutting you a check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i had an old hsbc credit card, that of course went unpaid, i sent a dv letter to midland, and finally got a response today in the mail, and what the sent me was i guess the agreement between them and hsbc to purchase my debt but nothing at all in regards to my account or acct # or signature, its looks like a page off a contract they just sent me and included a bill of sale witha bunch of signatures. so my question is that they havent done anything to prove the debt is mine, so what should i do now??? please help.

I have an account in collections with Midland also.Its just now out of SOL.I was wondering if waited, until the SOL ran out before you sent them a DV?Also, if you dont mind,what DV letter did you send them?I have been a bit nervous to start with them.Most of my stuff has been out of SOL a year or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the time midland waits for you to contact them. They then learn where you live an address that they can cross reference to your phone number real easy.

Now for the future they will probably see if it is out of SOL if not they will start the litigation things like the first contact letter.

then the summons then you will be in it.

DV only really works if you REALLY don't owe them. Other than that you force them to sue because you raise the FDCPA shields on them. They then have no choice but to initiate suit. The DV letter just lets them know that you are aware of the law and "conventional" collection techniques aren't going to work.

I know DV is the cornerstone of what has been recommended but I have seen a shift in the collectors tactics because they have been sued alot(wonder where people got those ideas:twisted:). Now it seems as if they are heading off FDCPA litigation by suing and getting under the litigation shield.

If it is not your account it should be ok. If it is and you DV you tie their hands so it forces them to gather the stuff together and sue.

The disputing with the CRA's works because at that point they are not aware of your legal propensity. The DV after SoL will not force them off their position. the allowing them to rack up violations then suing them gives you a better position to make it go away.

So you DV'd and now they know somethings up if you let it lie for a bit and dispute with the CRA's about the HSBC I doubt that they will have the stuff to back it up if it is more than 4 yrs. old.

You have to sever the document trail early. If HSBC has no documents then you have some wiggle room to press midland on their documents.

also if there are inconsistencies in dates (reaging) then you can use that later. If you are trying to gain credit score for a house they will not let you do that without paying them.

Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cali... im very new to this, and just from reading the forum, i brought my wifes credit from a 500-495 ish score to a 618 in a matter of a month but mind you lots of her stuff was old SOL stuff, and some jdb just sent a letter saying they dont wish to persue it,

but on the stuff that was out of SOL i have removed 3 accts from my CR and i just used a the form letters from here and excuse my lang, but that $h!t worked!!!! lol but im probably the last person to take advice from, but the simple SOL letter worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cali... im very new to this, and just from reading the forum, i brought my wifes credit from a 500-495 ish score to a 618 in a matter of a month but mind you lots of her stuff was old SOL stuff, and some jdb just sent a letter saying they dont wish to persue it,

but on the stuff that was out of SOL i have removed 3 accts from my CR and i just used a the form letters from here and excuse my lang, but that $h!t worked!!!! lol but im probably the last person to take advice from, but the simple SOL letter worked.

I am doing the same thing with my wifes & my credit.She was around a 550 and in the last 2 months I have brought her fico up to a 664 with EQ not sure about EX, but probbaly same.Her Trans is a 590 only b/c they say the verifed an old HSBC card she had form 02.Not sure HOW they did that, since HSBC has told me on the phone a few times they cant find anyting on her & even the JDB was delted.So I sent a MOV to trans to see whats the deal.Yes I agree it does work.She had a $6,000 collection with Arrow and they sent a letter that they were removing her from all 3 CRAs.So now its just a few things left on my report.I have to deal with midland,but am a bit afraid to send them a DV since it just passed SOL this month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the time midland waits for you to contact them. They then learn where you live an address that they can cross reference to your phone number real easy.

Now for the future they will probably see if it is out of SOL if not they will start the litigation things like the first contact letter.

then the summons then you will be in it.

DV only really works if you REALLY don't owe them. Other than that you force them to sue because you raise the FDCPA shields on them. They then have no choice but to initiate suit. The DV letter just lets them know that you are aware of the law and "conventional" collection techniques aren't going to work.

I know DV is the cornerstone of what has been recommended but I have seen a shift in the collectors tactics because they have been sued alot(wonder where people got those ideas:twisted:). Now it seems as if they are heading off FDCPA litigation by suing and getting under the litigation shield.

If it is not your account it should be ok. If it is and you DV you tie their hands so it forces them to gather the stuff together and sue.

The disputing with the CRA's works because at that point they are not aware of your legal propensity. The DV after SoL will not force them off their position. the allowing them to rack up violations then suing them gives you a better position to make it go away.

So you DV'd and now they know somethings up if you let it lie for a bit and dispute with the CRA's about the HSBC I doubt that they will have the stuff to back it up if it is more than 4 yrs. old.

You have to sever the document trail early. If HSBC has no documents then you have some wiggle room to press midland on their documents.

also if there are inconsistencies in dates (reaging) then you can use that later. If you are trying to gain credit score for a house they will not let you do that without paying them.

Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

I cant say I agree with you.I have sent DV letters to a few accounts that I owed,and they just removed themselves b4 the CRAs finsished the disputes. I have an account with Midland that DOFD was 10-07 & I am a bit afraid to DV them. I dont think they can sue me, since the SOL has ran out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think they can sue me, since the SOL has ran out.

Oh don't you think for a second they can't sue you just because it is SOL. There is a reason it is well established caselaw that says suing on an out of statute debt is an FDCPA violation. How do you think that caselaw happened? :) Lawmakers did not just sit around and say, "Hey let's make suing a debtor on a debt that is out of statute a violation of the FDCPA."

What you have is a solid statute of limitations defense you, not the court, must raise to defeat the suit. Then you have a slam dunk FDCPA violation.

Keep in mind, no matter crazy (know from experience), they are going to find some way to argue it is not out of statute. They will argue it's a debt that has a longer statute if your state has different statutes for different type of debts (most do). For example, in mine I argued it was an open account with a three year statute. They argued a written contract with five years. However, 99% of their case and arguments were built around the debt being an open account.

The only time they wanted the rules of evidence and caselaw to support their side it was a written contract was on the issue of statute of limitations. They wanted to use all the arguments of an open account on why they had no contract or complete statements/accounting, then claim it was still a written contact case when I argued the statute on the three year open account.

Like I said, crazy, but don't expect them to just say yep your right were wrong, where do we send you the check.

On a side note, if you do get dragged to court on a 100% time barred debt, and counter, it is actually pretty fun. Is not exactly the worst feeling in the world being in court knowing the worst your getting out of it is breaking even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't you think for a second they can't sue you just because it is SOL. There is a reason it is well established caselaw that says suing on an out of statute debt is an FDCPA violation. How do you think that caselaw happened? :) Lawmakers did not just sit around and say, "Hey let's make suing a debtor on a debt that is out of statute a violation of the FDCPA."

What you have is a solid statute of limitations defense you, not the court, must raise to defeat the suit. Then you have a slam dunk FDCPA violation.

Keep in mind, no matter crazy (know from experience), they are going to find some way to argue it is not out of statute. They will argue it's a debt that has a longer statute if your state has different statutes for different type of debts (most do). For example, in mine I argued it was an open account with a three year statute. They argued a written contract with five years. However, 99% of their case and arguments were built around the debt being an open account.

The only time they wanted the rules of evidence and caselaw to support their side it was a written contract was on the issue of statute of limitations. They wanted to use all the arguments of an open account on why they had no contract or complete statements/accounting, then claim it was still a written contact case when I argued the statute on the three year open account.

Like I said, crazy, but don't expect them to just say yep your right were wrong, where do we send you the check.

On a side note, if you do get dragged to court on a 100% time barred debt, and counter, it is actually pretty fun. Is not exactly the worst feeling in the world being in court knowing the worst your getting out of it is breaking even.

Your right,I should of said I dont think they can sue me an win.Even then there may be a chance they can win out of SOL as you stated above.but I do feel safer knowing its out of SOL and they have never contacted me.Transunion says this account will appear on your credit report untill 9-2014

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.