Jump to content

DV Response - but Interesting contents


Recommended Posts

So I got a dunning letter from a Nebraska law office on behalf of Midland Funding LLC DBA as Encore (much like what most everyone else gets) and I followed the DV protocal by sending my request.

What makes this interesting are four things:

1) A month prior I had previously been contacted by a firm in Minnesota who was "representing Midland LLC" and had sent a DV letter to them. I had received their response which was a stack of statements (not complete mind you) from the OC

2) When I received the first set of statements as well as the second set of statements - they had a mix of statements from WaMu and Chase (the origional OC listed on the credit reports is Chase). I never applied for a credit card with Chase so I can only assume that somewhere in the mix of things, Chase bought out WaMu - yet I can never recall being advised of this or receiving notice as such.

3) In this second set of statements I received - the very last page appears to be a printout of someones Medical Benefit summary - It has a refernece number, their name, the referring provider, the service provider, etc. It appears to me to be a patient account history for medical procedures (its for someones gastric lapband procedure) and is CLEARLY a violation of someone's privacy - thus making me wonder how much they have protected mine.

4) There is also page that appears to be a printout of some sort that lists name, account number, sale amount, contract date, Charge off date, and contact information - at the bottom it says that it is from electronic records provided by Chase pursuant to the Bill of Sale/Assignment of Accounts dated 5/27/2010 in connection with the sale of the account from Chase Bank to Midland Funding LLC. It is just a print out - no legalese in it.

My question is - this is sort of a bizarre response to the DV request. Although I realize that all that is required to validate a debt is provide copies of statements - there are some unusal pieces here as well

1) there is an obvious violation of privacy in this packet based on the medical printout - is there anything I can or should do with this

2) there is confusion in the statements as part of them are WaMu and others are Chase - but there is nothing that identifies why or how come there are two different company names - only identifier that is similar appears to be the account number

3) Why if they sent a previous dunning letter from a group in Minnesota, and now sent another dunning letter from a group in Nebraska (where I am from) - why would they go thru this process twice? Did they sell the account to a subcontractor (the law firm) as the letter states that the communication is from a debt collector and no attorney was involved in the sending of this letter?

Do you see any options I have here? Can I do a 623 Dispute with the Credit reporting agencies and the OC regarding the WaMu and Chase variance? Is there a privacy violation here in sending the record of someone (more their violation than mine - but does cause one to raise an eyebrow if they did it to this person - how am I to know they haven't done it to me)? And why two different dunning letters from two different law offices - one in Minnesota and then one in Nebraska? Are two agencies trying to collect for Midland and in competition to see who can win? I don't get it

ANY HELP AND INSIGHT WOULD BE APPRECIATED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is - this is sort of a bizarre response to the DV request. Although I realize that all that is required to validate a debt is provide copies of statements - there are some unusal pieces here as well

1) there is an obvious violation of privacy in this packet based on the medical printout - is there anything I can or should do with this

2) there is confusion in the statements as part of them are WaMu and others are Chase - but there is nothing that identifies why or how come there are two different company names - only identifier that is similar appears to be the account number

3) Why if they sent a previous dunning letter from a group in Minnesota, and now sent another dunning letter from a group in Nebraska (where I am from) - why would they go thru this process twice? Did they sell the account to a subcontractor (the law firm) as the letter states that the communication is from a debt collector and no attorney was involved in the sending of this letter?

1) No, they aren't your records.

2) Chase acquired WaMu

3) Multiple collectors and even collection firms are not uncommon. What is interesting is that you got one of those "not reviewed by an attorney" letters, presumably on lawfirm letterhead. You might find this case interesting.

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.