Jump to content

t-mobile/mcm


sanchezrc2
 Share

Recommended Posts

my wife received a letter today from mcm in regards to an old tmobile acct, the account was opened in aug 2002 and closed on oct 15 2008, last payment they received from her was on july 13 2008, 

 

so heres the deal, we had received a dunning letter from mcm in regards to this acct a while back and i immediately fired off a letter to them requesting debt validation, and i never head back from them, i should have the return receipt and the copies i sent them, in the dv letter i sent them the traditional c&d, so what route should i take in regards to this account,  

 

sol in texas is 4 years so its already out of SOL, TU appears to be the only ones reporting this debt.  any help is greatly appreciated.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Step 1, make sure you have the return receipt and copy of what you sent to them.

 

If it were me, I'd send them a bill for $1000 itemized as FDCPA violation (citing statute) on or about the date the letter was received.  Then a couple weeks later I'd send them a letter offering 50% off for the violation if paid within 30 days.  I'd mention this offer will save them from having to pay attorney fees and legal costs.  If they don't take the offer, I'd sue.

 

Why would TU be reporting this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi sanchezrc2,

Not sure if this will help you but T-Mobile was the defendant in a Class-action suit for overcharging customers.

I think it was in 2008.

Hope that helps.

 

As for your DV letter, they may never send you an answer but they cannot sue you until they have validated.

If they do, they have violated FDCPA.  And suing on a time barred debt is another violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your DV letter, they may never send you an answer but they cannot sue you until they have validated.

If they do, they have violated FDCPA.  And suing on a time barred debt is another violation.

This is not true.  They can sue you at any time.  However, the SOL is up, so they won't win if you bring that up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not true.  They can sue you at any time.  However, the SOL is up, so they won't win if you bring that up.  

I  am confused Big Sister, Obviously.

On the Home page, I found this under the DV section:

 

 

So, if a creditor can't validate a debt:

  • They are not allowed to collect the debt,

     

  • They are not allowed to contact you about the debt, and

     

  • They are also not allowed to report it under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Doing so is a violation of the FCRA, and the FCRA states that you can sue for $1,000 in damages for any violation of the Act.

 

???????????????????????   Could you explain or post a link that would clear up the confusion???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

torden i have all my documentation, the green card signed and dated jan 7 2013 and the receipt stamped 01-03-13 and a copy of the letter i sent them,

 

would the violation be fair debt collection practices act 15 usc 1692g sec 809??

 

im ready to do this letter and finally strike them back!

 

they sent me the 'dunning letter' dec 13 2012 i mailed out a responde with the dv 12/28/12 so its within the 30days

 

 

so now i type up the letter and send it off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this the letter i should send off?

 

Date

Your Name
Your Address
City, State Zip

Collection Agency
Collection Agency Address
City, State Zip

RE: Account #xxxx-xxxx-xxxx

To Whom it May Concern,

Your firm has failed to send the legally required validation of this debt. You have been notified that your actions are detrimental to me and that your firm has violated (including but not limited to) the Consumer Credit Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Your firm knew or should have known that the actions taken against me and the information collected about me was inappropriate and damaging to me.

Failed to use reasonable care in the course of business and failed to use even minimal procedures to ensure that I was not harmed.

Communicated and are continuing to communicate incorrect and defamatory information to third parties including but not limited to: Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union.

As a result of these blatantly reckless, wanton, and intentional acts, I have suffered and continue to suffer general and specific damages. I am also very upset at your firm's intentional infliction of emotional distress and at the other diminishments of the quality of my life.

I am now demanding the immediate and complete removal of this tradeline from my credit reports (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union).

As I am currently attempting to apply for credit, time is of the essence. Please understand that I am extremely concerned about the consequences of the actions your firm is having on my life. Please be advised that, if this matter is not resolved by xxx, I will take any and all necessary steps to protect my rights.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Your Signature

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I  am confused Big Sister, Obviously.

On the Home page, I found this under the DV section:

 

 

So, if a creditor can't validate a debt:

  • They are not allowed to collect the debt,

     

  • They are not allowed to contact you about the debt, and

     

  • They are also not allowed to report it under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Doing so is a violation of the FCRA, and the FCRA states that you can sue for $1,000 in damages for any violation of the Act.

 

???????????????????????   Could you explain or post a link that would clear up the confusion???

 

That has nothing to do with whether or not they can sue.  There is plenty of case law backing this up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this the letter i should send off?

 

Date

Your Name

Your Address

City, State Zip

Collection Agency

Collection Agency Address

City, State Zip

RE: Account #xxxx-xxxx-xxxx

To Whom it May Concern,

Your firm has failed to send the legally required validation of this debt. You have been notified that your actions are detrimental to me and that your firm has violated (including but not limited to) the Consumer Credit Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Your firm knew or should have known that the actions taken against me and the information collected about me was inappropriate and damaging to me.

Failed to use reasonable care in the course of business and failed to use even minimal procedures to ensure that I was not harmed.

Communicated and are continuing to communicate incorrect and defamatory information to third parties including but not limited to: Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union.

As a result of these blatantly reckless, wanton, and intentional acts, I have suffered and continue to suffer general and specific damages. I am also very upset at your firm's intentional infliction of emotional distress and at the other diminishments of the quality of my life.

I am now demanding the immediate and complete removal of this tradeline from my credit reports (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union).

As I am currently attempting to apply for credit, time is of the essence. Please understand that I am extremely concerned about the consequences of the actions your firm is having on my life. Please be advised that, if this matter is not resolved by xxx, I will take any and all necessary steps to protect my rights.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Your Signature

 

See my PM to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I  am confused Big Sister, Obviously.

On the Home page, I found this under the DV section:

 

 

So, if a creditor can't validate a debt:

  • They are not allowed to collect the debt,

     

  • They are not allowed to contact you about the debt, and

     

  • They are also not allowed to report it under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Doing so is a violation of the FCRA, and the FCRA states that you can sue for $1,000 in damages for any violation of the Act.

 

???????????????????????   Could you explain or post a link that would clear up the confusion???

 

I was in the same situation as you a month ago.  Someone had posted several obscure legal decisions that contradicted information here and I became frustrated.  I was new (still am) and found contradictory posts that didn't necessarily follow the advise that can be found on these pages, one of the long time posters BV80 helped me with advice to get as much information as I could glean from here and research the net for clarifications.  Take nothing at face value, research, research, research.  When all else fails my approach will be to get me a lawyer and pay the money to fight it.  

 

No two cases are the same, you may be dealing with different state laws, different law firms who have different approaches along with different Collection Agencies with different track records and different judges who interrupt the law arbitrarily.  These pages are invaluable and I have found solid information that gets me on the right track for my particular cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

That has nothing to do with whether or not they can sue.  There is plenty of case law backing this up.  

Well, they can sue anytime.? will they sue is more the question>? what i think Zelph is suggesting is if any of the listed are violated, then you have a FDCPA violation and that sanchez can sue for it? am i correct? especially the following

  • They are also not allowed to report it under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Doing so is a violation of the FCRA, and the FCRA states that you can sue for $1,000 in damages for any violation of the Act.

How do you find out if they are still reporting on CRA's.? What kind of trigger is it that explains that reporting by MCM is current? i would like to know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey i sent out a DV letter to MCM in March 2013. I pulled my credit report on May 02, 2013 and saw MCM reporting date to be May 2013. I had disputed with CRA and results were verified?

Is this a violation here? for the following

  • They are also not allowed to report it under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Doing so is a violation of the FCRA, and the FCRA states that you can sue for $1,000 in damages for any violation of the Act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hey i sent out a DV letter to MCM in March 2013. I pulled my credit report on May 02, 2013 and saw MCM reporting date to be May 2013. I had disputed with CRA and results were verified?

Is this a violation here? for the following

  • They are also not allowed to report it under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Doing so is a violation of the FCRA, and the FCRA states that you can sue for $1,000 in damages for any violation of the Act.

 

 

Was the entry placed on your CR before or after they received your DV?

 

If it was after they received your DV, you might have a violation.  However, if it was already on your CR before they received your DV, they can leave it on there, but they can't update every month.

 

Are they still updating each month?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on for a second - the OP made a VOD demand from MCM a long time ago and VOD was never provided. The FDCPA prohibition on continued collection action is still in force.  The only thing the OP should be sending MCM is a summons for the FDCPA violation of continued collection activity without having responded to a valid and timely VOD demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the entry placed on your CR before or after they received your DV?

Yes I received their letter in March, i responded in March they were already reporting TL on the 3 credit bureaus. Then i went on to dispute it with the CRA's and they updated it as matter being disputed. The last reporting by MCM occured in May 2013. They also sent me another letter in regards to my dispute with the three Credit Bureaus. So now they respond with the following letter for my dispute.

 

Dear Mr XXX

The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the results of our investigation of your dispute pursuant to the Texas Finance Code and/or the Fair Credit reporting Act.

 

Please be advised that we have determined that our credit file and credit reporting of the above refrenced account is accurate and therefore we deny the inaccuracy of the disputed item. We will be closing our investigation of your dispute and resuming regular collection activities as allowed by the Texas Finance Code and/or the Fair Credit Reporting Act

 

In response to your dispute, we have requested that the three major bureaus change the status of the account to "DISPUTED". Your credit report will not be updated if the federal reporting period has expired.

 

If you have additional documentation or information related to your dispute please send it to

Attn: Consumer Support Services

POBOX 943456

San Diego, CA 92193.

 

We can be reached at  (800) 825-8131  Extxxxx should you have any further questions.

 

Sincerely

 

Consumer Support Services

 

 

If it was after they received your DV, you might have a violation.  However, if it was already on your CR before they received your DV, they can leave it on there, but they can't update every month.

 

Are they still updating each month? Energizer says yes they are updating it every month. What does the letter from MCM mean here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the entry placed on your CR before or after they received your DV?

 

If it was after they received your DV, you might have a violation.  However, if it was already on your CR before they received your DV, they can leave it on there, but they can't update every month.

 

Are they still updating each month?

Are you sure about this, if you dv them and they cannot answer the dv they should delete their trade line also. there is supporting case law that states reporting to a cra is continued collection efforts.

 

But you can challenge it with the cra and if they verify you have even more ammo for an fdcpa claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure about this, if you dv them and they cannot answer the dv they should delete their trade line also. there is supporting case law that states reporting to a cra is continued collection efforts.

 

I know that reporting to a CRA is considered collection activity.  However, if there's any case law that says a CA must delete an entry on a credit report after receiving a timely DV, I can't find it.

There are cases such as Purnell v. Arrow Financial Services (6th Circuit Court of Appeals) in which courts have ruled that placing a TL on a CR  after receiving a timely DV can be a violation of 1692g(b).  Those cases have dealt strictly with entries that were placed on CRs after receiving timely DVs.   They do not address the issue of a TL that was already on the CR before the DV was received.

I stated that it might be a violation if a CA receives a timely DV, doesn't validate, but continues to update.  There's actually no case law to support that premise.  The reason I offered that possibility is because updating means the CA is continuing to provide information to the CRAs.  However, a CA who does NOT update is not continuing to provide information.

 

But you can challenge it with the cra and if they verify you have even more ammo for an fdcpa claim.

 

While there is very little case law on this issue, it was dealt with in Edeh v. Midland (Dist. Court, Minnesota 2010).  The court rejected that claim because furnishers must respond to a credit report dispute from a CRA. The CA is merely following the requirements under the FCRA.

The Court rejects Edeh's argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed debt to a consumer, verifies that debt to a CRA in response to a notification received from the CRA engages in "collection of the debt" in violation of § 1692g(b).

No debt collector is required to report a debt to a CRA before verifying that debt to a consumer—and thus, as the Court held above, it is reasonable to view such a practice as a species of debt collection prohibited under § 1692g(b). But a debt collector is required by the FCRA to verify a debt to a CRA after the CRA notifies the debt collector that the debt is in dispute. It makes little sense to view such a verification as a prohibited attempt at debt collection. The debt collector is acting not on its own initiative, but in response to a notice sent by the CRA, and the debt collector is responding to that notice not to collect a debt, but to avoid violating the FCRA.

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.