Jump to content

MCM-T-Mob-Response to CRA Dispute


energizer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I received an offer letter to payoff the MCM account for T-Mobile in two different ways- 40% savings upfront or 20% savings if paid in installments. I received this letter from MCM on Feb 08, 2013 with a payment due date of 3-29-13.

 

Now, first thing i did was make a copy of the letter and prepare a short DV requesting validation. Now i always send out the first letter via regular mail to be followed within a week of it by CMRRR.

 

It has always been my understanding that when you receive a letter from Midland or Specialized Collection Systems or Receivable Management Systems etc etc that there is wording to the effect as shown below

" Our client has asked us to contact you relative to the above refrenced balance which remains unpaid on their records".

or

" This notice has been sent by a collection agency, Receivables Management Systems". Your account has been placed with this company for collection for the amount owed which is stated at the top of the notice".

or
This is a request for payment of this account which has been placed by T-Mobile for collections"

 

 

Midland Credit Management letter says nothing like this.

 

Midland letter says the following

 

Midland Credit Mgt understands a one size payment plan doesnt fit everyone's need. Special offers r now available to help you resolve your unpaid T-Mobile Account. Then it gives you two payment options

 

It has all the account information from T-Mobile, their own MCM Acct# and list current owner as Midland Funding Inc.

 

Now what to make of this verbiage as shown from Midland Credit Management versus like Receivable Management Systems or others? I am very confused.

 

It is the first ever communication received by me from Midland Credit Management!!!!!.. If i am to DV this, will this be counted as my first ever communication received from Midland Credit. Does the 30 days count from the date of receipt or what they have put down as the date of their letter which is 2-27-13.

 

I know for a fact  that they show a tradeline on all 3 CRA's since November 2012 and being regularly updated. (the last update was in May 2012).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so after having DV'd them and then disputing the tradeline with 3 CRA's i receive a response from MCM

It says as follows

 

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  Ext xxxx should you have any further questions.

 

Sincerely

 

Consumer Support Services

 

 

Now i need to understand how best to respond to this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Round 2?????? lawsuit!!!!!!!

What happened to DV? That letter was regarding dispute with CRA's.

 

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? All i show is they started reporting from october 2012 thru April 2013. April 2013 is when they got my first DV letter  and its been over a month now and no response to my DV letter. So would that count as reporting while still DV is not answered to?

Yes it is in & within the first 30 days!!!!!! from me !!!!!

 

What i am not sure of is what they have sent me is an offer letter to pay & what i know a collection letter looks like is very different?

Can someone help me clear up this style of letter? It confuses me how to read/interpret it?

Please read my previous posts before answering this question!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@energizer

 

What happened to DV?

 

Was your DV sent within 30 days of their very first letter to you?

 

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.

 

Assuming the account is yours and Midland claims they purchased it, why would they not be allowed to report it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me like they did not even read your letter.  You've DV'd them whether or not they realize it and they did not respond properly.  I don't even think they had the right wording on there per the FDCPA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DV was timely and another response to their letter responding to my dispute with CRA's as shown in my OP is forwarded to Midland.  Its my understanding BV 80 that if you have a timely DV to Midland, all collection activities should stop. Midland claims they purchased it, i claim show me the  agreement via DV' ing. should they respond in kind to my DV i can understand it. If there is no response to my DV and they choose to ignore/not respond then collection activities must cease!!!!! even when a dispute with CRA is initiated by me. And the following should be imposed on Midland

 

"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."

 

Like i said in my previous post, i am not sure if Midland is making me an offer of settlement via their letter and I DV them does that count as the first ever letter received by me & if i am to respond and think of the " Offer to Settle" letter as a first letter of communication from Midland. To the best of my knowledge, the wordings on most collection letter appears much more different than what a " offer to settle" looks like. On the offer to settle letter all the mini-miranda and 30 day notice is properly listed.

 

I want to believe that an " offer to settle" communication was received by me from Midland. (Not a collection letter). Anyone think otherwise, let me know why? Also, would that count as a first communication ever received from Midland, if that indeed happens to be the first ever communication received then would i have to respond to it within the first 30 days? what exactly does a "FIRST COMMUNICATION" from a collection agency look like? How can one tell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I understand now.  You're asking if the letter was the initial communication that triggered the 30 day validation period in which you could send a validation request.  Did the letter contain the 30 day notice informing you that you had 30 days to dispute the debt?

 

If it does not contain that notice:

 

1.  It's not the first letter they sent or;

 

2.  It is the first letter, but they didn't include the language.  The failure to include that notice in the first letter would be a violation, but they'd claim it wasn't the first letter they sent to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so if i were to say that the letter did have a 30 day notice mini-miranda on it, then i have to follow it as first communication received. Lets say i did that and did a DV CMMRR within the first 30 days. Then i went online to CRA to dispute the tradeline as not mine & within a week, they send me a letter regarding my dispute with CRA stating they have the dispute verified and they can and will continue with further collection activities. Now, the rule is just becoz they report it on CRA as a collection account tradeline, doesnt necessarily mean you DV them!!!!. You wait till you get a collection-like letter in the mail and then DV them. So i actually followed the proper procedure of following timely a DV & then looking up on CRA 's if they r reporting as a collection account on my report.

 

Isnt it how it should always be?

 

Now where does the FCRA violation fall within this context? are they in violation of FCRA or are they allowed to continue collection activities? i m preparing for a suit from them, also i would be happy if they wont sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@energizer

 

You're correct that you don't necessarily DV as a result of finding a CA's entry on your CR.  A TL is not an initial communication that triggers the 30 day validation period. 

 

If the account is yours and the entry is accurate, there is no FCRA violation. 

 

Are you referring to the possibility that they verified the account with the CRAs before validating the debt with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@admin

 

 

They are in violation of the FDCPA for continuing collection activities without DVing you.  

 

I know that reporting to a CRA is considered a collection activity, and I can see the possibility of such a violation, but is there any case law to support that speciifc issue? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that they still owe you proof that they own the debt. They think that the letter they sent you validates the debt and they can continue to attempt collection.

 

How old is this alleged debt? most states sol on cell phone bills is two years. So you may have a defense if they sue.

 

You have a potential fdcpa violation, I do not see where they properly validated the debt. It will be up to you to convince a judge of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is a cell phone bill SOL distinguished from a Hospital Bill SOL or for that matter any other SOL? I always thought SOL is by the State irrespective of kind of bill it is. BTO249 do u mean to tell me that a missed payment on a telephone bill is so very different than a Credit Card/Hospital Bill? Howzzat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, in most states there are different SOLs for different kinds of debts.  CCs are usually different than "written" contracts.  I would guess a cell phone contact comes under the "written" variety.

 

Read your state laws to be certain.

 

(And, you might want to rethink your posts just a bit.  Someone might take offense at your tone.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is a cell phone bill SOL distinguished from a Hospital Bill SOL or for that matter any other SOL? I always thought SOL is by the State irrespective of kind of bill it is. BTO249 do u mean to tell me that a missed payment on a telephone bill is so very different than a Credit Card/Hospital Bill? Howzzat

@energizer - a cell phone contract might be construed as a written promise to pay - different SOL.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some states have a two year sol on cell phone bills some are 6 like written contracts. You need to rethink your tone here or I may decide not to help you.

 

I am trying to explain a few things, seeing that I have a law degree, and you question me with that tone.....you ever talk to an attorney in person in that tone he will ask you to leave his office.

 

If you want some help i will be glad to help.

 

The Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code provides a 4-year limitations period for types of debt. The SoL begins after the day the cause of action accrues, (Section 16.004 (a) (3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do apologize BTO429, it was never intended that way!!! I like to think i was being sarcastic as to what i was hearing when my only thought at the time was that there was always one SOL for everything!!!! this is news to me!!!!. does it matter if it is under contract for less than a year. i was blessed to carry on contract with T-Mob for only 1 year & ever since i have only added lines with 1 yr contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@energizer - a cell phone contract might be construed as a written promise to pay - different SOL.  

 

So then, if you buy furniture would that also carry a different SOL? i want to think it is secured credit!!!! the worst that happens is furniture is re-possessed.?

would that b the end of it?

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.