bored7one4

DV or dispute with bureau new collections that just reported on my credit report?

Recommended Posts

I just got a offer letter last week from Midland for a Citi account that is no where on my credit report for all 3 bureau.  Should I dispute it with the credit bureau or send them a debt validation letter?  Since it's on my credit report it's hard to determine if the SOL has expired.

 

How can I find out Last payment date or SOL date if its not reporting?

 

Thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just got an alert from credit Karma that Midland just reported to them. I will send Midland a DV letter but my question is will TransUnion issue me a new report since something new is reporting now?  or will free annually credit report update or issue me a new free report?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see your report for free, register to dispute online with TransUnion.  Your full report (though not your score) shows up on screen.  This is totally free.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very careful about sending a debt validation letter if you feel the debt is valid.

 

Midland is a fairly aggressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue if they're able to validate your debt and you fail to arrive to a timely arrangement.

 

Furthermore, they're also more likely to be less cooperative in terms of settlements and payment plans if they acquire the backup. Simply because before they request it they're just not 100% confident that  they'll get it. So you can use that lack of confidence to your advantage by gaining a level of cooperation from them that you may not receive if they acquire it.

 

Your more safe and reliable approach would be to contact midland and negotiate a payment plan or a settlement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very careful about sending a debt validation letter if you feel the debt is valid.

 

Midland is a fairly aggressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue if they're able to validate your debt and you fail to arrive to a timely arrangement.

 

Furthermore, they're also more likely to be less cooperative in terms of settlements and payment plans if they acquire the backup. Simply because before they request it they're just not 100% confident that  they'll get it. So you can use that lack of confidence to your advantage by gaining a level of cooperation from them that you may not receive if they acquire it.

 

Your more safe and reliable approach would be to contact midland and negotiate a payment plan or a settlement. 

 

 

I am pretty sure all my accounts are over the 4 year SOL in CA.  I stop paying all at once so i'm sure this applies to this account as well.  Further more the original account on the letter I've received does not show up on any of my credit report.  Which is why I want to validate.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very careful about sending a debt validation letter if you feel the debt is valid.

 

Midland is a fairly aggressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue if they're able to validate your debt and you fail to arrive to a timely arrangement.

I strongly disagree with this statement and I'm not alone: 

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/320644-pentagroup-ignored-dv-letter-in-march-now-sending-documents-in-june/?p=1249204

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if I've sent my DV after the 30 days do they have to reply to my DV?  Also Since the original account is not listed anywhere on my credit report, how can i find out what my last payment or when the SOL date starts?

 

Thanks

oh i found out the rule of thumb to my question above. 60 days between disputes.  Now is it 60 days from when i sent it out or 60 days after i get the results of the disputes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would be very careful about sending a debt validation letter if you feel the debt is valid.

 

Midland is a fairly aggressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue if they're able to validate your debt and you fail to arrive to a timely arrangement.

 

Furthermore, they're also more likely to be less cooperative in terms of settlements and payment plans if they acquire the backup. Simply because before they request it they're just not 100% confident that  they'll get it. So you can use that lack of confidence to your advantage by gaining a level of cooperation from them that you may not receive if they acquire it.

 

Your more safe and reliable approach would be to contact midland and negotiate a payment plan or a settlement. 

 

 

I am pretty sure all my accounts are over the 4 year SOL in CA.  I stop paying all at once so i'm sure this applies to this account as well.  Further more the original account on the letter I've received does not show up on any of my credit report.  Which is why I want to validate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're past the SOL you should be fine. That changes everything since they won't have recourse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ALLWAYS DV.  Make them at least send you something in writing that shows they have the right person, the right account, the right amount, and the right to collect in your state.

 

CAs are usually staffed by underpaid people who would rather be doing something else and  often make mistakes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@bored7one4

 

So what if I've sent my DV after the 30 days do they have to reply to my DV? 

 

A DV request is sent within 30 days of a CA's or JDB's first communication that includes the 30 day validation notice.  If you send your request more than 30 days after receiving that notice, they do not have to validate the debt and can continue collection efforts.

 

Also, if you send a timely DV request, they either have to validate in order to continue collecting, or they can choose to not validate and simply cease collection efforts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ALLWAYS DV.  Make them at least send you something in writing that shows they have the right person, the right account, the right amount, and the right to collect in your state.

 

CAs are usually staffed by underpaid people who would rather be doing something else and  often make mistakes.

 

If you feel the debt isn't valid then of course. But for a valid debt, this is a terrible approach that endangers consumers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss

 

I completely disagree, by DV them you let them know you're gonna fight, is not an if, I DV my old debts etc., fight them they threatened to sue send me the attorney header letter DV the attorney, and they didn't respond as of today (maybe 1 year ago was it), still waiting for them to sue ...

 

There are easier fishes on the pan than those that fight, and they know that better than us, if you fight them they will at some point throw the towel, so I disagree 100%. If it wa an OC it's different they can win if they wanna (they not always fight).

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss

You seem to have the typical view of most collection agencies.  While I believe in paying my bills (and I have, I have gotten into some tough situations, but I digress, I still think if I owe, and I have the ability to pay, then by all means I will do it) BUT, Most of us know credit card companies charge fees that are way more than they should.  People get into hardships, and by the time you add the monthly fees, they will never get out of debt by paying the monthly payment .... EVER.  Yes it would be nice if all could settle their debts all at once, but in this economy, lets face it, not to many people can afford to do that.

 

 I see people here with maybe a 1,000 debt, but yet they are being sued for 3-5k on the same debt.  I call that BS, and even if you do owe the original debt, I am a staunch advocate for fighting these JDB's who do nothing but bring the American people down.  They have nothing to offer this economy except for jobs for people like you.  Yes some would argue they help keep people honest, and pay their bills, but I see them causing more problems than they fix.  If more original creditors would be fair in what they charge for fees, late fees, over limit fees, they would see a lot less default, and more people trying to step up and pay what they owe.  

 

You get 3K in the bank, and they pay you 0.14 cents a month in interest.  You borrow 3k, and you pay 24%+ interest a month.  Where is the fairness in that?  I will always pay what I owe in all fairness, but if a JDB comes after me and tries to get more than I owe, I have no problem what so ever fighting them, and letting them take  away nothing.  

My point is I guess, this site is to help troubled people to handle their debt.  They don't know about things like expired SOL, or FDCPA laws, et all.  Advising them to not DV, or settle if they think they owe is clearly irresponsible.  There are so many more options.  That is my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss

 

I completely disagree, by DV them you let them know you're gonna fight, is not an if, I DV my old debts etc., fight them they threatened to sue send me the attorney header letter DV the attorney, and they didn't respond as of today (maybe 1 year ago was it), still waiting for them to sue ...

 

There are easier fishes on the pan than those that fight, and they know that better than us, if you fight them they will at some point throw the towel, so I disagree 100%. If it wa an OC it's different they can win if they wanna (they not always fight).

 

 
I appreciate your opinion. I really do. And I understand there are times when fighting makes sense.
 
But here is the thing: with this approach you ask for the fight when there is a low probability of the fight ever happening
 
I'll give you a bit my background so you have a better understanding of why I say this. 
 
I used to work for the corporate franchise of Collect America. They recently changed their name to SquareTwo Financial. In case you don't recognize those names, you guys probably know them as CACV and CACH on credit reports. 
 
Anyway, I started there when I was 23 as a collector. And before you throw something at me, please know that I took a totally opposite approach than what you find typical. 
 
I was actually reasonable and empathetic. I was rational and logical. I quickly learned that people who are behind on their debt don't want to be. I learned that the reason why people don't pay is because something happens to them and they can't. 
 
I also learned that people who fall behind on their debt are fairly oblivious when it comes to how to approach the situation. I would imagine that many of you reading this can relate to that.  
 
So back then, I took it upon myself to learn everything I could about the possible options that may resolve a situation when consumers fell behind. 
 
My priority was to treat others the way I wanted to be treated myself, and to review the entire financial picture of the consumer. Every call was a new puzzle. 
 
The communication wasn't about intimidation. In fact, it was the exact opposite. I wanted whoever I spoke with to be 100% comfortable with me and the purpose of my call. 
 
And that purpose was to problem solve. I made it a point to discuss their current situation and how they got there, their future goals, their potential future credit needs.    
 
Their income and expense situation. Their unsecured obligations. Their assets. And then with that information I basically just did a bunch of math.
 
I identified very quickly that consumers were generally behind with a number of creditors and not just the account that I was collecting on. And I realized that if you show consumers how to resolve their entire problem and not just the one account that you're calling about, that if an ability to pay exists, they generally did. 
 
This approach led to me being the 1999 Collect America Collector of the Year, out of over 30 offices, for who at the time was the largest primary debt purchaser in the nation. 
 
That opened up many doors of information to me and is why I know what I know today. 
 
First came Floor Manager at the corporate franchise. Then I started traveling to other franchises and evaluated their procedures and up-trained their staff.
 
Then Operations Manager for one of the franchises I visited. 
 
I was tremendously lucky to learn everything I did while I worked under the Collect America umbrella. They had a ton of smart people.   
 
And because of my positions and accomplishments I was exposed to pretty much anything you can think of. 
 
So I'm going to share some industry estimations with you guys. And BV80, I wish I could cite a source beyond my myself. As I'm pretty big on sources too. So I hope the information I'm about to provide won't be easily dismissed. :-)
 
And again, I mean no disrespect. Please don't feel like I'm attacking this site's cause here. 
 
It's not like the collection industry publishes this stuff, so you guys would have no way of knowing these things. I just want to bring these things to your attention so you can think about them and you can decide whether you may be able to tweak the advice that is commonly given here on this site in relation to debt validation letters and cease and desist letters so that consumers can more safely navigate their situation.  
 
Here we go....
  • I estimate that LESS THAN 10% (possibly less than 5%) of collection accounts that don't receive validation requests, cease and desist letters, or that are prematurely represented by a long-term debt settlement company are litigated against during the ENTIRE life-cycle of a collection account. 
  •  
  • Approximately 80% of collection accounts are NEVER collected. 
  •  
  • Approximately 60% of accounts in collections are NEVER verbally communicated with.
  •  
  • Approximately 1 - 3% of collection accounts receive validation requests. 
  •  
  • Most collection agencies and debt buyers service tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of accounts at any given time.
  •  
  • Most collection firms have a protocol to handle accounts that are disputed. That protocol is generally to segregate the account from the collection floor and to have a much more sophisticated collector manage it once the validation is acquired (if it's acquired) and sent to the consumer. 
  •  
  • Collectors are trained to collect as much money as possible from people that demonstrate that they may want to pay.
  •  
  • Since approximately 80% of collection accounts never pay and approximately 60% of the accounts are never verbally communicated with, collectors pay very close attention to accounts that demonstrate consumer concern. 
  •  
  • In a lot of circumstances requests for validation are intertwined with major purchases. They may be trying to buy a home or clean up their credit for some other reason. Sending a debt validation letter demonstrates that the sender cares and that they desire remedy. 
  •  
  • The last thing anyone who has accounts in collections wants to do is to demonstrate these traits. 
  •  
  • If collectors think you're part of the 20% and not the 80% they take an entirely different approach.
  •  
  • If they feel that you're part of the 80% they lack confidence of your intent. They roll over and negotiate WAY more easily. Almost to the point of desperation in a lot of situations. 
  •  
  • If they feel you are part of the 20% they possess great confidence and they'll generally be a lot less negotiable. They think you want something, and they feel that they stand in the way of that. They feel they have leverage. 
  •  
  • They normally order less than 10% of the backup on any given portfolio. In other words, there is a low probability that they will bother to get the documents they need in order to successfully sue you if you don't invite them to get them.
  •  
  • If you are in a circumstance and you're trying to clean up your credit and the debt validation letter fails to resolve your problem (in other words they were able to validate it), you'll probably end up trying to settle it. If you would have attempted to settle the account previous to the debt validation request, you would probably achieve a much more lucrative settlement. Again, because that leverage may not exist. And if you fail to arrive to an arrangement they're also more likely to become aggressive, because now they have what they need in order to do so. 
  •  
  • Most successful collectors make the majority of their income from commission or bonuses. They generally range from 5 - 12% of gross collections. So they are personally motivated to collect as much as possible.
  •  
  • Collectors become emotionally involved and tend to take a personal interest with the outcome of your account if you fail to resolve it with them after sending a debt validation letter on a valid debt because they view the letter as an obstacle to their potential income.   
So this is why I say what I do about debt validation letters on valid debts
 
If people probably have a less than 10% chance of being sued through the time they charge off to the time that their accounts exceed statue of limitations - why invite it? Aren't they better off if they don't draw attention to themselves? Wouldn't it be a lot less stressful and dangerous if the consumer was "just another collection account?" 
 
Aren't consumers better off if the collector that is attempting to collect from them isn't very good at it? Aren't they better off if they are perceived to be part of the 80% that may not pay? 
 
Wouldn't the consumer be better served if they only requested validation when a TRUE fight came to them (account placement with a local attorney)? 
 
Again, consumers probably have a more than 90% chance of that fight NEVER happening if they did. 
Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss

You seem to have the typical view of most collection agencies. While I believe in paying my bills (and I have, I have gotten into some tough situations, but I digress, I still think if I owe, and I have the ability to pay, then by all means I will do it) BUT, Most of us know credit card companies charge fees that are way more than they should. People get into hardships, and by the time you add the monthly fees, they will never get out of debt by paying the monthly payment .... EVER. Yes it would be nice if all could settle their debts all at once, but in this economy, lets face it, not to many people can afford to do that.

I see people here with maybe a 1,000 debt, but yet they are being sued for 3-5k on the same debt. I call that BS, and even if you do owe the original debt, I am a staunch advocate for fighting these JDB's who do nothing but bring the American people down. They have nothing to offer this economy except for jobs for people like you. Yes some would argue they help keep people honest, and pay their bills, but I see them causing more problems than they fix. If more original creditors would be fair in what they charge for fees, late fees, over limit fees, they would see a lot less default, and more people trying to step up and pay what they owe.

You get 3K in the bank, and they pay you 0.14 cents a month in interest. You borrow 3k, and you pay 24%+ interest a month. Where is the fairness in that? I will always pay what I owe in all fairness, but if a JDB comes after me and tries to get more than I owe, I have no problem what so ever fighting them, and letting them take away nothing.

My point is I guess, this site is to help troubled people to handle their debt. They don't know about things like expired SOL, or FDCPA laws, et all. Advising them to not DV, or settle if they think they owe is clearly irresponsible. There are so many more options. That is my opinion.

You have me all wrong. I agree with 99% of what you said. My point to all of this is that there are more safe alternatives to debt validation and cease and desist letters that can be employed that make a lot more sense for the consumer and their well being. That's it.

And I never said anything about not settling. All of my comments are purely focused on the debt validation and cease and desist letter advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel the debt isn't valid then of course. But for a valid debt, this is a terrible approach that endangers consumers. 

 

I have one word for this...BULL.

 

You have no idea if the company approaching you actually has authority to collect even if it is some thing you think may be valid.  The DV process is not just to ensure that a debt is valid but that the person trying to collect is actually authorized to do so.  The collector is required to get the validation from the original creditor and then pass it on to the consumer.  That shows the collector isn't just some company running from a list that they have obtained. 

 

Midland is among several collectors known in the industry to engage in fraudulent tactics to collect, and has been busted several times for shaking down consumers for debts they did not owe or that they didn't even have the authority to collect on.  And they are not alone in the industry in that regard.

 

This is not to say you don't pay for debts that you legitimately owe.  We don't promote debt-skipping.  But we do advise that everyone require any 3rd party debt collector to prove that they have the right to collect, that the amount is correct, and to provide proof of payment when payment is made.  That is protecting consumers, not endangering them.  And, it is telling the collection industry that they have to follow the rules that our legal system has laid down for them.  Remember...The laws would not exist if the collection industry didn't first abuse the crud out of their position.

 

As a well known radio host frequently says. "If a debt collector's mouth is moving, they are lying."

 

Now if you are the sort of person that opens up you wallet to any stranger that approaches you and says that you owe them money without requiring them to prove it, you are welcome to send all your spare cash to members of this board.  We'll just say it's compensation for wasting our time.  :-)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a hot topic on the forums and a seperate thread (http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/320667-portfolio-recovery-associates-acct-transferred-to-litigation-dept-new-jersey/) on my situation seems to overlap.

I apologize if this is seen as a duplicate post, but it seems to fit here in this discussion.  

Admin, please move to my thread listed above if you feel it is better suited staying there.

 

I understand both sides to a degree.  After receiving a second notice from Portfolio Recovery Associates and a deadline of 7/5, on a valid debt, I am unsure how to respond.  I simply don't have the means to pay right now, but plan to as soon as I can come up w funds.

Not clear if a DV is a good delay tactic if I ultimately want to settle at between 15%-40%.

I hope to have funds available in  ~6 months time.

I will search for a good DV template to have it ready if needed as well as steps on how to send (certified mail, etc.)

Great forum.

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one word for this...BULL.

 

You have no idea if the company approaching you actually has authority to collect even if it is some thing you think may be valid.  The DV process is not just to ensure that a debt is valid but that the person trying to collect is actually authorized to do so.  The collector is required to get the validation from the original creditor and then pass it on to the consumer.  That shows the collector isn't just some company running from a list that they have obtained. 

 

You're right. It does serve that purpose. But that's why I say to call the original creditor and confirm the agencies involvement. There is no reason to arm your creditors with what is needed to sue in this situation. A more safe alternative would be to call.

 

Midland is among several collectors known in the industry to engage in fraudulent tactics to collect, and has been busted several times for shaking down consumers for debts they did not owe or that they didn't even have the authority to collect on.  And they are not alone in the industry in that regard.

 

Again, call the original creditor and follow the chain of title (if its been sold multiple times) via phone calls

 

This is not to say you don't pay for debts that you legitimately owe.  We don't promote debt-skipping.  But we do advise that everyone require any 3rd party debt collector to prove that they have the right to collect, that the amount is correct, and to provide proof of payment when payment is made.  That is protecting consumers, not endangering them.  And, it is telling the collection industry that they have to follow the rules that our legal system has laid down for them.  Remember...The laws would not exist if the collection industry didn't first abuse the crud out of their position.

 

Read my wall of text above. And then come back and say that it is not endangering them. In regard to letting them know that you're familiar with the laws: what's the point of that? It's like playing Poker with your cards face up. The risk/reward is senseless. Especially when you consider the risks. And think about simple physics: there is a reaction to every action. Just because this law exists doesn't mean it's an intelligent one to invoke.  

 

As a well known radio host frequently says. "If a debt collector's mouth is moving, they are lying."

 

Now if you are the sort of person that opens up you wallet to any stranger that approaches you and says that you owe them money without requiring them to prove it, you are welcome to send all your spare cash to members of this board.  We'll just say it's compensation for wasting our time.  :-)

 

LOL! That was a good one! Again, I'm not saying to not verify who you're paying. I'm saying that the more safe alternative is to confirm the agencies involvement in a verbal conversation with the original creditor. You accomplish 3 things by doing so: 1) You accomplish your goal of confirming who is handling it. 2) You avoid arming your creditors with what's needed to become aggressive. 3) You're not demonstrating traits that will cause them to hone in on you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. It does serve that purpose. But that's why I say to call the original creditor and confirm the agencies involvement. There is no reason to arm your creditors with what is needed to sue in this situation. A more safe alternative would be to call.

 

Again, call the original creditor and follow the chain of title (if its been sold multiple times) via phone calls

 

 

Calling can be very dangerous.  You could be setting yourself up for abuse by calling.  The only reason to call is to 1.) get the collection agency's address/phone number/fax number  2.) possibly feel them out for a debt settlement.

 

It's definitely best to write them first.  

 

 

Read my wall of text above. And then come back and say that it is not endangering them. In regard to letting them know that you're familiar with the laws: what's the point of that? It's like playing Poker with your cards face up. The risk/reward is senseless. Especially when you consider the risks. And think about simple physics: there is a reaction to every action. Just because this law exists doesn't mean it's an intelligent one to invoke.  

 

It's ALWAYS a good idea to do a debt validation when you get the first letter.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss - so you're saying that if a debt collector has no documentation that a debt is valid, that the consumer should go ahead and pay it?  Not ask for debt validation, but simply allow that debt to stay on your credit report when there is no proof?

 

You said that most cases have about 10% of the documents they need to prove a debt in court.  This seems to be all the more reason that you should ask for debt validation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel the debt isn't valid then of course. But for a valid debt, this is a terrible approach that endangers consumers. 

Jared...the whole point of the DV process as defined in the FDCPA (you have read that, I assume) is to make certain that the CA who has contacted you IS INDEED referencing a valid debt.

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