Jump to content

Second Round, LP - Screwball collection tactics!


Determined1
 Share

Recommended Posts

An item popped up on my credit reports by a collection agency called Second Round, LP for a whopping $18,000 +. There was no original creditor named on the credit reports. I sent a DV to the collection agency, and received an invoice by mail with an original creditor named that I did not recognize at all, for an alleged debt of $350 with the account dated closed in 2001.  Out of curiosity, I called the original creditor named in the invoice, who said they had no records of any debt with their company. I also disputed the record on my credit reports, and they came back verified by the collection agency. 

 

So I have an alleged debt obviously way out of any statute of limitations for collections or credit reporting, the collection agency invoiced me for $350, but told the credit bureaus I owe $18,000. I generally don't sue over credit report / collection mistakes as a result of the time and aggravation it takes, but I've changed my mind on this point of view. I'm pretty ticked off over this, and welcome any opinions and advice on how to move forward.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would send a request to the CRAs to provide the method of verification per 1681i (a)(6)(B)(iii).   There's no description of what a furnisher must provide to the CRAs to verify an account.  But they must provide something.  And the CRAs must conduct a "reasonable" investigation.

 

1681i details a CRA's responsibilities.

 

15 USC § 1681i - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy

 

 

(6) Notice of results of reinvestigation

(B) Contents
As part of, or in addition to, the notice under subparagraph (A), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before the expiration of the 5-day period referred to in subparagraph (A)—

 

(iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available;

 

Read 1681i in it's entirety.  Did the CRAs follow those requirements and notifications to you?  Take this one step at a time.  If the CRAs didn't do what they were supposed to do, you can sue them.  

 

As we've discussed before, one must dispute under 1681s-2(b) in order for the consumer to have a private right of action against the furnisher.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great feedback BV80 and WhoCares, thank you! In response to my initial dispute, the CRA provided with me with a one item credit report that says: "See New Information" and then shows it was placed for collection in January 2012, updated in August 2013, and wont fall off my report until May, 2016. So in addition to all of the other violations, they are trying to re-age this. What really galls me is $350 obviously does not equal $18,000, and this will significantly impair my credit until it is straightened out.

 

I will demand a re-investigation with the CRA's tomorrow and enclose the invoice from the collection agency. So I'll dispute back with the CRA per 1681(i). If it comes back verified or stays on my credit report, I'm going to the mattresses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would send the ca an intent to sue letter, i would let them know that their math skills are far exceeded even by a third grade school kid. I would tell them that if they do not correct the errors in their reporting you will be filing suit in 30 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would send the ca an intent to sue letter, i would let them know that their math skills are far exceeded even by a third grade school kid. I would tell them that if they do not correct the errors in their reporting you will be filing suit in 30 days.

I would probably bypass this step, and file against the CA for FDCPA and FCRA violations.  Of course, that might be because I have absolutely no patience with bottom feeding scum. :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would send the ca an intent to sue letter, i would let them know that their math skills are far exceeded even by a third grade school kid. I would tell them that if they do not correct the errors in their reporting you will be filing suit in 30 days.

 

Thanks BTO, I think that's an excellent idea. It won't hurt to have that on the CA's desk when the CRA's re-investigates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alleged debt was 2001. The date it is set to fall off my credit report is May, 2016. Off by just a bit, huh?!

I'd be sending a "you made a bona fide error" letter, followed by an "intent to sue" letter if they don't fix or explain their error (not saying is is bona fide here ... would just say it to them for legal reasons to they can't use the "bona fide error excuse" in court).  An explanation would be a data furnisher that would be sued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no patience when it comes to the bottom feeders either, but if you plan to file a suit,, the more chance you give them to see the error of their ways and they ignore it the better you look to the court. I would send one letter and if they do not fix it my next letter would be a summons.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update:

 

I filed a request for re-investigation. EXP and TU verified and updated the item, reporting essentially the same account, same balance, with an updated date.  I have sent two letters to the JDB, one that predated this thread, and a second letter. The first letter a DV, the second with stronger language and an intent to sue. Last week I received an undated letter and response from the "In house Counsel and Compliance Officer" of Second Round, LP. Copying it below and welcome any feedback.

 

"Dear _____________,

 

I am in receipt of your recent letter to Second Round, LP., dated September 11, 2013. Our records show we did receive your dispute letter dated August 1, 2013. We responded within 30 days, with information on both accounts. Our records show everything was sent to you, at the address listed above. This is the same address which you sent the certified letter, so we believe this is your correct mailing address.

 

I am concerned that there must be some confusion. There are actually two accounts here with Second Round LP, both having your name. Account #_____________ is from _________, with a current balance of $18,311. The second account is from ______________, with a current balance of $348.95.

 

I have ordered the information you requested and will send it to you as soon as it is received. In the meantime you will not receive mail or calls from Second Round, LP until such time as the information is provided to you. Collection activity will cease until the documentation is obtained.

 

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you wish to discuss it, please feel free to contact me at the number listed above. We look forward to helping you resolve this matter.

 

Sincerely,

_____________

 

My notes:

 

1) Both of these alleged "accounts" have been sold numerous times and they pop up out of the woodwork every few years. Nobody has been able to provide me any records for either account. I previously contacted the alleged original creditors, who have my name on file on their computer system, but no records to establish any debt owed. I would note that I have had errant accounts assigned to me before that I had no connection with.

 

2) Alleged original creditor #1 has responded in writing, saying they don't have records to back up the debt, but an account they had bearing my name on file was closed in 2001. I have provided a copy of this letter to this JDB, who appears to still seek collection.

 

3) This JDB never sent me information on both accounts as their letter claims, they're lying. All they sent was an invoice claiming I owed $348 for an account closed in 2001.  No records or invoice has been supplied on the item on my credit report for $18,311.

 

4) The last I heard about "alleged debt #2" was a voice mail from a prior collection agency who, without any records to support their claim, said they would accept 5% of the 18,000 to stop calling me.  I ignored their offer. Evidently, they sold it, probably for $50.

 

5) Their letter states: "I have ordered the information you requested and will send it to you as soon as it is received."  I take this as an admission they don't yet have records to substantiate the debt, but saw fit to damage my credit with an $18,311 debt claim. So nice of them to grant themselves an open ended amount of time to get back to me. 

 

6) The letter also states: "Collection activity will cease until the documentation is obtained." However, they've updated the record with two credit bureaus. My understanding is this constitutes collection activity under FDCPA.

 

My opinion is this is an ultimate JDB bottom feeder, which should be named "Last Round" instead of "Second Round." They bought accounts from other JDB's for pennies, and used the excuse of the $348 invoice from 13 years ago and a negative credit bureau listing to get me on the phone to see if I'd bite. So, what do you guys think? I'm inclined to file suit against the JDB who started this mess and appears to want to continue. A CFPB and state attorney general complaint also seem appropriate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then fire back your own letter regarding the credit ding:

 

"Thank you for admitting, in writing, that you have NO documentation to back the alleged debt that Second Round LP has reported to the credit bureaus. Based on your admission, I believe I have grounds to file both an FDCPA and a FCRA suit for damages in Federal Court The letter I received will be my star piece of evidence. And, since this debt seems to be willfully and negligently reported, I will also seek putative damages of $100,000 for the negligent reporting of the alleged debt.

 

Also keep in mind that there are multiple court precedents that state that reporting of a debt to a credit bureau is collection activity - your continued reporting does constitute collection activity and, continues to damage me on a daily basis." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great feedback everyone, thank you. @BV80, I sent an earlier version of a DV letter, copied from a CIC member a few years back. It requests the following information:

 

*What the money you say I owe is specifically for.

*Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe.

*Validation that the alleged debt was established, including any signed application for credit, service or goods.

*Provide me with copies of any documents that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe.

*Formal Certification that the alleged debt was transferred to a third party, with documented proof of a legal chain of title.

*Identify the full legal name of the alleged original creditor(s).

*Provide a verification or copy of any judgment.

 

*Provide a copy of your Surety Bond required by law to act as a collection agent in the State of Florida. 

 

I disputed with both the CRA's and the JDB, including a re-investigation request to the CRA's. I gave the JDB 30 days to respond. It's now approximately 60 days and counting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great feedback everyone, thank you. @BV80, I sent an earlier version of a DV letter, copied from a CIC member a few years back. It requests the following information:

 

*What the money you say I owe is specifically for.

*Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe.

*Validation that the alleged debt was established, including any signed application for credit, service or goods.

*Provide me with copies of any documents that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe.

*Formal Certification that the alleged debt was transferred to a third party, with documented proof of a legal chain of title.

*Identify the full legal name of the alleged original creditor(s).

*Provide a verification or copy of any judgment.

 

*Provide a copy of your Surety Bond required by law to act as a collection agent in the State of Florida. 

 

I disputed with both the CRA's and the JDB, including a re-investigation request to the CRA's. I gave the JDB 30 days to respond. It's now approximately 60 days and counting...

That would be good for court, not so sure it will have much teeth here.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Provide me with copies of any documents that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe.

 

@Determined1

 

A credit card statement that shows charges and/or payments could be considered in the above.   That's what cc companies and JDBs use all the time to prove a breach of contract or an account stated claim.

 

If they don't have any cc statements, then all they have is a spreadsheet of debtors and amounts that was included in their purchase of a portfolio of accounts. 

 

The In-house counsel said that he's ordered the information you requested.  If he did order it, notice he doesn't say from whom it's been ordered.

 

The date of first delinquency occurs before an account is closed.  If you know for a fact that these accounts were closed in 2001, I'd go after them.  If you have proof of the closing dates, even better.  You have FDCPA violations.

 

I'm not sure, though, if you can sue them under the FCRA.  The 7 year reporting period is addressed 1681c(a) which starts out by saying:

 

Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information:

 

That section details what the CRAs can and can't do.   The duties of furnishers is in 1681s-2.  For the purpose of a private right of action, it's 1681s-2(b).  But it's about inaccurate information.   I'm not sure that reporting beyond the 7 year period is considered inaccurate information.   If they're reporting a false date of first delinquency, that's inaccurate.  But if they're not reporting any date, no inaccuracy.

 

The only way I can think of to have a claim under that section is to point out that the mere fact that they're reporting implies the date of first delinquency was less than 7 years ago.   That would be inaccurate information.  But I seriously doubt there's any case law to support that something is implied because other information (the date of first delinquency) has been excluded.

 

All that being said, you might have a claim against the CRAs for furnishing a report containing an outdated entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@admin

 

I agree.  I'm just not sure under which section a violation of the 7-year period would apply.  1681s-2(B) is about inaccurate information.  Reporting an account that's beyond the 7 year reporting period is illegal, but it doesn't seem to fit "inaccurate".  However, I guess that's the only section that would fit the violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you @admin and @BV80. I thought I would clarify something. When I first learned of this issue, it was a single item on two of my credit reports for $18,311 without any original creditor named or any date of last payment noted. In response to my DV, the JDB sent me an invoice for an alleged $348 debt from 2001. To date, they have not sent anything regarding the $18,311 posted to my credit report, which I disputed.

 

My hunch is they were trying to bait me into a phone call and some kind of payment to get rid of them. I never called (or accepted their calls), but rather disputed by mail. In response, they updated only the $18,311 alleged debt with the credit bureaus. In today's mail I received one of those updates from TU, showing the account will be removed in 2016. So they are alleging this is a debt within the 7 year reporting period, but outside of the statute of limitations for my state. Most importantly, I don't owe the alleged debt. 

 

I am focusing on their letter to me last week, and the comment they will order the information to validate the account. Obviously, this is an admission they verified with the CRA's without proof of any debt. I find it rather ironic I am receiving correspondence of this kind from their "Compliance Officer." I looked up Second Round LP's case history on Pacer.gov, and in the last two years they have 26 civil lawsuits against them - primarily FDCPA, FCRA, and TCPA violations.  

 

I'm shifting my approach. Any collection or debt issue I had is now past my state's statute of limitations. I was previously on defense, and thanks to CIC, Admin, great forum Moderators and some awesome members, I was able to resolve any and all debt collection and litigation issues for $0 (with no legal fees). Now, its time to go on offense against some really offensive characters. First up, Second Round, LP.  I'm going to contact a few of the lawyers who have sued them to discuss and will report back. I think I've got a pretty clear case here.

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.