MindBend

Small $99 Utility Bill DV

Recommended Posts

Send DV to local CA for small $99 utility bill.

They quickly responded with a computer printout of account detail (meaningless obviously) and basically said, pay it or it will continue to report, blah, blah.

 

My next steps I'm considering would be:

 

Contact OC to see if I can pay and have them pull it back.

Further challenge CA on details.

PFD letter.

 

Of course, I'd happily pay to make it go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send DV to local CA for small $99 utility bill.

They quickly responded with a computer printout of account detail (meaningless obviously) and basically said, pay it or it will continue to report, blah, blah.

 

My next steps I'm considering would be:

 

Contact OC to see if I can pay and have them pull it back.

Further challenge CA on details.

PFD letter.

 

Of course, I'd happily pay to make it go away.

 

The answers haven't changed since you asked in your earlier thread on this:  http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/323394-paying-off-oc/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one in the prior thread is double-reporting (both OC and JDB) and neither reporting sold nor did they validate.

 

This one is a single-reporting item, and the CA did validate (with a rather useless computer printout which in no way can specifically prove this debt to be mine).

 

Don't see how the answers can be the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is a single-reporting item, and the CA did validate (with a rather useless computer printout which in no way can specifically prove this debt to be mine).

 

They do NOT have to prove the debt is yours ANYWHERE but in a court of law whether you agree with it or like it.

 

Your choice now is to pay it or wait for it to fall off.

 

Don't see how the answers can be the same.

 

And that is the problem.  You are trying to credit repair FAST and you do not understand the laws or the process despite your assertions that you do.  As I told you before go study up A LOT before you create a hornets nest that buys you way more trouble than you bargained for by doing this without full knowledge of what steps to take and the consequences of each one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your assertion/assumption that I am trying to do it "fast" is erroneous? Quite to the contrary, I have no specific credit need, so I can take as much time as I'd like.

 

Admittedly, I am not extremely experienced at this, or I'd likely not be here, but I don't believe for one moment that when a CA responds with what looks like a very lame "account statement" that my only options are to:

  • Roll over and pay it or
  • Wait 'til it falls off my report.

What about?:

  • Real proof that the services/products were actually valid (I realize that what defines adequate validation isn't clearly defined in FDCPA, but their own account printout doesn't seem enough).
  • The dollar amount is correct, etc. .
  • Proving that they are legitimately allowed to collect on it.

If the burden for them to prove it is only in a court of law, if that's what it takes, I'll go there. As I mentioned, I have time, and fortunately I have the funds to do so. (not to read as I want to cause myself an extra headache and/or waste money).

 

In ALL credit repair/restoration procedures, EVERY SINGLE ONE recommends DV as a first step. This is what I have done, if this stirs up a hornet's nest, then everyone must be wrong.

I'd also assume, that by specifically asking a next best step, would indicate that I'm not looking to stir-up things and/or create doomsday sequence in a half-witted manner.

 

We're talking about a few collections that are small, probably not very impacting at this point, but I'm looking to create a best-case-situation as I approach gaining some more credit.

 

So, I'm not looking for advice on what not to do, what rather what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about?:

  • Real proof that the services/products were actually valid (I realize that what defines adequate validation isn't clearly defined in FDCPA, but their own account printout doesn't seem enough).
  • The dollar amount is correct, etc. .
  • Proving that they are legitimately allowed to collect on it.

 

What about it?   They do NOT have to do ANY of that to report it on your credit report.  You just DO NOT get it.  When you DV the ONLY thing they have to give you is the amount they SAY you owe along with the name and address of the original creditor.  That is IT.  NOTHING more.

 

You DV'd.  They gave you a printout with that information.  They do NOT have to do anything more and they can keep reporting.  So at that point you either pay the bill or you live with it.  There isn't a magical step after DV that will somehow get it deleted and starting a new thread each time hoping you will get a different answer won't get you one.

 

In ALL credit repair/restoration procedures, EVERY SINGLE ONE recommends DV as a first step. This is what I have done, if this stirs up a hornet's nest, then everyone must be wrong.

 

MAYBE you DV.  If the debt is large enough and you can still be sued then DV may be the WRONG thing to do if you don't want to risk being hauled into court. 

 

DO MORE RESEARCH. 

 

If the burden for them to prove it is only in a court of law, if that's what it takes, I'll go there. 

 

What legal basis would you be suing them for?  So far NOTHING you posted suggests they have violated the collection laws at all.  Again you just don't get it.  You disputed.  They validated.  That is all that is required UNLESS they are going to sue you for the debt.  The burden of proof in a court of law is a LOT higher than for reporting the debt as a trade line.  

 

You didn't get into debt over night and you won't get out over night.  The reason no one is telling you what to do is because YOU as the consumer have to evaluate your circumstances and decide what the next step is.  No one can do that for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding post # 1:

 

I wouldn't bother asking the CA for further details. You may check your credit report and see if the OC still owns it; and if so, you could call them and see if they will do a PFD. Full payment for a delete or nothing at all. Other then that you could probably pay them and they would report it as paid, and then the CA should stop reporting it as well; If not then you may have options to do something about it if you chose to do so.  This is assuming the OC still owns the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can not sue since it's beyond SOL. Additionally, I'd love to be sued for a $99 debt and see how the judge reacts.

 

Your basis for them fulfilling their burden is hinged upon a rather unclear specification from FDCA as to what constitutes "debt validation".

I can send a printout to you, along with a balance sheet, stating you owe me, but it doesn't make it so.

 

There was old case law setting a rather obscure precedent, Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, but some more recent case law in the Indiana specified a burden to provide more specific information Phillip v Frederick.

 

If it is a matter of "YOU as the consumer have to evaluate your circumstances and decide what the next step is." why does this forum exist?

 

Anon, thanks for your recommendation. I'll check with the OC...since it's six+ years old, who knows. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is a matter of "YOU as the consumer have to evaluate your circumstances and decide what the next step is." why does this forum exist?

 

WOW, I cannot believe I have to actually explain this to you but okay.  It is here to provide guidance.  It is incredibly STUPID to allow strangers on the internet to make decisions for you.  For all you know the person posting the answer to you is a 14 year old kid at home with the flu.  If you are not capable of making a decision on your own then you should hire a financial adviser.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In ALL credit repair/restoration procedures, EVERY SINGLE ONE recommends DV as a first step.

 

 

@MindBend

 

Debt validation falls under the FDCPA.  1692g specifically states that one must request validation within 30 days of the initial contact with a debt collector.   Unless your DV was sent within 30 days of the CAs first contact (dunning letter), the CA is not required to respond and can continue collection efforts.  In the event that a CA has never contacted you, but you found their entry on your CR, you can send a DV, but they're not required to respond because an entry on your CR is not considered an initial communication that triggers the 30-day validation period under the FDCPA in 1692g.

 

Whether your DV was sent within the 30 day validation period or as a result of finding an entry on your CR, the CA responded and properly validated.

 

There was old case law setting a rather obscure precedent, Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, but some more recent case law in the Indiana specified a burden to provide more specific information Phillip v Frederick.

 

 

What did the court rule in the Frederick case?

 

 

The proper procedure when finding an entry on your CR is to dispute that entry with the credit reporting agencies (CRAs) as provided for in the FCRA.   If a furnisher verifies the entry with the CRAs, you can then contact the furnisher to dispute again. 

 

Is the debt not yours?  Is it being reported inaccurately?

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, I cannot believe I have to actually explain this to you but okay.  It is here to provide guidance.  It is incredibly STUPID to allow strangers on the internet to make decisions for you.  For all you know the person posting the answer to you is a 14 year old kid at home with the flu.  If you are not capable of making a decision on your own then you should hire a financial adviser.

 

Isn't that what I was asking for: guidance on a prudent next step?

Yes, I disputed with the CRA's a couple days after my DV. TU rejected due to my address not being on file with them. EXP flat out rejected it...said they suspected that it was fraud. (even though it was a very simple letter, not copied).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80

 

There was old case law setting a rather obscure precedent, Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, but some more recent case law in the Indiana specified a burden to provide more specific information Phillip v Frederick.

 

 

Just an FYI:  Frederick v. Discover is unpublished.  Also, the court relied upon Chaudhry.

 

"[V]erification of a debt [under § 1692g(B)] involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir.1999).  "Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to 'elimitate the...problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid.'"  Id (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-382 at 4 (1977)0.  There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. Id.   Given this authority and the inapplicability of Spears and Fields, we are not inclined, on this record, to reverse the trial court's summary judgment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.