Jump to content

DV MCM but they deny their records are inaccurate


bored7one4
 Share

Recommended Posts

So I DV MCM for an Old Navy acct and now they have responded by saying I have not provided sufficient info to investigate my dispute.  They are asking me to provide additional info to identify the basis of my dispute.  What and how should i response?

 

Thanks

 

This is a tactic to get you to provide them with evidence they can use against you.

 

Open a CFPB complaint stating that Midland is collecting on an account they are unable to validate.  Watch how quickly they cave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that even a DV sent based on a credit report that has the account information they are reporting on would be enough for them figure out if the account is correct. Especially since the DV threshold is so low. I would not provide them with any information and send a letter stating that if they cannot answer the DV, they must discontinue collection efforts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WhoCares1000
 

I would think that even a DV sent based on a credit report that has the account information they are reporting on would be enough for them figure out if the account is correct. Especially since the DV threshold is so low. I would not provide them with any information and send a letter stating that if they cannot answer the DV, they must discontinue collection efforts.

 

In the instance one disputes directly with a furnisher, this is what the FCRA requires:

1681s-2a(8):

(D) Submitting a notice of dispute
A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such person at the address specified by the person for such notices that—

 

(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;

(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and

(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute.

His dispute must be specific and state which information he's disputing.  If he didn't include that information, they can't conduct an investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that would depend if the OP is disputing under the FCRA or the FDCPA. If the latter, is the trade line listed as a collection item or as a creditor derog? 

 

If listed as "collections" and disputing in terms of the FDCPA, OP should just be able to cite the account number listed in the trade line. This should reserve their rights if MCM continues collection efforts.

 

/edit/ Typo: changed "OC" to "OP" in first line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bored7one4

 

Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly.  You received a collection letter that contained the 30-day validation notice as described in 1692g(a) that included something like:

 

Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid.  If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgement and mail you a copy of such judgement or verification.

 

Is that correct?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, learn California's FDCPA, found at California Civil code 1788.1 et seq.  It is basically the same as federal, but, there are some differences.  One being is that if the OC is attempting to collect their own claim, they are liable under both state and federal.  Read FDCPA 816 to find that California takes precedence, as it offers better protection.  Another is that if the debt is barred by statue, it is illegal and a violation to even attempt to collect.

 

Midland does run when confronted, most times.  Something to consider here.  Regarding their claim of needing more info, if this is being reported on your CR now, they have all of the necessary info they need to validate the claim.  Were you notified in writing that they may report the info, either 30 days prior, or following reporting the info?  If not, you have them in violation.  State statute allows you to sue for that.   Also, if they contacted you, they have the info.  When a CA is assigned, they receive the info from the creditor, which includes all info in their files, such as name, date of birth, SS#, etc, as well as banking info, if applicable.  If they purchased it, they still have this info as the OC usually prints out the folder, retains the original, and sends it off.  I've heard, but, no proof, they will sometimes just hand over the whole file, once they have purged the account from their system, and wrote off the debt.  There is still some questions as to whether it is legit to collect a claim that has been written off on taxes.  Have heard several comments on both sides, but no absolute proof, yet.

 

 

Personally, I would respond that you refuse to furnish  them any further information as by their contacting you by mail with the initial communication, they have sufficient info to process the claim.  Remember, Midland is also a debt buyer, not just an assignee.  Read their letter carefully.  You could even include in your response asking  if they purchased this debt, or, if assigned.  A way to do this is to state in your letter that you do not enter into any agreement and/or contract with a third party collector, and, will only deal with the OC.  They may go away entirely, or, will respond accordingly.

 

Lastly, spend time reading California's statutes.  Read the "pinned" at top of page on California statutes.  We began that some years back.  Also, look up "ADSOFT", and read what he posted.  He had some incredible info on his page.  Unfortunately, he doesn't visit anymore.  Wish he did.  You can also look up "Ironman".  Those two shared some very good info for California.  And, of course, look up my past.

 

As I've mentioned, I've been away for some time, but, am trying to play catch up right now.  It may not be daily, but, will try to be here at least three times a week for now.  I'm preparing a lawsuit against a Hospital and Doctor's right now, plus doing a lot of Constitutional research on several items. Don't ask me what they are as some may consider it "political".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I had 2 accounts w/ MCM, 1 of which I received a collection letter from and the other I only knew about when I pulled my credit report. I sent DV letter for both and got the same response 'we need additional documentation to investigate.' Don't provide it to them. Wait for the 30 days after receipt to pass and send them a letter that they are now in violation for continuing to report without being able to validate the debt and have 15 days to remove the entry. You should get a response a week or two later stating they are deleting the entry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for the 30 days after receipt to pass and send them a letter that they are now in violation for continuing to report without being able to validate the debt and have 15 days to remove the entry. You should get a response a week or two later stating they are deleting the entry. 

 

NONE of this is correct.  If the tradeline was there before the dunning letter there is NOTHING in the FCDPA that requires they delete the trade line if they do not respond to a DV from the consumer.  The only thing they are required to do is cease collection activities until they validate.  The courts are divided on whether a trade line reporting is collection activity and the chances of prevailing on a claim on that basis vary greatly depending on the state involved.

 

Can someone point me to a template or assist with verbiage as to how to response to them?

 

Dear MCM:

 

Under the FCDPA and (quote CA law) you are required to cease all collection activities until you respond to my request for debt validation sent to you via CMRR on (date) and received by MCM and signed for by (person) on (date).

 

I have received your recent letter requesting more information.  As the alleged owner of the debt who issued a dunning letter you should have sufficient information in your possession currently to comply with CA state law and federal laws regarding validation with a consumer.  These laws do not require that I provide anything more than my identity and address for you to send the validation which I have done. 

 

If you fail to respond to this second request for validation regarding account (number) I will be contacting a consumer attorney and the CFPB.

 

Regards,

 

Pissedoffconsumer

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for being a stranger this past week.  Too many trips to Loma Linda VA, for "Stuff".

 

Where to begin.

 

Some years ago, I posted on the subject of reporting without validation.  Will have to go back in my history to find it, so, if I err here, sorry.  Just remember, I'm old..  

 

As to continued reporting, read FDCPA 807.  You'll find your answer in subsection 8.  Do understand that a CA/JDB/ATTY is only required to report the debt as "disputed" while responding to a validation letter.  By placing "disputed" on the TL, it will not be displayed to any potential creditor until it has been validated.  It will show on your copy if you pull one during the process.  Now, to ease confusion.  Many have claimed that if you find it is not reported as "disputed", you have them in violation.  Not totally true..  If you only allowed them less than 30 days, all they have to do is show the court they have a standard for reporting, such as they report on the 22nd of each month.  Remember, the greater majority report electronically.  If you have waited at least 45 days, you will have a reasonable claim to a violation, then, will begin the process to use it to your benefit.  Of course, many wannabe judges will cave once told of their system.  Do not let this scare you away, just, be prepared to fight.  If you run into this, let me know and I'll share some tactics to use.

 

I am a firm believer, and won on two occasions, regarding the reporting of a debt.  BUT, it had noting to do with validation.  Mine was due to them verifying a debt that the statute of limitations had run.  I also used California statutes, not federal.  Simply the argument is that if a CA/JDB/ATTY verifies a debt with no legal recourse available to them, they are in violation for verifying a debt they cannot collect on.  California's statutes is clear in that "to EVEN attempt to collect a claim too old to be enforced, Is illegal and a violation."  I do take it farther as, to me, if you verify a claim that the statute has run, you are claiming a right that does not exist.  Read FDCPA 807.2(A).  Always remember, the argument lost is the argument not presented.

 

More on this as we find.

 

BUT, where the problem lies in this is the FCRA, which states an uncollected debt can be reported up to seven years.  Two different statutes, two different legalities.  Yet, the two work in unison.  This is why so many think it is illegal to report a debt not validated.  By this, if the CA/JDB/ATTY, most often a JDB, cannot prove validity, they must delete and cease all further activity.  Here, of course, is where you take up the fight to prove they can't validate.  To do this, you must use their own "proof" against them.  Will discuss when necessary, and, it will depend on the proof provided.

 

To fully understand the collection laws, know that they are written in a specific manner.  It is that a "least sophisticated consumer" can fully understand the statutes as written so as to defend themselves.  Also, and is a gigantic problem, is too many people read into a statute what is not present.  For example FDCPA 809.  Where is it written that a consumer is forbidden to request validation after the 30 day window?  It doesn't exist, yet, too many, including wannabe judges, say it does.  Some still argue, but, if it is true you only have 30 days, then, why is 809 © written?  To add, read 807 (8).  There is no timeframe, only awareness of dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just stumbled across this thread as I just had the same thing happen and posted about it here.

 

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/324358-sent-dv-letter-to-midlandquestion-about-violations/

 

I wonder what the response would be if we wrote them saying it is your job to prove this debt not mine. Now put up or shut up.....BTW if you are going to do the usual and file suit and go all the way to trial just to drop the case the day of the trial you will most definately be countersued. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Beaches . . .",

 

Many of the CA/JDB/ATTY's, when confronted like this, will continue to use that claim, especially JDB's.  Their goal is to "convince" you they know the statutes and you don't, in hopes you will cede and enter into an agreement/contract to pay  them.  Others will cave upon receiving your letter, A$$et and Midland are two that will usually cave.  If you haven't noticed, or heard yet, when confronted about the claim being  timebarred, they will state that since they now own the debt, they are within their rights, totally ignoring the FDCPA.

 

By this, the JDB's buy a "stack" of unpaid debts, for pennies on the dollar.  True, many times they will receive info that can prove the validity of the claim.  Other times they only receive a name, amount, account number, and nothing else.  These are the ones who will "create" proof, by using the tactics you noted above.  Here, of course,  their prayer is you will send them this info so they can "create" the proof.

 

For those who are not aware,   In regards to a JDB now owning the debt and claiming it resets the clock.  A$$et brought this before a court in Michigan sometime back and convinced the court they were correct, and won.  Understand, that that verdict, if still recognized, will only stand in that district.  True, they can submit it to others in hopes of obtaining the same results, but, they have yet to win another, that I know of.  The last was in Florida.

 

If they refuse to validate until you remit more personal info, and sue you, let us know.  We can guide you through this process.

 

As a side, your SS#, in the beginning was forbidden to ever be used as a form of ID.  My SS card still says it as I still have my original issued to me in the late 50's.  I think it has only been within the past 10 years, they changed this.  I noticed it first time when one of my grandchildren got their first SS card.  Just never looked it up to see when and where, and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@retmar Thanks for the info......I have been reading several boards over the past 3 years so I have a good idea about most of this info......I was thinking about challenging them by assuming they are going to sue for sure so why not just let loose on them and see if they will cower and go away. I could deal with as I have represented myself for years in family court but would rather avoid the hassle. I am going to think about it for a while before sending them another nastygram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely!!  Using their own tactics against them can work, if you take care in how you challenge them.  Do think about it.  What you can do while thinking is to write down each and every thing you know to be true, preferably in a chronological order.  Once you have this, weigh each item, look up similar challenges in the "attorney" section, then commence the attack.  Word your challenge in such a way they have no avenue of recourse.  In short, shut down each avenue of recourse they would otherwise use against you.  Leave them no other "out" then to enter into an amicable resolve for both parties, with you receiving the most.  By this, if the claim is legitimate, they want $2000, then, after you challenged them, you settled for $750, and a deletion, you won..  This I why I say to read some posts in the "attorney" section.  You will find numerous posts of how the member proceeded.  Yes, you'll need to go way back to get a fair amount of information to use. 

 

Of course, if the statute has run, your goal is for them to close, delete, and go away.

 

I've said many times before, that the words used in Spears v. Brennan, that "It does not matter that a debt be valid. What matters is how the debt is collected.", is what it is all about.  The primary purpose of the FDCPA.  Simply, if the CA/JDB/ATTY wants to play games, they must pay the price.  And, even if they are professional, to resolve in an amicable manner, in the consumers favor, so be it.

Link to comment
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.

 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.