Sign in to follow this  
h8spleadingpaper

Can I Nail Midland on an FDCPA Violation?

Recommended Posts

Hi, All.

 

Midland has been harassing me with phone calls and settlement offers regarding an alleged credit card debt for some time now.  I've never responded.  They're also reporting on my CR and I'd like to find a way to get it off, particularly since they entered the start date for the purported account 4 years after the alleged OC default.  

 

I believe that they've avoided filing a lawsuit because in California, this alleged debt would now be about a year beyond the SOL.  I've read elsewhere on the site that reporting on my CR without listing it as "disputed" may be an FDCPA violation.  Can anyone confirm or disprove this?

 

Thanks,

 

H8spp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not pay them a dime or agree to a settlement. You could restart the SOL. The long it's on your CR the less damage it will do after a couple of years. Only if your buy a house or something major will it hurt you. Mine fell off after seven years, but yes, the can go 7.5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@h8spleadingpaper

 

Midland's "start date" may not be a problem.  Is that date being reported as the date the account was opened?  If so, that's the date the account was opened in Midland's files and does not affect when the account will fall off your CR.  The 7 year reporting period is determined by the date of first delinquency reported by the OC. 

 

In regard to a dispute, did you send a dispute letter to Midland?  Have you disputed it with the CRAs?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's beyond the SOL, tell them to pound sand. Send them a cease and desist letter, CMRRR. At least you'll have the peace of no more phone calls.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I Nail Midland on an FDCPA Violation?

In a general sense, yes you absolutely can.  Can you with the current information and evidence you currently have?  It would be tough.

 

I would just put yourself in a position to catch more of their inevitable violations and once there is more solid evidence, then I would hit them with a lawsuit.  Patience is the key.  They will violate, that is a given.  You just have to make sure you have set the proper foundations for it and are there to accurately document their violations.  That's when you nail Midland.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@h8spleadingpaper  I can't find what I was looking for.  If I find it, I will let you know.  I had 5 on my CR that all showed "Disputed, meets FCRA"..and I hadn't talked to any of the JDBs that had the accounts listed.  Seems you are on the other side of the issue compared to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CommoSGT

 

 

@h8spleadingpaper  I can't find what I was looking for.  If I find it, I will let you know.  I had 5 on my CR that all showed "Disputed, meets FCRA"..and I hadn't talked to any of the JDBs that had the accounts listed.  Seems you are on the other side of the issue compared to me.

 

While you didn't talk to the JDBs, had you disputed with the CRAs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CommoSGT

 

Well, that's just weird. 

 

We said "talk", but I take it you didn't send a DV letter to the JDBs?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you never disputed, then they don't have to mark it as disputed.  As to why the others were, no idea, but Midland isn't violating anything by not reporting as disputed if you never sent them anything actually disputing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beat Midland in Court and the judge dismissed the case.  Do they have to remove the information from my credit report now?

 

They don't have to, but you might be able to get it removed.  Was it either a dismissal with prejudice or a judgemnt in favor of defendant, by chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CommoSGT

 

 

@BV80   I had no contact whatsoever with them or the CRA other than pulling my credit report.  I had been served and hadn't answered yet on them.

 

LIke I said, it's weird.  Perhaps they added that statement to your CR just to cover their tushies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beat Midland in Court and the judge dismissed the case.  Do they have to remove the information from my credit report now?

My understanding is also that they don't have to remove it, but when I beat Portfolio earlier this year, the collection tradeline disappeared from my CR shortly thereafter.  Might be worth checking (don't forget that you can get a free credit report from all 3 agencies, once per year).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, folks.

 

Really sorry about this, but I now realize I misspoke and was actually referring to two different situations with two different JDBs.

 

The first is Midland, who have been calling and sending me settlement offer letters with great frequency over the last few months, even though they failed to file a suit before the SOL was up in California.  I've been wanting to send them a C&D letter for a while now, as RyanEX suggested.  Anyone have any thoughts as to what their next move would likely be after receiving it (i.e. - selling the alleged account off to another JDB, asking how I know it's beyond the SOL since I haven't been given the particulars in a lawsuit, filing a suit as a scare tactic, which would of course be an FDCPA violation, etc)?  Also, would they still be able to list on my CR after receiving a C&D (I'm assuming so) and if so, would they have to list the tradeline as "disputed"?

 

The other (and perhaps more pertinent) situation involves Absolute Resolutions, who are currently suing me over another alleged c.c. account (trial set for early 2016).  They are also listing on my CR and the tradeline is not listed as "disputed."  Since I denied the allegations of the suit in my Answer to the Complaint, shouldn't Absolute have to list it as "disputed," or is that only applicable if I've disputed it directly with the CRAs?

 

Thanks for any insights you may be able to provide! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@h8spleadingpaper

 

The first is Midland, who have been calling and sending me settlement offer letters with great frequency over the last few months, even though they failed to file a suit before the SOL was up in California.  I've been wanting to send them a C&D letter for a while now, as RyanEX suggested.  Anyone have any thoughts as to what their next move would likely be after receiving it (i.e. - selling the alleged account off to another JDB, asking how I know it's beyond the SOL since I haven't been given the particulars in a lawsuit, filing a suit as a scare tactic, which would of course be an FDCPA violation, etc)?  Also, would they still be able to list on my CR after receiving a C&D (I'm assuming so) and if so, would they have to list the tradeline as "disputed"?

 

 

There's no way of predicting a JDB's future actions after receiving a C&D.   In regard to the fact that the debt is time-barred, don't inform Midland of that fact because you're not required to do so.  It's the duty of the owner of a debt to determine its status.

 

They can still report after receiving a C&D and do not have to list the TL as disputed.

 

The other (and perhaps more pertinent) situation involves Absolute Resolutions, who are currently suing me over another alleged c.c. account (trial set for early 2016).  They are also listing on my CR and the tradeline is not listed as "disputed."  Since I denied the allegations of the suit in my Answer to the Complaint, shouldn't Absolute have to list it as "disputed," or is that only applicable if I've disputed it directly with the CRAs?

 

 

The FDCPA provides that debt collectors can assume a debt to be valid if it is not disputed within 30 days after an initial communication (1692g).   I don't know if you received an initial communication before you were sued, but a legal pleading is not considered an initial communication under 1692g(d) of the FDCPA.   So denying the debt in your answer would not be considered a dispute for purposes of 1692g.

 

There is also no requirement that a debt collector send an initial communication before they report on your CR or file suit.  While that doesn't allow you to dispute under the FDCPA, you can still dispute with the credit bureaus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@h8spleadingpaper

 

I'm to recant some of the information in my post.  I still believe answering a complaint is a "dispute" that would require a JDB who is already reporting on your CR to include that the debt is disputed. 

 

However, if you've never received an initial communication, I think it might be up in the air as to whether you can still send a "dispute" letter and they'd have to note that the debt is disputed if they're reporting it.

 

Note that just because a TL appears on your CR doesn't mean the furnisher (JDB) is "reporting".   A TL that's not being updated can still be on your CR.  For instance, when an OC sells a debt, the OC's TL remains on your CR, but it's no longer updated.   A JDB can do the same thing.  They don't have to update.  So if you dispute with the JDB directly, they technically can just cease to update. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, BV80.  Not sure I really understand the above.  Perhaps to be more to the point, I should just talk about the situation with Midland for a moment.

 

Midland is currently reporting on my CR for an alleged account purported to have originally been owned by Citibank.  Despite the fact that the alleged Citibank account was purportedly charged off in 2010, Midland didn't start reporting until 2014 (the supposed account passed through numerous JDB hands before Midland allegedly acquired it in 2014).  Because of this, the Midland tradeline is scheduled to stay on my CR until 2018 (!).  

 

Citibank is no longer reporting on the account and I'm wondering if there's any way at all that I can use this fact to try to have the tradeline removed by disputing with the CRAs (I've read here that the 623 method might work).  Alternately, I'm wondering if sending C&D letter would give me any leverage at all in getting it removed (i.e. - if Midland were to choose to give up on the account because they can't expect to win due to the SOL and know from the C&D letter that I have no intention to give them anything, they might abandon it and remove the tradeline).  I realize that JDBs are unpredictable, so I'm just wondering if anyone has seen the above scenarios play out before. 

 

Having this tradeline on my CR until 2018 is really going to hurt me, but I have no intention of settling with a JDB on an alleged account that is over a year past SOL in CA.  Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or if I'm just stuck with it.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@h8spleadingpaper

 

Midland didn't start reporting until 2014 (the supposed account passed through numerous JDB hands before Midland allegedly acquired it in 2014).  Because of this, the Midland tradeline is scheduled to stay on my CR until 2018 (!).

 

 

That's not the reason the account is scheduled to remain on your CR until 2018.  The date the enty is removed is based on the OC's entry.  A negative account can remain on your CR for 7.5 years from the date it was either sent to collection or from the date of charge-off.   Any JDB or CA entry for that account will fall off at the same time as the OC's entry.

 

 

Citibank is no longer reporting on the account and I'm wondering if there's any way at all that I can use this fact to try to have the tradeline removed by disputing with the CRAs (I've read here that the 623 method might work).

 

 

Is Citibank's entry still on the report? 

 

 

Alternately, I'm wondering if sending C&D letter would give me any leverage at all in getting it removed (i.e. - if Midland were to choose to give up on the account because they can't expect to win due to the SOL and know from the C&D letter that I have no intention to give them anything, they might abandon it and remove the tradeline).

 

 

That could happen, so I'd dispute it. 

 

 

Having this tradeline on my CR until 2018 is really going to hurt me, but I have no intention of settling with a JDB on an alleged account that is over a year past SOL in CA.  Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or if I'm just stuck with it.

 

 

The older a negative entry becomes, the less effect it has on your CR, especially if you have current accounts in good standing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's not the reason the account is scheduled to remain on your CR until 2018.  The date the enty is removed is based on the OC's entry.  A negative account can remain on your CR for 7.5 years from the date it was either sent to collection or from the date of charge-off.   Any JDB or CA entry for that account will fall off at the same time as the OC's entry.

 

Ah, I see.   Good to know.

 

 

Is Citibank's entry still on the report? 

 

Negative.  No tradeline from Citibank is currently on my reports.  Is this helpful to me?

 

 

That could happen, so I'd dispute it. 

 

By dispute, do you mean send the C&D letter?  Just want to clarify.

 

 

The older a negative entry becomes, the less effect it has on your CR, especially if you have current accounts in good standing.

 

Right.  So since the JDB tradeline is listed as "Opened" in 2014 (despite the fact that the charge off on the alleged account with the OC was 2010), I feel like this listing carries an undue amount of weight on my credit score, since it makes it appear as though the negative listing is in regard to something that supposedly happened last year instead of 2010.  Am I thinking about this incorrectly?  Again, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@h8spleadingpaper

 

Is Citibank's entry still on the report? 

 

Negative.  No tradeline from Citibank is currently on my reports.  Is this helpful to me?

 

 

Not really.   It would have been easier if Citi's entry was still on your CR so that you could see exactly what they reported as the "date of first delinquency".   The reporting period is actually 7 years from the date of first delinquency, but some CRAs  go by the charge-off date.  Usually charge-off occurs 3 to 6 months after a delinquency if the account is not brought current again, so that's where the 7.5 year figure comes from.  The charge-off date adds a few months to the reporting period.

 

 

By dispute, do you mean send the C&D letter?  Just want to clarify.

 

 

No.  You file a dispute with the credit reporting agencies.   You can dispute the balance or any other information.  The CRAs have to let the furnisher know about the dispute, and the furnisher must either correct the disputed information (if it's inaccurate) or verify that the information is correct.  Midland might decide they don't want to fool with it, won't verify, and the CRAs will delete the entry.

 

However, if Midland verifies, you can send a "method of verification" request to the CRAs.  They must respond within 15 days. 

 

Anyway, if Midland verifies, unless you have proof that information is incorrect, there's not that much you can do. 

 

 

Right.  So since the JDB tradeline is listed as "Opened" in 2014 (despite the fact that the charge off on the alleged account with the OC was 2010), I feel like this listing carries an undue amount of weight on my credit score, since it makes it appear as though the negative listing is in regard to something that supposedly happened last year instead of 2010.  Am I thinking about this incorrectly?  Again, thanks.

 

 

In this situation, "opened" means the date Midland opened the account in their files.  The fact that the entry is going to be deleted in 2018 shows creditors that you did not open the account in 2014.  An account that was opened in 2014 would remain on your CR past 2018.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this