Jump to content

MILLENNIUM FINANCIAL


paggs
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am new at this and want to start cleaning up my credit after some bad years 2009-2012

So I pulled my credit report from all three credit agency's.

I got this alert from experian today from MILLENNIUM.  I do not think I ever received any letters from them.

Should I DV the collector and dispute with the Credit agency's?

MILLENNIUM FINANCIAL G has flagged your account as Not Paying Off Your Balance and Cannot be Located.

Creditor indicated that debtor cannot be located.

ALERT DETAILS


Alert Date Apr 26, 2016
Source EXPERIAN
Company MILLENNIUM FINANCIAL G
Address None Reported
Phone -
Payment Status Not Paying Off Your Balance and Cannot be Located
Balance Date Apr 15, 2016
Balance $870
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never send a "DV" until the collector contacts me first as described in the FDCPA.  Otherwise it is as good as toilet paper.

Does it actually say "Not paying off your balance and cannot be located" on your credit report?  That is something new I have never seen.  It actually makes me laugh!!  Wow.  That is some big brass ones they have.

If you don't recognize this debt, then I would simply send a dispute to the CRAs saying I dispute this account because it is not mine.  I keep it just that simple and quick. Nothing more needs to be said.

Years ago when I dealt with Millennium, they packed up and ran away when I responded to their collection letters.  They seem to be a pretty passive collector from my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got that message as an alert from EXPERIAN.  It is an old debt so I have no idea if they sent me a letter or tried to contact me its from  2012.  I would like to get these people off my reports.  So you suggest I dispute them as not mine?

My transunion has them like this:

Account Number 40533761****
Condition Derogatory
Responsibility Individual
Current Balance $870
Original Balance $870
Status 9
Original Creditor 01 HSBC ORCHARD BANK
Opened 12/17/2012
Remarks

Placed for collection

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

Does it actually say "Not paying off your balance and cannot be located" on your credit report?  That is something new I have never seen. 

I have never seen that either.  I have to admit I didn't post in this thread after reading that because I had NO clue what to do with that status!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbb.org/oklahomacity/business-reviews/collection-agencies/millennium-financial-group-llc-in-oklahoma-city-ok-90001335/complaints

 

Apparently, several people have had similar experiences.  According to these BBB complaints, the JDB removed the credit reporting and stopped all collection until they could get their hands on paperwork evidencing the debt.  That might be a way to go, filing a complaint with the BBB.  Since it has worked for others, I mean.  Also, is your correct mailing address shown at the top of your credit report?  Have you moved in the last few years?  This debt collector seems to make a lot of claims that they sent out letters that no one ever receives.  If your correct address is on your credit reports, then they have no business claiming that they cannot locate you.  Since they are reporting on your reports, they have no doubt seen that address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

I have never seen that either.  I have to admit I didn't post in this thread after reading that because I had NO clue what to do with that status!

If that isn't an FDCPA violation, I believe it is really riding the line.  If I had something that blatant on my credit reports for all my creditors to see I would be using some pretty aggressive tactics against that JDB.

9 hours ago, kraftykrab said:

http://www.bbb.org/oklahomacity/business-reviews/collection-agencies/millennium-financial-group-llc-in-oklahoma-city-ok-90001335/complaints

 

Apparently, several people have had similar experiences.  According to these BBB complaints, the JDB removed the credit reporting and stopped all collection until they could get their hands on paperwork evidencing the debt.  That might be a way to go, filing a complaint with the BBB.  Since it has worked for others, I mean.  Also, is your correct mailing address shown at the top of your credit report?  Have you moved in the last few years?  This debt collector seems to make a lot of claims that they sent out letters that no one ever receives.  If your correct address is on your credit reports, then they have no business claiming that they cannot locate you.  Since they are reporting on your reports, they have no doubt seen that address.

This fits with my experience of Millennium being a very weak collector.  They run away from any type of push back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fisthardcheese said:

If that isn't an FDCPA violation, I believe it is really riding the line.  If I had something that blatant on my credit reports for all my creditors to see I would be using some pretty aggressive tactics against that JDB.

I agree but since it is SO unheard of the burden of proof that it is a violation would be on the consumer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should not be hard at all to prove, depending on a few key pieces of information.  For example, if the Op's current address is listed on the credit reports, then they really have no excuse.  Cannot locate someone, but their address is right there in front of you on the report?  That should qualify as misrepresenting things IMO.  If the OP still has the same address that they had when this debt would have been incurred, then they also have no excuse.  They would have gotten basic account info from the OC, and if that address has never changed, then I cannot imagine how they could not locate the person.  The only question would be trying to prove intent, because CA's love the old "bona fide error" claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2016 at 10:36 PM, kraftykrab said:

Should not be hard at all to prove, depending on a few key pieces of information.  For example, if the Op's current address is listed on the credit reports, then they really have no excuse.  Cannot locate someone, but their address is right there in front of you on the report?  That should qualify as misrepresenting things IMO.  If the OP still has the same address that they had when this debt would have been incurred, then they also have no excuse.  They would have gotten basic account info from the OC, and if that address has never changed, then I cannot imagine how they could not locate the person.  The only question would be trying to prove intent, because CA's love the old "bona fide error" claim.

I would go further and say that "not paying off your balance" is not a status.  This is a punitive action taken with the intent of poisoning the credit reports and preventing Op from doing further business with other creditors.  I would consider this inaccurate information reported by the CA. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fisthardcheese said:

I would go further and say that "not paying off your balance" is not a status.  This is a punitive action taken with the intent of poisoning the credit reports and preventing Op from doing further business with other creditors.  I would consider this inaccurate information reported by the CA. 

Every collection entry  poisons a credit report and can prevent a consumer from doing business with other creditors.   We know it's one of the reasons creditors and debt collectors report accounts.

If the account has not been paid off, then that part is accurate.  However, as kraftykrab has pointed out, if a current address is available, that part of the description is inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

Every collection entry  poisons a credit report and can prevent a consumer from doing business with other creditors.   We know it's one of the reasons creditors and debt collectors report accounts.

If the account has not been paid off, then that part is accurate.  However, as kraftykrab has pointed out, if a current address is available, that part of the description is inaccurate.

That is true, but what I meant was that it looks like a willful poisoning for the purpose of punitive/retribution.

A correct status may be something like "Unpaid"  or "Balance due" or "charge off" or "referred to collections".  However, "Not paying off your balance" is merely a statement that, I would claim, is intended to embarrass and harass the consumer.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

That is true, but what I meant was that it looks like a willful poisoning for the purpose of punitive/retribution.

A correct status may be something like "Unpaid"  or "Balance due" or "charge off" or "referred to collections".  However, "Not paying off your balance" is merely a statement that, I would claim, is intended to embarrass and harass the consumer.  

"Unpaid", "Balance due", and "charge off" all mean "not paying off your balance".   A possible creditor is not going to view "not paying off your balance" any differently than he would view  "charge off", etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

"Unpaid", "Balance due", and "charge off" all mean "not paying off your balance".   A possible creditor is not going to view "not paying off your balance" any differently than he would view  "charge off", etc.

"Not paying off your balance", to me, says that the CA has made attempts to collect this debt.  Op states that they have gotten no letters or calls from this CA.  That is my issue with such statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

"Not paying off your balance", to me, says that the CA has made attempts to collect this debt.  Op states that they have gotten no letters or calls from this CA.  That is my issue with such statement.

How does it imply that they've attempted to collect?   If they get an account that is not paid, then the balance is not paid off. 

Whether or not they can locate the OP is not an issue in regard to reporting that the balance is not paid.  There's no requirement to send a dunning letter before reporting an unpaid balance.

JDBs can sue without ever sending a collection letter.  In their complaint, they can say that the account has not been paid.   There is no requirement that the JDB had to attempt to collect the debt before being able to make such a claim.

My issue would be with the "cannot be located" IF a current address is on the account or the CR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that would really be needed would be the "unable to locate" issue, remember that the FDCPA allows only for a max of $1000 statutory damages whether they violate it once of a hundred times.  So, if you can show that your credit report contains your current address--especially if you have lived at that same address for some time and it has been on the report that whole time--then the rest really does not matter.  At most, I could maybe see using the "not paying your balance" as some sort of attack in a supporting role.  Separately, the "not paying your balance" and "unable to locate" might not make much difference.  But take the two of them together, and if you can show ill intent on the "unable to locate", it might sway a judge to believe that the whole entry was designed to be more of a characterization than a simple statement.  This is only me speculating out loud, so please, don't anyone try to hang me out to dry with differing opinions.  I am far from trying to make any definitive claim there.  I like BV's idea, that the unable to locate itself would be worth pursuing.  If the OP lives at the same address now as when this account was actually in use, then that would only serve to strengthen your claim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kraftykrab said:

All that would really be needed would be the "unable to locate" issue, remember that the FDCPA allows only for a max of $1000 statutory damages whether they violate it once of a hundred times.  So, if you can show that your credit report contains your current address--especially if you have lived at that same address for some time and it has been on the report that whole time--then the rest really does not matter.  At most, I could maybe see using the "not paying your balance" as some sort of attack in a supporting role.  Separately, the "not paying your balance" and "unable to locate" might not make much difference.  But take the two of them together, and if you can show ill intent on the "unable to locate", it might sway a judge to believe that the whole entry was designed to be more of a characterization than a simple statement.  This is only me speculating out loud, so please, don't anyone try to hang me out to dry with differing opinions.  I am far from trying to make any definitive claim there.  I like BV's idea, that the unable to locate itself would be worth pursuing.  If the OP lives at the same address now as when this account was actually in use, then that would only serve to strengthen your claim.

 

Don't forget that a willful violation of the FCRA also allows punitive damages in addition to the statutory $100 - $1000.  I would claim both violations.  While we have a disagreement over the "not paying off your balance" language, we do agree that the "unable to locate" is a more solid violation if location is easily obtainable.  If I were going to file a suit over the latter, I would include the other language as well and I would include both FCRA and FDCPA violations.  I find it is always best to maximize your action, especially given that an overwhelming majority of cases settle at some point prior to a judge or jury hearing the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fisthardcheese said:

While we have a disagreement over the "not paying off your balance" language, we do agree that the "unable to locate" is a more solid violation if location is easily obtainable. 

Yes, we're going to disagree on that issue.  :)

I'm not trying to be argumentative.  I truly don't understand how "not paying off your balance" indicates the debt collector has attempted to collect or is somehow deceptive or illegal.

Is there precedent that supports your claim?   If not, the claim is too easy to discredit simply because every negative TL from an OC or debt collector means that the balance is not paid off.   

Personally, I would not even include that claim because it because, absent precedent, it's way too easy to discredit.   I'd want the court to focus on what can be proven.

In the event the CR and/or account statements show a current address, it's the "cannot locate" that indicates Millenium has attempted to locate the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Yes, we're going to disagree on that issue.  :)

I'm not trying to be argumentative.  I truly don't understand how "not paying off your balance" indicates the debt collector has attempted to collect or is somehow deceptive or illegal.

Is there precedent that supports your claim?   If not, the claim is too easy to discredit simply because every negative TL from an OC or debt collector means that the balance is not paid off.   

Personally, I would not even include that claim because it because, absent precedent, it's way too easy to discredit.   I'd want the court to focus on what can be proven.

In the event the CR and/or account statements show a current address, it's the "cannot locate" that indicates Millenium has attempted to locate the OP.

I know you aren't being argumentative, I just don't know another way to explain my position.  I will give it one last shot, though. :)

Imagine you were talking to a friend and they said "Hey, our other friend said you didn't pay the bill you owed him"  yet that person never presented you with a bill and this is the first time you are hearing of such a bill owed to this person.  While it MAY be accurate that "you owe this bill", the picture it paints to other people is that you REFUSE to take care of obligations, which may not be the case at all if you never knew about it.  I would argue that the way this is worded on the credit report makes it the same as if the status read "deadbeat".  It turns the factual status of the account into an editorialized opinion of the consumer.  That is what my contention is with it.

As far as precedent, I highly doubt there is any, as none of us have ever seen this wording on a report before.  This is certainly the first time I have seen it and if someone just told me this is what it said, I would never believe them.  When I saw the image of the report myself that Op posted, I was initially shocked at how it is written.

Believe me, I understand the importance of precedence in court cases, however, there are times when something distinctly new comes up where one must set the precedence.  I'm not saying a pro se with little to no court experience should be attempting to set that precedence, either. I am simply pointing out that I believe this could be a violation sans precedence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

Imagine you were talking to a friend and they said "Hey, our other friend said you didn't pay the bill you owed him"  yet that person never presented you with a bill and this is the first time you are hearing of such a bill owed to this person.  While it MAY be accurate that "you owe this bill", the picture it paints to other people is that you REFUSE to take care of obligations, which may not be the case at all if you never knew about it.  I would argue that the way this is worded on the credit report makes it the same as if the status read "deadbeat".  It turns the factual status of the account into an editorialized opinion of the consumer.  That is what my contention is with it.

I really do understand what you mean.  

Millenium did not indicate in any way that the OP has refused to pay his bill.  They simply said he hasn't paid it.   If the bill is owed by the OP and he hasn't paid it, how "has not" turn into "refuses to"?

Any TL that indicates an account has not been paid could be said to say you refuse to pay your bill.   How can you make that argument?

 

 

 

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.