Pheasant Gunner

Collections in credit report.

Recommended Posts

I have a civil suite against me by a collection agency and the creditor is Capital One card services. I show two collection accounts on my credit report and the agency that is suing me has mailed me exhibits with account numbers on them. I have disputed the Capital One Card Services account and they have mailed me back a copy of the dispute and have informed me the information is correct. The account # the collection agency has mailed me on a statement is not the same account # on my credit report report that is in collections. A trial date is coming soon and shouldn't this be dismissed because of different account numbers? I have no other Capital One card services cards. Please advise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends.  many collection agencies or jdb's assign new account numbers when they transfer over the account.  did they send you anything about assignment?  like a bill of sale from cap one to collection, or an affidavit that says they have assigned your account to collection agency?  If not, you could win this just because they have no right to collect.  I would suggest you search out other Ohio posts and start studying. 

Have they sent you any evidence? Have you asked for any production of documents? If you have not asked for anything, you might want to look and see if your CC has an arbitration clause, then file a motion to dismiss/motion to compel arbitration.  If they don't you would need to sudy your rules of civil procedure, posts from here, ask questions as you go in this thread to try and fight it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, shellieh98 said:

Depends.  many collection agencies or jdb's assign new account numbers when they transfer over the account.

@Pheasant Gunner

@shellieh98made an excellent point.   One company (whether another bank or a debt collector) cannot use the account number of another company.    A new company can refer to the previous account number, but it must assign its own account number that is associated with its business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really need some help with this same issue.  So last year i was searching the forums to get help with 2 credit cards that went to junk debt buyers....Midland Funding (south carolina).  

 

Fortunately, both cases were dismissed without prejudice!!!!!! thank you both for your posts!!!  So, now Midland Credit (CA)which according to their website is also Midland Funding has put both collections on my credit.  I have tried several time to dispute these reports. Sending in copies of the court docs with the dismissal; a print off of their company website showing that this is still them and I still do not owe.   And just for good measure also included the SOL for SC which is 3 years so either way cannot be on my credit.  Have went to the length of reporting this to BBB and still nothing!!!

I need help getting these items removed! Any help is greatly appreciated.  btw, i sent last week certified copies to midland credit in california same docs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mimi63 said:

Fortunately, both cases were dismissed without prejudice!!!!!!

Congratulations on the dismissals!  :)

 

12 minutes ago, mimi63 said:

So, now Midland Credit (CA)which according to their website is also Midland Funding has put both collections on my credit.  I have tried several time to dispute these reports. Sending in copies of the court docs with the dismissal; a print off of their company website showing that this is still them and I still do not owe.

Were the lawsuits dismissed voluntarily by Midland?   If so, then the court did not rule you that you don't owe the debts.   Unless the court ruled you don't owe the debts, the copies of the dismissals won't really help you.

 

12 minutes ago, mimi63 said:

And just for good measure also included the SOL for SC which is 3 years so either way cannot be on my credit.

The SC SOL for collection (3 years) is different from the SOL for reporting on your CR.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act allows negative entries to be reported for 7.5 years from the date of first delinquency (date provided by the OC) or 7 years from the date of charge-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First - thank you!!! 

Both were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff - midland funding.  The court document stated dismissed without prejudice.  Your response is appreciated, I am trying to get my credit on point...and these are the only 2 issues.  I guess I should be grateful its only 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mimi63 said:

First - thank you!!! 

Both were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff - midland funding.  The court document stated dismissed without prejudice.  Your response is appreciated, I am trying to get my credit on point...and these are the only 2 issues.  I guess I should be grateful its only 2.

Check every detail to make sure the accounts are being reported correctly.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will do - its obviously frustrating at this point to get so  far.  This forum was pivotal and my main resource for assisting me - and thank you does magnify the amount of gratitude . I am close to getting my financial house in order!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could dispute again in writing and ask the CRA for a Method of validation.  They have no send you the name and # of the person validating the entry, or they have to delete it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Shellie!  I am going to do as you suggested.  I appreciate your response very much.

I don't understand how the CRA is not understanding the documents that were sent from me disputing the validity.  Those court docs are signed by the attorneys for the plaintiff for (midland funding) with the dismissal on it which to me is their response to the "collection".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mimi63 said:

I don't understand how the CRA is not understanding the documents that were sent from me disputing the validity.

Because it is exactly as @BV80 said:  the court did not rule on the merits of the evidence that you did not owe this debt which would mean it could be removed.  Midland simply chose not to pursue it "right now" and a dismissal without prejudice means they can still sue again (though they likely won't) and it does not affect the reporting.  If the papers said the court ruled you don't owe it the CRA(s) would have to pay attention to it.  Midland simply standing down means they can and will ignore the dismissal.

8 minutes ago, mimi63 said:

Those court docs are signed by the attorneys for the plaintiff for (midland funding) with the dismissal on it which to me is their response to the "collection".  

Nope.  It is their response to the lawsuit and that you are not low hanging fruit of an easy default judgment and nothing more.  Their response to the collection is to use their last major weapon in their arsenal which is to report to the bitter end.  You have nothing to lose by trying what @shellieh98suggested but don't get your hopes up.  What we have seen Midland do is simply give up the name of one of their employees and the corporate headquarters address and that ends it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mimi63 said:

Thanks Shellie!  I am going to do as you suggested.  I appreciate your response very much.

I don't understand how the CRA is not understanding the documents that were sent from me disputing the validity.  Those court docs are signed by the attorneys for the plaintiff for (midland funding) with the dismissal on it which to me is their response to the "collection".  

Note that in a response to a method of validation, "individual" means the name and address of the furnisher (business).  It does not mean the name of the individual person at the business has to be provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey everybody, been awhile, been living life and keeping my nose clean. glad to see the same old friendly faces still helping people :)

this month marks 6 years and 10 mos since we went nuclear...im wondering if Midland typically drops off like they should at 7-7.5 years after first delinquency. all of the "Accounts" they have listed on my reports are dated 12-24 months later

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, qbert said:

hey everybody, been awhile, been living life and keeping my nose clean. glad to see the same old friendly faces still helping people :)

this month marks 6 years and 10 mos since we went nuclear...im wondering if Midland typically drops off like they should at 7-7.5 years after first delinquency. all of the "Accounts" they have listed on my reports are dated 12-24 months later

 

The accounts will fall off based upon the date of first delinquency.  Are the dates they're reporting listed as "account opened" or something like that?  If so, that doesn't change the date of first delinquency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, qbert said:

yeah its bs arbitrary "account opened" dates in the 2012 range

In regard to JDBs and other collection agencies, "account opened" only means the date the account was opened in that business's file.  It should not effect the OC's date of first delinquency (DOFD).

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.