Gorbah Posted June 8, 2018 Report Share Posted June 8, 2018 A retail credit card was fraudulently opened in my name. I don't know if this is zombied or if this bait and switch or even legal for that matter. I'll do my best to explain . Cap1 hired PRA in 2016 and 2017 and got a couple collection letters from them. They listed HSBC as the OC, Cap1 as the current creditor and then the retailer. Sent off all my info proving it was fraud and got the standard letter from PRA stating that they will no longer pursue collections, removed from CRA's, and given back to OC. Well Cap1 and PRA both dropped off my credit report. Fast forward to the current day and I recently got another letter from PRA. The OC that they listed was Citi, had a different account number, but asking the same amount as the old 2016/2017 letter naming HSBC and Cap1. Now Cap1 and PRA are back on my credit report again for the same amount that they claim I owe Citi . Citi is not on my credit report. From my understanding Citi owned the retail card, then was sold to HSBC, then sold to Cap1. Then half were bought back by Citi. It's a bit complex to follow who sold and bought what as far as solid dates and the best info I can gather at this point. This is just waaaay too coincidental. Same dollar amount, different account and OC named after I get a letter stating they'll no longer pursue then Cap1 and PRA show up on my credit report again. Can some explain what this falls under? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest usctrojanalum Posted June 8, 2018 Report Share Posted June 8, 2018 There are too many possibilities to speculate as to what happened. Could be something like they merged two accounts together in their computer database or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Seaward Posted June 8, 2018 Report Share Posted June 8, 2018 This is what sucks about ID theft in a world where accounts are bought and sold in bulk. I agree that it's almost impossible for this to be a mere coincidence, however, because it's coming in with a different OC and account # this time, it's not considered a 'reinsertion' and you first have to send off your fraud report info again and see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorbah Posted June 8, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2018 Appreciate the input. Should I include the old letters of PRA not pursuing as well or just the fraud report? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackFromTheDebt Posted June 8, 2018 Report Share Posted June 8, 2018 16 minutes ago, Gorbah said: Appreciate the input. Should I include the old letters of PRA not pursuing as well or just the fraud report? Absolutely the fraud report. Hard to say about PRA not pursuing earlier. Did they fight this coming off your CRA? If not, leave it be. If so, it probably wouldn't hurt to include the letters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorbah Posted June 8, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2018 The first time PRA attempted to collect no they did not. The recent letter from Cap1 states they sold it to PRA. PRA is now claiming Citi as OC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clydesmom Posted June 8, 2018 Report Share Posted June 8, 2018 A few years back CITI sold a bunch of credit accounts to HSBC because they got out of the business. I think one of the more recognizable ones was Best Buy credit cards. Then HSBC got out of credit cards all together and sold them to Cap1. My guess is that PRA is not using a lick of common sense to figure out it is the same account or they don't care. I would send a copy of the ID theft reports and a new letter reminding them that this account is the same one you informed them was identity theft and they need to cease and desist AND delete immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Seaward Posted June 9, 2018 Report Share Posted June 9, 2018 17 hours ago, Clydesmom said: My guess is that PRA is not using a lick of common sense to figure out it is the same account There isn't a George in the Common Sense department looking at each of 100,000 accounts to see if there are any similarities with the other 100,000 accounts. The accounts were just lines in a spreadsheet, each of these two with different OC and account number. The only similarity is the dollar amount, which in 100,000 accounts probably happens relatively often, so they wouldn't be filtering on that value. Common sense actually says this should be happening much more often than it seems to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorbah Posted June 9, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2018 I wouldn't even bring it to common sense. More of an elaborate attempt to collect on a debt they know they can "legally" get away with by simply switching account numbers and OC's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Seaward Posted June 11, 2018 Report Share Posted June 11, 2018 On 6/9/2018 at 9:19 AM, Gorbah said: I wouldn't even bring it to common sense. More of an elaborate attempt to collect on a debt they know they can "legally" get away with by simply switching account numbers and OC's. "Legally" they can't knowingly do what you theorize they did. I promise you this is a case of one hand not knowing what the other has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.