| Author |
Message |
    
Christine
Moderator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 79
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |      |
The "validation" of debt:
|
Christine
Moderator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 80
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 01:05 pm: | |
The bizarre credit reporting:
Trans Union
LVNV FUNDING (Individual Account) Not on Record
Account Number XXXX
Account Type Open Account
Credit Limit
(High Credit)
$1,245
Minimum Monthly Payment (Terms)
Date Opened June, 2005
Date of Last Activity November, 2004
Date Paid Out Not on Record
Date Closed Not on Record
Loan Type Factoring Company Account
Collateral 12 SEARS CITI SEARS
Description Placed for collection
Last Report on January, 2006
Balance Current status Past Due Amount
$1,294 Collection account $1,294
Seven Year Payment History
30 days late: 0
60 days late: 0
90+ days late: 0
-- NOTE: Since there's no "date closed" or "date paid out", FICO scores rate the account as CURRENTLY delinquent.
Equifax
LVNVFUNDG (Individual) Not on Record
Account Number Not on Record
Account Type Open Account
Credit Limit
(High Credit)
$1,245
Minimum Monthly Payment (Terms) $0
Date Opened Not on Record
Date of Last Activity December, 2004
Description Collection account
Last Report on January, 2006
Balance Current status Past Due Amount
$1,294 120+ days past due $1,294
Seven Year Payment History
30 days late: 0
60 days late: 0
90+ days late: 0
-- NOTE: While the DLA is 12/04, the account was reported on 1/06 with a "CURRENT status" as delinquent.
Experian
LVNV FUNDING (Individual) Not on Record
Account Number XXXX
Account Type Installment
Credit Limit
(High Credit)
Original Amount 00001245
Minimum Monthly Payment (Terms)
1 Month
Date Opened June, 2005
Date of Status July, 2005
Last Payment Date Not on Record
Loan Type Unknown - Credit Extension, Review, Or Collection
Collateral
Description
Last Report on January, 2006
Balance Current status Past Due Amount
$1,294 Account seriously past due date/account assigned to attorney, collection agency, or credit grantor's internal collection department $1,294
Seven Year Payment History
30 days late: 0
60 days late: 0
90+ days late: 7 x 1/2006, 12/2005, 11/2005, 10/2005, 9/2005, 8/2005, 7/2005
--NOTE: The "status date" is 7/05 and that's an important date for the FICO scores. It SHOULD be the date when the account was charged off.
The 90+ day LATE payment in 1/06 effectively reages the account to a 1/06 default.
Collections can NEVER be legally reported with late payments.
|
Christine
Moderator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 81
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 01:17 pm: | |
If this was MY account, I would request that the CRAs not only delete the reporting, but immediately cease reporting collection accounts as open tradelines.
You can have a 5 year old unpaid collection reported CORRECTLY as a collection and get a 700+ FICO score.
When it's reported as a TRADELINE as LVNV does, there's nothing you can do to improve the scores other than to PAY.
If it's the only derog, changing the balances to $0 can still lower the FICO scores 50+ points more than when the account is reported correctly as collection.
This is your classic RACKETEERING scheme.
The bureaus deliberately report these collections as tradelines to inflict maximum damages on consumers because they PROFIT from the collectors' payments for reporting AND from the reports they subsequently get to sell.
Consumers with poor credit are much more profitable because they pay a lot more interest and fees and creditors therefore TARGET them by buying their reports from CRAs for promos.
And of course those consumers also purchase more credit reports because they want to improve their credit.
The collectors are obviously profiting from the incorrect reporting because more consumers pay when they have to increase their credit scores.
This is the "we'll break you legs" collection tactic and it's just as illegal - the collectors and the bureaus conspire to report false information on the credit reports. They all know that these accounts are old charge-offs reported by a COLLECTOR and the accounts are NOT tradelines.
Somebody ought to file a RICO suit.
The DOJ SHOULD be suing on behalf of consumers. Fat chance.
If anyone with a LVNV or any other collection account reported as tradeline wants to do something about it, I'm certainly willing to help.
PUBLICITY is real important and as soon as a consumer files the lawsuit I can send out a press release about this, copy the DOJ, CRAs, etc.
It's unlikely that consumer attorneys will do more than sue for their legal fees and a few bucks for the client, of course with a confidential settlement and they don't want ANY publicity. Most are in it for easy repeat business.
The CRAs would fight a judgment, appeal, etc. and essentially try to bankrupt an individual attorney - I understand how this works now. So even attorneys really care, it's unlikely that they have the cash to pursue this through an appeal.
This would make a good class action too, but that's even more expensive.
It's up to a brave consumer litigant to make some noise. |
Christine
Moderator
Username: Christine
Post Number: 93
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 08:52 pm: | |
A reader posted at the blog at http://creditsuit.org/credit.php/blog/comments/update_on_lvnv_funding_validation _and_credit_reporting/
"... I think the fake affidavit of debt falls under FDCPA 807 (9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsley represented to be a document Authorized, Issued, or Approved by any Court, OFFICIAL, or Agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization or approval. ..."
*I* didn't look at it this way, but the average consumer might well believe that this document means something. My client certainly did. |
|
LVNV validation