Experience with LVNV

[hrht]

Hi friends,

Does anyone have experience in dealing with LVNV? My credit score is fair and was on it's way to becoming a good one until these morons opened an account on Equifax. The amount is $139.00 but I am certain it is not mine. Also, they have not mentioned the original creditor. Is that legal?

I am sending them debt validation letter today.



Regards,
hrht.

[fusioncredit]

First off LVNV blows!!! I am actually helping my brother out with a suit pending from them. First hearing was in 06/11...my brother showed up to fight it and some rep for the attorney was there on their behalf and asked my brother if he wanted to settle...my brother told them NO and it was rescheduled for 09/11...my brother shows up and the same rep is there on behalf of the attorney....at this time my brother is irritated and tells the rep that he wants a trial so she tells him to go back into the court room and the Judge tells him to go up stairs to another court room. Finally we got the court clerk to set a trial date for 01/12...if the attorney is not present by then the case will be dismissed in favor of my brother and if by any chance someone is there on behalf of the attorney and don't have any of the documents that my brother has requested the case will be dismissed.

Regarding the collection on the credit report...I would first dispute it with CRA because the way LVNV funding is with their records they won't verify the account in 30 days so the CRA will have to remove it. Remember you can dispute anything on your credit report at anytime, for any reason. The burden of proof is on the CRAs. You are the plaintiff, the CRAs are the defendant. You will need to get in that mindset when dealing with disputes. The best way of disputing is in writing, by mail. It's best not to dispute online. You can dispute as often as you want, but you should wait 30-40 days between disputes. If you send a dispute before that, it extends the current dispute.

[hrht]

Thanks so much! I have placed the item under dispute with Equifax. I called LNLV yesterday and guess what year is this from - 2001 !! Can they bring it back on my credit report? The guy answering the call did not have any idea of what he was talking about.

What are my options in case other than disputing this item?


Thanks.

[fusioncredit]

I take it you disputed online right? Are you subscribed to their monthly monitoring service?

Since you mentioned it is from 2001 yea it's past SOL and past the 7 year time frame to be even on a credit report so it should be removed ASAP by CRA. If EQ verifies it and doesn't remove it then you want to write a letter to them and mention the SOL has passed plus it's past the 7 year time frame which they should be aware unless the person who reviews the dispute is just too stupid to know. But either way you don't have anything to worry about LVNV (scum bag) going after you because if they did they would only waste money for no reason.

[hrht]

Thanks again. Yes, I disputed online. I have subscribed to all 3 reporting monitors. It is worth the money spent. When I got an alert yesterday, I was PISSED to say the least. The first thing I did was to dispute it. I then called LNLV (a*holes) after work and that is when they told me that it was from 2001. Should I wait till I get the results from Equifax or should I send them letter asking LNLV to take it out ? Equifax takes the longest to obtain results of disputed item.

Experian and Trans Union are pretty quick. In any case I think these debt collection agencies like LNLV should be taught a lesson.


Regards

[fusioncredit]

Since you already disputed it online just wait to see if they delete it. How long have you had the monitoring service? Do you have other negative stuff on any of your credit reports?

You know LVNV is just one of many JDB (Junk Debt Buyer) along with Midland and their affiliates/subsidiaries

What they do is buy all this bad debt and some people will pay them to get them off their backs but if people are smart like you who search for help educate themselves to not be afraid of these scum bags

[hrht]

Ok. I've had these monitoring services for almost a year now. These are not 3rd party services but belong to 3 credit bureaus (exp,eq, tra).

I had 3 negative entries last year. 1 was genuine and I was able to negotiate a pay for delete with them. That was taken out. The 2nd was from NCO Financials (another bunch of morons). They were not able to validate so that taken out too. Same with 3rd.

I think these agencies assume that people will simply pay them without validating or disputing the negative items.

[fusioncredit]

Sounds like you are on the right track but I am curious why is your score FAIR if you have cleared up all your negatives with the exception of the LVNV pending?

Collection Agencies and JDB depend on people who are either a) naive b) want to pay to get rid of the collection c) are trying to get approved for a mortgage and need collections paid before can be approved for the loan

[Lian]

If a collection or charge-off has passed its credit report inclusion period there are two different reasons why it could still be appearing in your CR, one due to error on a reporting party, and the other due to error on the part of the CRA. Each have their own method of resolution.

CRA responsibility under section 605(a) is to monitor the relevant date of a collection or charge-off provided to them by the furnisher of the information, calculate the date that is 7 years plus 180 days after the relevant date, and then discontinue inclusion of the charge-off or collection in any credit report they issue after that date.

The relevant date, in the contorted language of section 605(c), is actually a date that determines a date that then determines the beginning of a 7 year period. I know, silly, but that is the way congress wrote the statue.
The "date that determines a date" is what is called the date of first delinquency, or DOFD, on the OC account. That is defined in detail in section 623(b). Once the reported DOFD is known, then the running of the 7 year period begins 180-days after the DOFD, and expires 7 years from that date. It would have been a lot simpler for section 605(c) to have specified the period as 7 years plus 180 days from the DOFD. But the result is the same...credit report exclusion is a date that is 7 years plus 180-days from the DOFD on the OC account.

With that as a basis, the confusion begins. The DOFD is a date that is determined based on the OC account, and is not required to be reported to the CRAs until such time as an account has been placed for collection or charged-off. After either of those two events occurs, the CRA needs the DOFD to do its calculations. Thus, section 623(a)(5) requires the DOFD to be reported to the CRA within 90-days after a charge-off or placement of an account for collection. The requirement to report the DOFD varies depending upon circumstances, and applies to any party reporting information on an account that has been placed for collection or charged-off. Again, in very convoluted statutory language, section 623(b) works like this:

(1) In cases where the OC has, at the time they place the account for collection or do a charge-off, previously reported the account to a CRA, they are then mandated to report the DOFD on their account to the CRA within 90-days. If the debt collector than also reports their collection to the CRA, they are also required to report the DOFD on the OC account. Not being the OC, and thus not being in a position to know the actual DOFD, section 623(a)(5)(B)(i) states that any party reporting a DOFD must, if the OC has provided a DOFD to the CRA, report that same date The date reported by the OC trumps.

(2) to handle cases where the OC did not previously report a DOFD to the CRA, such as when they have never reported their account to the CRA, the DOFD reported by the debt collector then becomes the only date available to the CRA. Recognizing that DOFD occurs on an OC account, and is thus not a date known independently by a debt collector, section 623(a)(5)(ii) requires the debt collector to actually contact the OC and attempt to get that date from them. They are required to follow "reasonable procedures" to contact the OC and attempt to get that date from them. If the OC complies, the debt collector is required to use that date as the DOFD reported to the CRA.

(3) then the catch-all situation wherein the OC never previously reported to the CRA, the debt collector has complied with section 623(a)(5)(B)(ii) and contacted the OC, but their "reasonable procedures" did not result in obtaining a date from the OC. Then section 623(a)(5)(B)(iii) kicks in. Obligated to report a DOFD to the CRA within 90-days of reporting their collection, and having attempted to get that date from the OC without result, section 623(a)(5)(iii) permits them to report their best guess at the DOFD, but their guess must precede the date the collection was placed with them.

OK, now having a reported DOFD in the consumer's credit file, the CRA simply calculates their exclusion date, and is responsible for ensuring CR deletion after that date. If the reported DOFD was more than 7 years plus 180-days ago and the CRA still includes a collection or charge-off in the consumer's credit report, the CRA is the violating party. Recourse is then to complain with the CRA of their violation of section 605(c). Recourse would not be by way of a dispute under section 611(a), as the accuracy of reported information is not at issue.

If the collection or charge-off remains in the consumer's credit file more than 7 years plus 180-days from the DOFD as determined by the consumer, yet the party who reported the DOFD has provided a later date, then the issue of continued CR inclusion becomes a disputable matter under section 611(a), as its continued CR inclusion is based on inaccurate credit reporting rather than CRA error. Then the DOFD itself becomes the issue at dispute.

That, in a bunch of nutshells, is how the process works (or doesn't).

[burnnoticed]

hey folks,

I was recently denied a credit card and when I asked why, they said it was because of a recently added negative account to Experian -- LVNV funding.

I promptly pulled my credit reports and there it is, in my Experian report:

LVNV Funding, the OC being Bally's Health, for $2000.

Nowhere is there a Bally's account in any of my credit reports that I have pulled.


So is the proper way to Dispute with Experian first (online or via mail?), wait for a response, then send a DV letter to LVNV ? Or do both simultaneously, or something else entirely?

What are your results so far??