[Lecasbas]

I have a dunning letter from a CA which claims to have purchased an old delinquent account. It has assigned its own account no. to a new account (in its own name) and is reporting both new and old as delinquent accounts on the CR.

To me, this would be obvious libel. The CA has caused the CR to contain unjustly unfavorable impression about the consumer which is not true and the CA knows it not to be true.

In addition to the libel question - what exactly is the CA supposed to do with the old account if it starts its own account with a new number? Shouldn't it tell the Big 3 so that the CR won't show the old account anymore?

There is not a question of ownership. In its dunning letter it specifically states that it is the new owner of the old account. From the letter the LSC can see that the CA has renumbered the old account to the new number. The CR, however, does not reflect this.

There have been no new agreements or transactions between the debtor and anyone trying to collect on the old account since before the account went delinquent over 4 years ago.

In the CA's dunning letter it did offer a 'certificate of acceptance' which was never sent in by the debtor. I think it is more than coincidental that the deadline for this 'certificate' to be received by the CA was the same date as the reaging of the account.

I've searched through past threads and found that there are two reason for reaging. One is to keep negative material on a CR longer and the other is to push the SOL back.

I believe the CA is applying intentional malice because it has already advanced the DOFD (Date Major Delinquency First Reported on CR) nearly 4 years.

Intentionally leaving the old account on the CR falls right in line with the intentional act of reaging.