[neil5623]

Just to confirm, LVNV should NOT be reporting as INSTALLMENT, right?

If that is correct, what is the law/rule/precedent?

[cracrap]

they're a factoring company.....AAHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA

spinn?

[hannah]

Originally Posted by neil5623

Just to confirm, LVNV should NOT be reporting as INSTALLMENT, right?

If that is correct, what is the law/rule/precedent?

If LVNV aka Sherman aka Resurgent owns the account, it is not an installment account unless you specifically entered into an installment agreement with them and signed an agreement. I truly doubt you did.

[neil5623]

Originally Posted by hannah

I truly doubt you did.

What was your first clue?

Any rules/law that I can use on them?

[neil5623]

C'mon, anybody?

[stargazer0725]

Sorry, Neil. I overcame an MSJ, but didn't get far enough before settlement to get an answer on what constitutes correct reporting.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by neil5623

C'mon, anybody?

Neil, Neil, Neil...Is this account past SOL? If not, I wouldn't touch it. However, that said...did you dispute that it is not an installment account?

Your scores may be higher with the installment designation than with collection.

[neil5623]

There are 2 accounts reporting the same, total of balances less than $5K. The original account is just over 2 years DOFD. The problem is that these are reporting as opened earlier this year, and we need to refi the house next year. Hence they will appear to be less than 2 years old. However, the DOFD is being reported by LVNV as 2 years old.

My plan was to get enough violations against them so they might be willing to delete. So far I have numerous repeated FCRA items on paper.

I will go with the consensus.

[neil5623]

Hellooooo

[roybean]

Is there another thread that goes along with this Neil?

[jlynn]

Is this Equifax?

And its false and misleading information. IMHO. I would dispute it as "I have never signed an installment agreement with LVNV. Also search the tradeline closely, they usually reports terms of 1 month - that ain't an installment.

[neil5623]

No, it is not part of another thread.

I have been disputing these accounts on DW's reports. My plan was to get enough violations against them so they might be willing to delete. So far I have numerous repeated FCRA items on paper. Then Hannah recommends to leave them alone since it is still in SOL.

There are 2 accounts reporting the same, total of balances less than $5K. The original account is just over 2 years DOFD. The problem is that these are reporting as opened earlier this year, and we need to refi the house next year. Hence they will appear to be less than 2 years old. However, the DOFD is being reported by LVNV as 2 years old.


I will go with the consensus. Should I pursue them or back off?

[roybean]

Originally Posted by neil5623

No, it is not part of another thread.

I have been disputing these accounts on DW's reports. My plan was to get enough violations against them so they might be willing to delete. So far I have numerous repeated FCRA items on paper. Then Hannah recommends to leave them alone since it is still in SOL.

There are 2 accounts reporting the same, total of balances less than $5K. The original account is just over 2 years DOFD. The problem is that these are reporting as opened earlier this year, and we need to refi the house next year. Hence they will appear to be less than 2 years old. However, the DOFD is being reported by LVNV as 2 years old.


I will go with the consensus. Should I pursue them or back off?

Ok, I tell this to everyone who is trying to straighten out their credit and that is that only you know your circumstances. NONE of my cases are out of the SOL and I have been successful, but as I said you are the only one who knows your situation. All I can say is read, read, read, because you have to know what you are doing if this is the approach you are taking.

Do the violations out weigh the debt?

[neil5623]

Originally Posted by roybean

Do the violations out weigh the debt?

The two accounts added together total around $5K. First round of disputes netted 10 violations that are FCRA-worthy.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by neil5623

The two accounts added together total around $5K. First round of disputes netted 10 violations that are FCRA-worthy.

IMHO if you can PROVE the violations, then go for it. If you cannot and if you go after them, they may sue your DW. I say this is up to two of you as to how you want to proceed. One thing though, this is not your business stuff again is it? Is it personal debt?

[neil5623]

This is personal. I had a LVNV TL until last year when I did the same procedure. I filed in County Court with something like 27 causes. The entire pdf is on an older thread. It made their corporate counsel call and play "let's make a deal."

Now back to my ORIGINAL question, what is the law/rule/precedent to use on them for reporting INSTALLMENT?


Note on that business debt: I sent them another letter telling them I would file if they did not stop calling. They stopped.

[roybean]

Originally Posted by neil5623

This is personal. I had a LVNV TL until last year when I did the same procedure. I filed in County Court with something like 27 causes. The entire pdf is on an older thread. It made their corporate counsel call and play "let's make a deal."

Now back to my ORIGINAL question, what is the law/rule/precedent to use on them for reporting INSTALLMENT?


Note on that business debt: I sent them another letter telling them I would file if they did not stop calling. They stopped.

Off the top of my head and on vicodin....
15 USC 1692e(2)(A) falsely representing the character and legal status of the debt which is FDCPA and you have one yr. to file.

I would have to know more to say if this is 1681s-2(b) (FCRA) because this means that they reported false information and/or failed to properly investigate after notice of dispute and like I said I am high on pain meds right now

[jlynn]

The precedent is simple IMHO - its inaccurate information. Now proving damages is another thing.

However, I asked if this was on EQ simply because CA's are reporting this way to avoid reporting in the collection section, which would require them to report a DOFD as opposed to a DOLA or the dreaded Date Major First Delinquency Reported (which is a useless date).

IMHO, this sort of thing gives at the very least the appearance of reaging, which can affect FICO.

[hannah]

Neil, you need to brush up on the FDCPA and the FCRA and then it's pretty easy to pick out what it is being violated. Read up, my friend...