[jeanvk]

Hi Folks

I thought that unfair business practices and deceptive business practices may get the FTC's attention more so than a consumer complaint regarding an individual account; all the records for corporations, registered agents and addresses are a matter of public record on state goverment websites ..
the FTC does not need to gather evidence from individuals and verify it prior to action, they can download it themselves.


Federal Trade Commision

Office of the Arizona Attorney General

South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs

Re: Consumer Complaints against LVNV Funding LLC, Resurgent Capital Services

Dear Sir, Madam;
Lvnv Funding is a debt buyer; a company which buys debts that are currently in default and are therefore subject to the FDCPA and the Arizona revised statutes regarding debt collection. Lvnv Funding purchases these debts, and reports to the CRA's listing themselves as an "creditor' or Factoring company, that the debt is an installment account past due; and dates the opening of the account to the date they purchased it, not the date the default started with the original creditor ( re-aging) The statement on their website ( attached) indicates that all collection activities are handled for them by Resurgent Capital services and the consumer is directed to contact Resurgent regarding any questions. This is in itself is a deceptive business practice; for it suggests that a consumer cannot contact them directly regarding verification or validation of this debt which is a right granted by Federal law.
I have been harrased by 3 separate collection agencies regarding an alleged debt owned by LVNV Funding LLC , yet I have not recieved any notification regarding this alleged debt directly from LVNV Funding, but instead a demand for payments from the following collectors; Central Credit Services of Florida, whom did not reply to my request for validation, then from Resurgent Capital Services of South Carolina, whom did not respond to my dispute & request for validation, and then from Weltman Weinberg & Reis, of Ohio, whom attempted to convince me that this was a different LVNV account than previously represented by the first two collectors.
When I recently obtained a copy of my Credit report, I found LVNV Funding LLC, of South Carolina was reporting to two of the major consumer reporting agencies; and that LVNV Funding of Texas was reporting to the third. Each report differed. Following my dispute of the reporting of this alleged debt with each of the CRA's, the subscribers verified the information previously furnished as 'accurate' to each of the three consumer reporting agencies.
When researching LVNV Funding's business addresses on the internet I accessed the registered agents listings, Better Business Bureau, and the various Corporation filings with the Secretary of States websites in each of the following states; South Carolina, Delaware, Arizona, Nevada and Texas, and gained the these confusing results;

BBB Website Search results;
LVNV Funding, LLC / Resurgent
P.O. Box 740281 (713) 784-4060
Houston, TX 77274

LVNV Funding, LLC / Resurgent
9700 Bissonnet Suite 2000 (713) 784-4060
Houston, TX 77036

Resurgent Capital Services LP
15 S. Main St
Ste 600
Greenville, SC. 29601

Registered Agent listing LVNV Funding, Nevada
Qualifying State; Delaware
Manager - KEVIN BRANIGAN
Address 1: 200 MEETING STREET ST 206
City: CHARLESTON State: SC
Zip Code: 29401
Status: Active
Above is the address for Sherman Capital Markets

Arizona Dept of Financial Institutions;
No results for LVNV Funding, or Weltman Weinberg & Ries
Resurgent Capital Services; lic # 905404

Registered Agent listing LVNV Funding, S.Carolina
C T CORP SYSTEM
75 BEATTIE PLACE
GREENVILLE, SC
SC
29601 000
status; Foreign state of incorporation; DE

sos-res.state.de.us/tin/controller
no address for LVNV Funding, but a RA
THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY
Address: 1209 ORANGE STREET
City: WILMINGTON County: NEW CASTLE
State: DE Postal Code: 19801
Phone: (302)658-7581

None of these addresses are listed on the credit reports; there are only PO Boxes listed for LVNV Funding on the credit reports.
Neither the Texas Comptroller Corporation search or South Carolina Search of the Secretary of State website will return results for LVNV Fundng; they have not registered their company in these states, nor do they have a business lic for the state they have listed on the credit reports.

Addresses listed for LVNV Funding on the Credit reports are South Carolina and Texas PO Boxes only, any certified letters sent to Texas are rejected, marked "return to sender"

Not openly listing business addresses so that a consumer may contact & request verification and validation, sharing an office with an affiliated company, not registering a corporation in the same state listed on a credit report, not listing actual physical address on credit reports, not accepting certified letters sent to PO boxes, certainly seem like deceptive and dishonest business practice that causes injury to consumers.This deception causes a delay in a consumer’s ability to exert their rights in disputing reported debts. I wish to also point out that it is a violation of 15 USC § 1962e(14) for a debt collector to use any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization. LVNV Funding’s actions in this regard may likewise constitute a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) as a deceptive act in commerce. I would therefore request that your office investigate their business practices in this regard.

I am likewise and more immediately concerned about what I perceive to be numerous and willful violations of my consumer rights, afforded to me by the Arizona Revised statues, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), by LVNV Funding and Resurgent Capital Services, as follows:

1. LVNV Funding lists itself as a “factoring company” on my consumer report, when, in fact, LVNV Funding is not a factoring company. It is a violation of 15 USC § 1692e(2)(A) for a debt collector to misrepresent the character, amount or legal status of any debt. This would also appear to be a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A), since LVNV Funding, in listing itself as a factoring company on my credit report, was reporting information it knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, was inaccurate.

2. LVNV Funding lists the terms of its account with me as “1 month” on consumer credit reports, when, in fact, no terms exist. Again, it is a violation of 15 USC § 1692e(2)(A) for a debt collector to misrepresent the character, amount or legal status of any debt. This also would also appear to be a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A), since LVNV Funding, in listing on my credit report account terms of one (1) month, was reporting information it knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, was inaccurate.

3. LVNV Funding lists its account with me as “open” and “120 days past due” on my consumer report, when, in fact, they are also reporting the debt as a “charge off/collection” account in other places. Quite obviously, a debt cannot be both open and charged off at the same time. Again, it is a violation of 15 USC § 1692e(2)(A) for a debt collector to misrepresent the character, amount or legal status of any debt. Also, this would again appear to be a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A), since LVNV Funding, in misrepresenting the account as open and 120 days past due, was reporting information it knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, was inaccurate.

4. After disputing verification and requesting Validation to Resurgent's South Carloline office , the account was apparently transferred, absent any reply to me, to the Resurgent's Texas office whom subcontracted collection to Weltman Weinberg & Reis. They did not stop collection efforts during a dispute period, and did not provide verification or validation of the alleged debt, nor provided any proof that LVNV Funding in fact owns this alleged debt.

Through the above referenced violations of my consumer rights and federal laws, I would suggest that LVNV Funding and its subsidiary company, Resurgent Capital Services whom subcontracts out collection efforts to firms not licensed in Arizona, have likewise violated the terms of licensure for collection agencies according to State law.

I am quite certain that these are not mistakes made by individual employees; complaints regarding LVNV Funding and Resurgent Capital Services are made in all major consumer internet discussion forms are exactly the same as listed here and appear to be indicative of repeated wilfull and intentional violations. Only a when a sophisticated consumer or an attorney manages to locate the comapny & challange these violations do they correct these "mistakes"; so their business practices seem to be designed to take unfair advantage of the " unsophisticated consumer" which is the standard of the FDCPA.

I am quite certain I do not need to tell you that licensed businesses which engage in unscrupulous business practices serve to severely undermine the public’s faith in the integrity of commerce and goverment enforcement methods. I truly hope you will diligently investigate the business practices of these companies in the interests of justice for the citizens of the United States, The State of South Carolina, and of the great State of Arizona, and that your office will take appropriate measures to protect consumers.

If I can be of any assistance to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,

by the way, in Arizona, a collector cannot continue collection activities without providing verification or validating the alleged debt; they must stop all collection activities while they investigate

R20-4-1521. Duty of Investigation

A collection agency shall give copies of its evidence of the debt to the debtor or the debtor's attorney on request. After providing the evidence, but before continuing its collection efforts against the debtor, the collection agency shall investigate any claim by the debtor or the debtor's attorney that:

1. The debtor has been misidentified,

2. The debt has been paid,

3. The debt has been discharged in bankruptcy, or

4. Based on any other reasonable claim, the debt is not owed.

So always remember to look up your state laws!

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by jeanvk

and dates the opening of the account to the date they purchased it, not the date the default started with the original creditor ( re-aging)

This is not reaging. They can list the date opened, as the date it was opened with their company, however the DOFD must remain the same for it not to be reaging.

[jeanvk]

They mis-reported, misrepresented, and it took many nights of research to track them down.

The FDCPA , the FCRA, and the CDIA resource guide for consumer reporting may be heavy reading, but is pretty clear about most of these issues, if you need to buy a copy of the CDIA for $100 you can go here: cdiaonline.org Consumer Data Industry Association (I did.) it's what these credit repair sites use..& why should I pay them for possibly using illegal tatics, when & can look it up myself and see what the debt purchaser/collector should have reported

if you would like to read CDIA Guidance that instructs the CRAS are supposed to handle reports from debt purchasers, read this; //cdia.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/DebtCollectorDebtBuyerGuidance200709.pdf

You might note that there will be new federal regulations reagrding reporting data from debt collectors coming out soon from the FTC after they compile inforamtion gathered at the October workshop.. That should be interesting reading too!

Forums like these are wonderful sites where you can find great info, but there's also loads of bad advice.

Sometimes the Debt collectors themselves log in and give out bad information...............

My advice is that folks in should also the study the laws and the FTC staff opinion letters on debt collecting which really explain the laws on case by case basis, and other legal sites.

//www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/index.shtm FCRA - Staff Opinion Letters

[Enigma]

The FTC opinion letters are just that, opinions written by FTC staff. They are not binding on any court. Even though now and then the courts cite them in their opinions.

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by jeanvk

Forums like these are wonderful sites where you can find great info, but there's also loads of bad advice.

Sometimes the Debt collectors themselves log in and give out bad information...............

Have you noticed or received any "bad" advice on IC?

Yes, collectors do visit from time to time and post. Some of the information dispensed by a few runs contrary to the truth. But, we (IC members) are quick to post corrective guidance.

We even have a resident collector that, from time to time, posts very useful information that would be a determent to his profession.

[jeanvk]

I never said that the opinions were binding in court, I said that they just " explain how the FTC interprets the law on a case by case basis."

and the listed date for this item to remain on the report is different than the date calculated per DOFD, so they did re-age .

A fool in a high place is the same as a man on a mountain; everyone appears small to him, and he appears small to everyone else

[Qtip]

I think that mr jeanvk is correct, from time to time collectors try to infiltrate communities to disseminate bad information. Fortunately there are many knowledgeable people at IC that quickly demystify fact from fiction!!!

As Enigma pointed out, not all collectors are Evil doers and DRE is a prime example of collectors that are able to make a living while abiding by the rules and regulations.

[apexcrsrvc]

Originally Posted by jeanvk

They mis-reported, misrepresented, and it took many nights of research to track them down.

The FDCPA , the FCRA, and the CDIA resource guide for consumer reporting may be heavy reading, but is pretty clear about most of these issues, if you need to buy a copy of the CDIA for $100 you can go here: cdiaonline.org Consumer Data Industry Association (I did.) it's what these credit repair sites use..& why should I pay them for possibly using illegal tatics, when & can look it up myself and see what the debt purchaser/collector should have reported

Uhhh . . . unfortunately, virtually no credit service organizations have ever even heard of the CDIA Resource Guide. I can assure you that hardly any have read it or invoke its guidelines while assisting their clientele. That would be too time consuming. It is more akin to taking a bunch of noodles and throwing it against a wall to see what "doesn't" stick.

I probably hurt myself somewhat but, lets call a spade a spade. Of course, we do implement pinpoint disputes so that our clientele has further redress under Johnson v. MBNA when items are inevitably verified. Still, most do not. In that context, I suppose we "ripen" certain issues for consumer attorney's but, it offers a better service than the run of the mill dispute mill.

In any event, I'm off topic. Just wanted to clear that up.

On point however, most JDB's always report "open" accounts. It's hard to pin down liability for that though. I've walked several JDB's such as SMS Financial and Palisades through AUD forms. Unfortunately, it appears that at least Trans Union compells them to report an open account via the AUD forms.

I'm looking more into that and have gathered some decent evidence. However, the point I'm trying to make is that it may be the credit reporting agencies or their software rather than the data furnishers. That is yet to be determined.

[jeanvk]

all the CRA's and most banks use the Metro 2 format as generated by the CDIA - Its the "US Trade association of Cosumeer Reporting Agencies" and Both Metro and Metro 2 are maintained by an industry committee of employees from each of the three repositories. (the CRA's)

It is mentioned as such in the FTC's report to congress:

Report to Congress
10
B. Reporting Formats
Most furnishers use one of two standard formats to report credit information to the repositories. In the mid-1970’s, the credit reporting industry developed the Metro format, which was designed to ensure greater precision in the data reported to the CRAs.53 In 1997, CDIA introduced the Metro 2 format.54 Metro and Metro 2 each provide a standard format, including standard codes, that can be used for virtually any consumer credit transaction. According to CDIA, Metro 2 is “an updated and more robust version of Metro, and provides for complete and accurate reporting.”55 For example, unlike the Metro format, Metro 2 allows a furnisher to report complete identification information for each consumer, including co-debtors and co-signers, which makes it more likely that CRAs will match the reported item to the correct consumer’s file.56 The repositories currently receive over 99% of all data from furnishers in either the Metro or Metro 2 format.57 Approximately 31% of these furnishers—representing approximately 50% of all data furnished to the repositories—now report through Metro 2.58 The repositories hope to convert the rest of the furnishers to Metro 2.59
Repositories also obtain information from courts, city halls, tax offices, and motor vehicles departments.60 For those public record sources that are not yet available electronically, the repositories often hire contractors to manually collect the information. This information is then added to the repositories’ databases for inclusion in future consumer reports.61
IV. The Dispute Process
In the consumer dispute process, a consumer first reviews his or her credit report and identifies information in the report that he or she believes is incomplete or inaccurate. The consumer then communicates a dispute to the CRA, which conveys the dispute to the furnisher of the information. The furnisher investigates the dispute and reports back to the CRA the results of its investigation. Finally, the CRA communicates the outcome of the reinvestigation to the
5
3 Comment of CDIA, at 10.
5
4 Id. Both Metro and Metro 2 are maintained by an industry committee of employees from each of the three repositories. Id.
55 Communication from CDIA to the Division of Financial Practices, Federal Trade Commission (Jan. 12, 2005) (on file with the Division of Privacy & Identity Protection) [hereinafter CDIA Communication 01/12/05], at 1.
5
6 CDIA, Credit Reporting Resource Guide (2003) [hereinafter CDIA Resource Guide], at 2-1.
5
7 General Accounting Office, Report No. GAO-03-1036T, Consumer Credit: Limited Information Exists on the Extent of Credit Report Errors and Their Implications for Consumers (July 2003), at 12.
5
8 CDIA Communication 01/12/05, supra note 55, at 2.
5
9 Comment of CDIA, at 4.
60 NCLC Treatise, supra note 26, at 55.

[Pale Rider]

From the CDIA website:

Originally Posted by CDIA

Q. The open date is used as the purchase date for debt buyers - this is very confusing for consumers. Over 50% of our ACDV disputes are from consumers disputing the open date. Is anything being done to create a purchase date field?


A. This is not being considered at this time. Please direct this concern to the Consumer Relations Staff at each Credit Reporting Agency.

It appears that CDIA and the CRA's don't care about this issue, or they believe that are following the proper procedure.

The use of the word "open" has caused a great deal of problems with this also. In this case, they are using the word open to mean the time they purchased the account, rather than the creation date of the account as many consumers expect in that particular field of the report.

The word open tends to create a great deal of confusion when referring to the type of account also, as consumers believe they are referring to the account being active, when in reality it is an open end credit account.

They didn't do us any favors by using the same word for so many different reasons, and allowing confusion in the date opened field.