Topic: Understanding the Junk Debt Buyer

[Flyingifr]

I constantly see questions about companies like Sherman Acquisitions and Arrow Financial (among others). I feel it's time to address how to deal with them.

These companies are in a category called "Junk Debt Buyers" (JDB's). They purchase huge portfolios of defaulted consumer debt at about 2-3 cents on the dollar    and seemingly try to collect a dollar and a half. They increase the amounts claimed by astronomical amounts by reinstating the contract interest rate and re-calculating the amount claimed    adding interest at the contract rate    from the date of charge off (when the Original Creditor stopped calculating interest) up to the time they get paid.

In the portfolio that they purchase will be debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy    debts where there is an Automatic Stay in place because the debtor is still involved in an active bankruptcy case    debts that have been reduced to Judgement    debts that have aged past the Statute of Limitations for Collection (SOLC) in the debtor's State and debts that have aged past the FCRA Statute of Limitations for Reporting (SOLR).

The principal collection tactic of JDB's seems to be a combination of patience and complete disregard for the mandates of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). They do this by re-aging the debt so that FICO interprets it as a recent default    not a default that happened many years ago. This causes a HUGE drop in the debtor's credit score (Each CRA has its own name for the score - FICO    Beacon    whatever - it's all basically the same thing). Then they wait for the debtor to complain that he/she can't get credit because this account suddenly appeared on their credit report. At that point they have you where they want you - desperate and on the phone.

They will (as all CA's do) press for immediate payment of some amount. The reason is simple - to bring the debt back into collectability under SOLC. Then they are free to file suit against you and have a chance at winning.

Unfortunately    most consumers don't realize the illegality of what is happening. The JDB has committed at least ONE of the following violations in just about every case:

1. By posting the debt as a recently defaulted case (I have personally been told by BOTH Sherman and Arrow that they consider the date they BUY the debt to be a NEW status date-in direct contradiction to the FTC Amason Letter Section 2)    they have violated FCRA Section 605(a) as interpreted in Section 2 of the Amason Letter (All letters are FTC Staff Opinion Letters and are posted on the FTC web site - www.ftc.gov ). This is the re-aging provision of FCRA.

2. By posting the debt after the debt has been dischaged in Bankruptcy they are violating the Permanent Injunction provision of the Bankruptcy Discharge as well as FCRA 623(a)(1)(A) - Maximum Accuracy mandates on Providers in that if the debt had been dischaged in Bankruptcy BEFORE they purchased it    they should know that the debtor whose credit they are trashing never legally owed THEM anything. I would also consider that they have violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) section 807(2)(A) in that they are representing as due and payable a debt they know has been discharged in Bankruptcy.
If either of the above is what happened to you (and the odds are very great that at least ONE of them does apply) then you have solid grounds for a FCRA or FDCPA suit against the JDB. The JDB will probably cave in on the mere threat of a credible suit (both Sherman and Arrow did in my case) and pay you the $1000 damages rather than press it and incur huge legal costs (see my other posts on THAT topic) on an obviously lost cause. They look at these settlements as a cost of doing business    because the vast majority of debtors still don't know or enforce their rights under law. You can pay a lot of $1000 settlements if you can collect $1.25 for each 3 cents you invested in a million dollar portfolio.

You can enforce your rights under law even if you are still involved in a Bankruptcy. Debts in Bankruptcy are allowed to be sold    and the new owner of the debt reporting to the CRA's that they are the new owner and the debtor owes $X dollars is not a violation.

If the debt is still within SOLC you can treat the JDB as you would any CA. The JDB usually will not send you any or many collection letters (their tactic seems to be trashing credit just as the debtor is trying to repair it). If that is the case demand Validation of the debts, and if it can't be validated, challenge it as inaccurate with the CRA. Of course. It is still highly probable that the debt has been re-aged, so you have suit potential.


© 2007

[Bartock]

In all due respects to flyingifr, my interpretation of junk debt buyers differs some.

While there is no precise definition of junk debt buying collection agencies I think we can all agree
that they purchase cheap debt, usually in the two to five cents on a dollar range. But in my mind, the distinguishing factor is these agencies have no regards towards validating their debt.--which they cannot do because the link between them and the original creditor is severed. They simply experience the statistical certainty that they can collect more than they paid for the paper.

The small number of consumers who visit consumer boards quickly learn how to chase these pests away with the magic wand of debt validation. The more respoinsible agencies will fold after a debt validation request even though they may attempt to foist off some inadequate substitute. The really sleezy will redouble their efforts to amnnoy and often will violate the law betting they won't get sued. Often spoofing thei identity in the process.

Of course the vast majority ignorant of their rights are really abused with no floor to how low they can go. Still its somewhat surprising on how few paid collections result. Often only one in twenty
attempts. But stoll profitable if one can collect a nickle on what you bought for two cents.

For those that visit collector boards its an eye opening experience to see how this junk debt is aquired. Often no chain of title exists, debts are sold to multiple agencies each assuming they alone own the debt, debt from bankrupt companies is bought and from companies under ethics charges.
Little or none of it can be validated, these buyers don't care, as long as its cheap is the mantra. I would say debt out of SOL and debt discharged in bankruptcy is only a small fraction. These junk debt buyers don't care about how valid the debt is, simply that the debt has a face value that can be inflated.

A complaint to my States AG yield the following quote from the in house attorney of a junk debt buyer. " As a debt buyer we rely on the information provided us by the selling creditor."

The rise of the junk debt buyer is relatively recent, 1996 often cited. Which post dates the existing credit laws by many years.

The flaw in the law is that there is no pemnality for being wrong or totally off base in dunning a consumer even when one has a track record of being wrong ten or twenty times more often than one is right. Until these laws are changed, I see nothing but a rosy future for junk debt buyers.

[Rottweiler]

The ultimate solutions here are not judicial, but legislative[/b]!  While suing their a$$es off in Court does redress some wrongs, it will take legislation to remove the incentive that causes our problems to begin with!  That takes a very long time in most cases, unfortunately.

What hurts us now in terms of statute law, and what should be done about them?  This is the crux of my argument here, and, shall we begin?:

First off, there are several things things in current law that hurt us in respect to the JDB:  One is the lack of a uniform national standard in terms of both SOLC and the "statutes of repose"; the latter which, often,  do not exist in a particular State.  We would need both of these, again on a nationwide basis, to make the JDB business far less profitable, by removing any  legal market value for "OOS" ("out-of-statute") debt portfolios.  The uniform SOLC would make it clear to everyone when the collectibility in the courts has passed, and therefore the portfolio has little value, even as the high risk investment it aready is.  Add a nationwide "statute of repose" for these debts, and the value of the portfolio disappears upon SOLC, since the debts would be extinguished (legally non-existent)!

As for the JDB chasing down debts discharged either by cancellation or BK?  That needs to be made illegal on its face.  It shouldn't take an Adversarial Action (in BK Court), or a lawsuit (for other discharges/cancellations) to make those debts worthless.  Nor should the alleged debtor have to face dunning by more than one entity for the same debt!  Nor--and this may surprise you to hear this, coming from me--should the JDB end up in legal "hot water" because they must ultimately rely on trust to "vet" the title on their purchased portfolios.  A trust that, when it must be given to others of their own kind, is an extreme business risk, more than necessary,  and one that is currently virtually uninsurable against loss. 

The solution to title problems?  Just have the law require a clear chain of title on all debt portfolios, current and charged-off/written-off/cancelled alike. This is done with real estate and motor vehicles, so why not debt portfolios?  (Just try to sell real estate or your car without provable title!)  Not only would the alleged debtors benefit,  but so would the title insurance industry.  Wouldn't title insurers love the new business?  And, in fact,  the JDB would benefit too.  How?  Requiring a clear chain of title would help insure against the "ripping-off" of JDBs by OTHER JDBs by establishing the chain of ownership!  And, providing an additional means of recourse--title insurance claims--if this "rip-off" happens anyway.

Yes, there would still be JDBs, short of the entire industry being made illegal. (And, the chances of that happening would be the same as a New England winter Nor'easter occurring on the face of the Sun!)   After all, many portfolios consist of "in-SOL" debts only.  How to deal with problems in the case of the "in-SOL" JDB portfolio and its collection?  Legally requiring clear title will help.  So will re-writing the FDCPA to encompass the industry, making it perfectly clear that a JDB IS a CA, period!  And,  increasing the penalties for violation to a realistic level, as well as be made to be per violation.  These moves will, over time, force the "bad actors" in the collection industry to reform or perish, by removing the profit motive behind the commission of violations in the first place.  This would be especially true of JDBs, who collect on such a tiny percentage of portfolios to begin with.  Though the purchase price is low, if they keep "acting up" under such changes, any profit they do get will be eaten up faster than the week's grocery stock by a household full of teenage boys!

No profit=JDB out of business!!
 

[Bartock]

I do agree with Rottweiler. The solution is new legislation.

The consumer can sue the collector pro se. But its not easy, it takes lots of study, but it can be done.
Most attorney will not take cases on contigency and the penalities somewhat attractive in 1978 have not been inflation adjusted. Leaving many unethical collectors willing to gamble they can violate consumer rights and get away with it.

The FTC can Camco collection agencies or impose stiff fines. It does not happen often enough so the FTC cannot be relied on as an effective consumer watchdog.

In terms of collectors, many of whom are ethical, self policing might be an option if any did self police. Instead they ALL look the other way as some violate and I see zero indication in the history of the world that these folks self police.

But any consumer can visit this or other boards and quickly find information to even learn about their legal rights and even the odds against collectors.

The simple problem is so few consumers come and its that vast pool of uneducated consumers that fuel the abuses in the collection industry.

Quite frankly, this and other consumer boards do an absolutely miserable job in outreach to the
legally ignorant consumers that need our help the most.

I have posted this outreach question on other consumer boards and its fallen on deaf ears. But until we can reach some critical mass in average consumer awareness, no new legislation will ever follow.

While I have already posted some specific outreach ideas  on other boards, I think it might be good to solicit ideas from others about ways such an outreach might be accomplished.

[Rottweiler]

The problem, Bartok, with outreach is the audience, shall we say, that we would be trying to reach:  Consumer debtors who are in financial trouble.  Or, would be assumed to be so if it's a case of ID Theft or simple mistaken identity, as in bad "skip-tracing".

We are not talking about complaining to the local "powers that be" about the location of a cell phone tower, or to their local Congressional representative about porposed changes in the income tax law.  We, rather,  are talking about  BEING SEROIUSLY IN DEBT, the situation that could very well rank as the second most embarrassing situation anyone could find oneself in (the first being caught "in the act" in the proverbial back seat!).   Owing more money than one can pay back is seen as the second worst  mortal sin they could commit (the first is murder).  Not as the business deal going/gone sour that it really  is.  These people are embarrassed, if not  frightened and/or outright humiliated about their plight.  They are going to want to hide out or "give in" undert the pressure the collection industry is no doubt "dumping" on them--"crack" if you will.  NOT go seeking help from boards such as Debtorboards.   Never you mind sticking their necks out and actually identifying themselvs to their local, friendly legislator and/or regulatory enforcement agency.

In other words, how would you get most of  this constituency to speak up?  Or, even dare to look for the information on their own that could overcome this very strong psychological resistance?

[Bartock]

Rottweiler,

You do make a valid point that there is a certain stigma to being in debt. And the ignore it and hope it goes away really puts these folks behind the eight ball with a collector when debt validation is not demanded.

But in this day and age the internet is well past critical mass. If a given person does not have their own pc or even know how to use one, its still almost a certainty that they know someone with internet access or someone who is at least minimally computer literate. And computer access is as near as the nearest public library.

Also, there are certain standards of polite treatment we expect in the United States. Nearly everyone recognizes when a line is crossed even if they cannot cite chapter and verse the law violated. Which is part of the purpose of consumer boards. There is something wonderfully empowering to have your feelings of abuse confirmed. and learn how to deal with these abusers of human dignity.

I submit the problem is not just the stigma, its that most consumers have absolely no ideas help is available and where to find it. Which is where outreach comes in.

So I submit idea one

For lots of  us to write a letter to the editor to our local paper. Include a documented horror story of collector abuse. Include a list of web sites where one can obtain help. And lastly and most importantly, get the newspaper to agree to maintain a supply of reprints even if you have to pay for printing some. For most people its a read the letter and it goes into at best vague memory. Until they or someone they know needs this information. Then the memory triggers, get thee to the local paper and get the reprint. For the newspaper its a winner because they promote reader loyality and become a local community resource. In short, its an effective way to plant seeds that grow.-------and as help comes to some you can also get evangalists telling their friends how this helped them at least get fair treatment.

More ideas anyone?

[Brent]

You're right that debtor education is the key. While aggressively using DV and enforcing the FDCPA is the optimum method of dealing with the JDB's, just knowing the law and learning how powerless these collectors really are, could have very good results in putting them out of business. But as you say, many consumers are not inclined to research and learn. They have been conditioned to bow down to what they consider as authority figures, and to many, the debt collector fits that mold. Many consumers do not even have the most basic understanding of the legal system. I sat on a jury a couple of years ago involving a civil suit. It was a personal injury suit. There was some discussion among the jurors as to why the defendant could not be sentenced to jail time. I became aware at this time, that I was the only juror who knew the difference between criminal and civil law. If this is a sampling of the general population, it's no wonder that the JDB's are successful in intimidating so many into sending them money.

If everybody just said no, or just managed not to talk to JDB's in general. The industry would collapse. Unfortunately, with the low knowledge level of most debtors, combined with fear, this is not likely to happen.

[foolsmission]

You're right that debtor education is the key. While aggressively using DV and enforcing the FDCPA is the optimum method of dealing with the JDB's, just knowing the law and learning how powerless these collectors really are, could have very good results in putting them out of business. But as you say, many consumers are not inclined to research and learn. They have been conditioned to bow down to what they consider as authority figures, and to many, the debt collector fits that mold. Many consumers do not even have the most basic understanding of the legal system. I sat on a jury a couple of years ago involving a civil suit. It was a personal injury suit. There was some discussion among the jurors as to why the defendant could not be sentenced to jail time. I became aware at this time, that I was the only juror who knew the difference between criminal and civil law. If this is a sampling of the general population, it's no wonder that the JDB's are successful in intimidating so many into sending them money.

If everybody just said no, or just managed not to talk to JDB's in general. The industry would collapse. Unfortunately, with the low knowledge level of most debtors, combined with fear, this is not likely to happen.

I think you are on to something there, but if I comment further I'd probably go off topic.

[financeguy31]

So the biggest defecit  is with the common debtor who experiences his newfound financial problems as an index of how good a man he is and/or how good of a provider he is........some people have a strong resoviour of guilt that has been around since the dark ages. Tapping into large pools of guilt for a myriad of reasons satisfies those who experience not so much guilt but shame; they believe that they are bad people and that is why this awful financial crisis got started. Feeling less a man and perhaps feeling set back in your earning power over the remaining years before retirement. It can be a real pressure cooker. The most common escape is through avoidance and denial. So awareness of details of financial issues are often avoided and we see debtors act "as if" all were prosperous on the financial front. This sometimes leads to greater avoidance, see no evil hear no evil but it can also give way to, now or later, a legal action towards reparation thus causing the debtor to lose control of his assets at the very least.

I have two friends right now, both are intelligent, one Ivey League schooled and the other with two degrees and yet they both know that there is some real bad stuff on their credit reports but they don't want to deal with them, they rationalize that they may just magically go away. I suggested these boards for consumers and even read the FDCPA line by line for a friend and we discussed its meaning and what she had to do to get some blatant mis-statement of an account resolved but lifts not one finger, she just can handle the pain or responsibility of cleaning up the mess without allowing further harm come her way. Now she has taken up residence in an Ostrige farm where she enjoys a variety of dark places to escape her increasingly negative financial crisis.

This same group of folks, noted for their avoidance of conflict, good at small talk but not full of depth, they avoid serious news, public spending and, anything that calls a fair amount of attention; this threatens their introversion and makes them feel exposed. This group of people are more likely to ignore a summons or other court invitations, end up with a summary judement and ending up with a lot of notarity and many many more people will learn of this shameful act and the shame becomes tangible instead of just a thought and emotional process handled internally, but rather it gets acted out. But does the bill get paid or does other healthy activity take place ever? 

Collectors know that a percentage of debtors have difficulties that led to their debt problems. Therefore they are probably already suffering from lousy self worth and lots of regret, even when the problem was outside of their control; it's an amazing emotion and collectors work towards it, seize the guilt and shame, relief from repenting and they become compliant for a time but maybe not consistently. The collector is happy as he found a pay day and the profit margin is usually bleeding money by the third month of a payment plan, if not sooner. Its all gravy after a very small operating margin.

This often makes up for four or five other debts that are older than dirt and are not seen as a performing debt. Its a numbers games: if the dollar amount is too little for litigation expense, they increase contact as they know that as they increase phone calls or paper deals it will cause most consumers to really consider the discount or whatever incentive, I hear some have offered save havens in . Now that out to be worth collecting.

If the debt is large enough to litigate and assets have been identified that can be the perfect case, even if it is out of service. Smart JDBs use the court of least jurisdiction as in the use of small claims court or state court. These courts are not known for their experience and comprehension of Federal laws because they generally don't practice where those laws are germane. JDBs know this and find cogent arguments for summary judgements and some challenged judgements in this less knowledgeable state benches.

I recently compared a medium sized JDB(but still among the largest and most profitable group of debt purchasers) by the number of cases where they are the plantiff in magistrate, state or superior court in my county and then I counted the number of cases where this JDB is named the defendant in consumer oriented casuses for action. The difference was unbelievable: there were a total of four cases pending in federal court and there were 46 pages of active, open cases where they are suing debtors and there is an unhealthy trend of summary judgements awarded early.   I live in a metropolitan area where my county probably makes up three to four million folks.

Education is the only answer as its a cognitive, intellectual and emotional problem for many. The most difficult part is the denial and denial brings forth distortions of reality and, interestingly enough, research has recently substantiated that men tend to minimize problems with themselves, denial again, and this is attributed to getting back on the horse after he slings your body across dome paddock. A good man shakes it off and gets back on the horse. The shame and guilt in this equation makes the denial more rigid and difficult to address. Sometimes guilt drives people to allow themselves to be sued, another way to repent in the credit world. The fractional percentage of those of us who participate in boards like this and many others is miniscule in comparison to the number of debtors out there in the U.S. alone.Heck I never even considered searching for such a board like this until I got determined to learn the laws associated with credit and debts and found three really good strong boards. I am back in control of my finances and now facing other challenges. I thank debtorboards, AoC, creditboards.com, collectionindustry.com, Budd Hibbs and, of course, whychat

[Bartock]

To Financeguy31,

I believe you are largely correct in the psychology involved with the average person and that denial
is the most likely responce. With ignore it and hope it goes away a close second. Which is precisely the events that most play into a JDB gameplan. But its clear that you are reasonably educated, know your way around the internet, and hence need help the least.

My tale is somewhat similar. Almost a year ago a JDB CA wrote me one of these welcome as a new client letters--regarding a alleged debt I am still baffled about to this day. At the time I received the letter, what I knew about credit matters would fit in a thimble. But thankfully I did not damage myself when I contacted them over the phone and I then got on the internet. I happened to find credit info center---and in less than a hour was knowlegable enough to know something of the process and prosedure of disputing. It somewhat helped that their named OC was flakey in the extreme, but one strong DV letter I sent them produced a fold their tent letter in my mailbox three weeks to the day after first contact. What I lhave learned since has really shocked me and produced one consumer who now hates junk debt buying collection agencies with a passion.----because they unfairly victimise the ignorant.

While I certainly believe existing law really stacks the deck against the consumer, there are still strong protections for consumers who know how to dispute----and the rest get . Until  a consumer knows the dance steps--a JDB CA will simply walz the consumer into a corner, trip them up, and basically steal their money in the guise of helping them up.---but what average consumer knows they surrender all kind of rights by waiting more than 30 days to DV--or that proper debt validation must come from the OC? Or that the FCRA  or FDCPA even exist.

But when I got that welcome as a new client letter, I had some strong emotions------I was being threatened-----and I really needed help.-------If any on these boards want to do outreach---we must focus on that moment of mind numbing terror---and ask how can that be replaced by a household word---go here--get help.-------does anyone have a good buzz word phraise anyone could type into a google search bar???

[wade]

Flyingifr,

This is my first post, and many thanks for your advice and expertise, you’ve been very helpful.

I wonder if you’ll kindly clarify the matter of a DV letter to a JDB a bit (if this is the right board). In your expert opinion, will a DV letter still have any value more than 30 days after the debtor receives a CA/JDB letter advising assignment or old debt purchase?

In other words, if a DV letter is mailed to a JDB 6 or even 8 months after the debtor initially heard from the CA. And this CA wishfully assumed the debtor acknowledged the debt by not responding within the 30 days, will a one two punch and CRA dispute strategy still be valid?

What if I’m really not concerned about the CA/JDB pursuing, harassing or annoying me, for he’s way out of statute. And I’m only concerned because this JDB re-aged and re-reported an old account (as its own) already expunged after the allotted 7.5 years passed, and so far got away with it. Does a belated DV letter really help set him up for violations at this point?

I further understand that there is a difference between a DV letter and a letter disputing the accuracy and legality of what’s being reported. Which in your opinion is more threatening to a JDB? A letter informing them you’ve evidence they’re re-aging this underlying account and if they don’t expunge you’ll sue. Or a standard, yet belated DV letter?

And if I opt to confront a JDB in a dispute letter that I’ve evidence they’re violating the FCRA by re-reporting an obsolete account, would this be an admission on my part that this account is mine? In other words, can I acknowledge that the underlying OC’s account was once mine and at the same time deny the JDB’s rightful ownership, permissibility to collect, and claim to it?

So far, out of two affected CRAs, only Equifax accepted to delete through an online dispute alleging fraud (40 days after the dispute, it’s still off). TU, however, insisted on verifying regardless of all the evidence of re-aging I mailed them and did get a bogus verification.

When I called TU, the rep said “oh, we didn’t investigate it as a re-aged account” we’ll do that now and wait another 30 days”. I mean I mailed TU a detailed dispute, supported by tons of back reports and the JDB’s letter which names the OC, acknowledges it was a charge off years ago, and stupidly claims it reported this status to the major bureaus (maybe I made a mistake furnishing TU with the JDB's letter?) What do I have to mail TU, a certified video showing the JDB stabbing me in the eye?

Thanks again for your great input.

[Flyingifr]

Flyingifr,

This is my first post, and many thanks for your advice and expertise, you’ve been very helpful.

I wonder if you’ll kindly clarify the matter of a DV letter to a JDB a bit (if this is the right board). In your expert opinion, will a DV letter still have any value more than 30 days after the debtor receives a CA/JDB letter advising assignment or old debt purchase?

In other words, if a DV letter is mailed to a JDB 6 or even 8 months after the debtor initially heard from the CA. And this CA wishfully assumed the debtor acknowledged the debt by not responding within the 30 days, will a one two punch and CRA dispute strategy still be valid?

The 30 day period is a Statutory protection to the consumer and a Statutory Obligation on teh collector. The protection si taht when you demand VOD within the 30 days, teh collectoir must suspend any collection action until the Validation is provided, even if it takes forever. It is an obligation on the Collector for that same reason. Basically, a valid timely VOD says "Prove it or Drop It". Once the 30 days has expired, a collector is under no obligation to respond to a VOD at all.

What if I’m really not concerned about the CA/JDB pursuing, harassing or annoying me, for he’s way out of statute. And I’m only concerned because this JDB re-aged and re-reported an old account (as its own) already expunged after the allotted 7.5 years passed, and so far got away with it. Does a belated DV letter really help set him up for violations at this point?

What you describe above is re-aging and is a FCRA violation. The 30 day VOD is a FDCPA issue. Two different laws. Ifa  debt is Out of Statute a collector can still ask for the money, but cannot sue or threaten suit.

I further understand that there is a difference between a DV letter and a letter disputing the accuracy and legality of what’s being reported. Which in your opinion is more threatening to a JDB? A letter informing them you’ve evidence they’re re-aging this underlying account and if they don’t expunge you’ll sue. Or a standard, yet belated DV letter?

Each letter has its own purpose. A dispute can be lodged at any time and it merely requires the collector to notify the CRA that the issue is disputed the next time the collector updates the account or communicates with the C RA about the account, as in a FCRA dispute filed with the CRA and the CRA is investigating. The VOD letter is to specifically invoke the 30 day "Prove it or Drop It". There is nothing wrong with combining teh letters, as I have done in the Sample Letters section.

And if I opt to confront a JDB in a dispute letter that I’ve evidence they’re violating the FCRA by re-reporting an obsolete account, would this be an admission on my part that this account is mine? In other words, can I acknowledge that the underlying OC’s account was once mine and at the same time deny the JDB’s rightful ownership, permissibility to collect, and claim to it?

One does not necessarily preclude the other. It is very possible you had this same "not mine" argument with the OC 7 years ago and 4 CA's since. This new CA, in bringing up teh account and re-aging it now faces two disputes - it is "not mine" as I have argued all along AND, since I have been arguing that for 7 years it cannot be reported on ANY CRA file, including mine.

So far, out of two affected CRAs, only Equifax accepted to delete through an online dispute alleging fraud (40 days after the dispute, it’s still off). TU, however, insisted on verifying regardless of all the evidence of re-aging I mailed them and did get a bogus verification.

When I called TU, the rep said “oh, we didn’t investigate it as a re-aged account” we’ll do that now and wait another 30 days”. I mean I mailed TU a detailed dispute, supported by tons of back reports and the JDB’s letter which names the OC, acknowledges it was a charge off years ago, and stupidly claims it reported this status to the major bureaus (maybe I made a mistake furnishing TU with the JDB's letter?) What do I have to mail TU, a certified video showing the JDB stabbing me in the eye?

Thanks again for your great input.

If TU isn't investingating properly, try mailing them a summons. THAT gets their attention (and gets your file placed in "Special Handling")

[eshep29536]

Thank U!!!. Man This helps!!. I had a phone bill of $615 from the old ATT that was listed in a bankruptcy that was discharged in 2001. The listed bankruptcy was removed from my CR in march 2006. This debt was bought by a company called Asset management Company. Several other  discharged debts are showing up with new owners. Since those debts showed up my FICO score went in the tank and I can't buy a stick of bubble gum on credit.

To make matters worse Assett management has filed a lawsuit in an Ohio court to try and collect the $615.

MY question. Do I joust with the JDB by writing a nastsy letter or do I need to go for the juggler in court

[Rottweiler]

Go for the <<bleep>> in court.  The debt was discharged in BK so they are violating the Permanent Injunction in even attempting to collect at all, never mind sue for the debt.  What you need to do is file an MTD asking for dismissal WITH prejudice because the debt was discharged in BK; have an answer ready stating that the debt was discharged in BK as an absolute defense, since you may need to file that too to avoid a default judgment.  There is no time right now for a separate suit nor an Adversarial Action against Asset Management.  That--and any other action you can take against these bozos--will come later once you get that lawsuit dismissed.

As for the other accounts?  Tell the SOBs via. a C&D that these accounts were discharged in BK, giving the case cite (number and title) and a redacted copy of the page of the BK Matrix on which they were listed and a copy of the final discharge.  Note I said COPY, fresly made from your files.  (I would send them that info; there is no need to hide a public record from the debt collector.)  If they give up...well.. that's what you want.  If they persist in trying to collect, then out comes the ITS and draft complaint and/or filing an Adversarial Action in the name of the BK Estate.  Don't give them a chance to file a lawsuit!