"Deleted temporarily" and disputes over letter contents

[Eigenvector]

What is the name of your state? California

I've been dealing with an alleged debt being handled by Progressive Management systems for about 9 months. The bill, originally for $460, was a bill for a medical procedure that was paid for, and I have documentation of a check to for the same amount being cashed. My guess is that the bill was somehow erroneously duplicated, and then sent to collections.

When I first received a notice, I responded (within 30 days) in the typical manner, disputing the debt and requesting verification per the FDCPA, and also explained that I had paid a bill for the same amount and thought that this was an erroneous duplicate. I received back a form letter about verification along with a mostly-blank page that appeared to be from their database, essentially saying only "Scripps" and "Original Amount: $460". As this didn't seem like sufficient information per 1692g(b), I sent a further letter, asking why insufficient verification had been sent and why collection attempts were continuing in apparent violation of the same subsection, and reiterating my view of the debt's validity.

Receiving no response for a few months, I checked my credit reports, and found that the items had apparently not been disputed by the collection agency. I therefore disputed them directly with Experian, and a month later was given notice that they had been deleted as a result of the investigation. They also no longer show up on any other reports.

However, I received another form-letter collection attempt from PMS. I therefore called with the pretence of ensuring that this was sent inadvertently (in order to remain amiable), and was told that they were still attempting to collect the debt. In response to my assertion that the debts had been deleted after investigation by Experian, I was told that (transcribed from recording)

"We put a hold on it; it was deleted temporarily until we validate the debt to you; it's going to go back on. [silence] Actually, it looks like we already validated the debt to you, back in May ..."

I certainly didn't receive this impression from the communications with Experian, and it seems to conflict with itself. Additionally, from my understanding of the FCRA I don't see how validating the debt to me is at all related to reinsertion.

Additionally, when questioned about the insufficiency of the verification, PMS claimed that the verification letter had included a complete, itemized bill. However, the letter I received contained no such document, but did claim to be the verification.

I'm reluctant to involve my family's lawyers in this due to the complexities of our legal situation and conflict of interest problems. Since the debts have been deleted from my credit reports, and I would need to be notified if they were reinserted, I see no reason to take any further action at this time, even though PMS is still trying to collect the debt. Going to small claims might be amusing, but doesn't seem like it would be worthwhile, necessary, appropriate, or friendly. Is this view flawed?

[Debt Guy]

Seems to me you are making a mountain of a mole hill.

First, if you read the FDCPA, validation is really nothing more than the name and address of the original creditor. Of course, they must verify the debt with the original creditor -- but the statement and such they sent to you are not required under the law. My thinking is they gave you what they had.

I'm not an FCRA expert but I don't see any meaningful violation from what you described.

If you really do have proof that you have paid the debt, why don't you contact the medical provider and tell them about the mix up and give them copies of your proof? The is no substitute for going straight to the source!

If that does not work, you can send a cease and desist to the CA and stop the collection activity. If you have disputed to the CRA and the DF has verified the information as accurate and you believe it is still in error, all you can do is sue the DF. I don't see any reason you cannot sue in small claims court.

But, other than the principal of the thing, is this really that big a deal? You decide.

[Eigenvector]

Originally Posted by Debt Guy

First, if you read the FDCPA, validation is really nothing more than the name and address of the original creditor. Of course, they must verify the debt with the original creditor -- but the statement and such they sent to you are not required under the law. My thinking is they gave you what they had.

I know. The problem was the lack of the address in the verification, as Scripps is rather large. I really didn't expect them to send me a statement, and wasn't sure whether they would even have access to a statement, considering that it was for a medical procedure.

I'm not an FCRA expert but I don't see any meaningful violation from what you described.

I'm not trying to describe a violation. I'm just confused as to why they seem to be asserting that the verification of the debt has something to do with reinstating the debt with the CRA.

If you really do have proof that you have paid the debt, why don't you contact the medical provider and tell them about the mix up and give them copies of your proof? The is no substitute for going straight to the source!

I will certainly have to try that. Having the address might make it easier, but I suppose that I can figure out the appropriate people to contact.

But, other than the principal of the thing, is this really that big a deal? You decide.

I'm afraid I have far too many mountains that should be rather smaller. If a charge like this isn't correct, I will gladly spend more to have it deleted than I would have spent simply paying it.

[Debt Guy]

I think we are getting each other confused. I was having a hard time figuring out where you where trying to go with this. My head hurts and I don't feel like going back and reading the entire thread. So, here is the entire overview (I'm not talking down to you or being insensitive to anything you have already said.

The CRA is reporting the way they are because the data furnisher is giving it to them that way. When you dispute with the CRA they go to the DF for verification. The DF has 30 days to verify of the tradeline falls off automatically. Sometimes the DF will verify after the 30 day period and the tradeline has already been deleted. In that case the tradeline is reinserted. I think that is what is happening to you and the language they use is confusing.

In any event the issue is with the DF. Call the CRA. They can give you the address of the DF.

There are two types of DFs. The original creditor (the medical provider) and the collection agency. Both can report simultaneously.

The CA just wants the money. They don't want excuses or explanations. You are wasting your time.

The DF is the party who has the authority to fix whatever is wrong. Figure out who they are, talk to someone. If it does not get fixed, mail a certified letter to the Chief Legal Officer, explain, provide copies of your proof and tell them they have 30 days to resolve. If they don't, sue for violation of FCRA. If your case is as good as you say, they will have to pay your attorney fees plus a penalty to you.

Good luck.