Conned sumer
Washington,#2Author of original report
Sun, November 25, 2007
Sprint had emailed me November 16th with a soft copy of the letter they told me Cavalry Portfolio Services had sent me suggesting Cavalry was no longer pursuing this alleged debt with me. I received a letter with the same date from Cavalry in the mail over the Thanksgiving holiday while I was away, but it was not the same letter, so I am trying to determine why it is different. Enclosed is the text of my latest email to Sprint: Dear [Sprint Financial VP]: This letter is in reference to alleged Sprint account 0535311934. When I returned from Thanksgiving today (November 25, 2007), I found a US mail envelope dated 11-20-07. The letter inside is dated November 15, 2007 from M[Name of Cavalry Person] of Cavalry Portfolio Services, as was the soft copy forwarded to me by [Sprint Financial Person]. However, the version I received, which was apparently mailed from Detroit, Michigan and not from Hawthorne, New York, the address on the letter, makes no mention of notifying the credit bureaus to remove the trade lines if they are still reporting the account. The letter I received in the mail says simply that Cavalry Portfolio Services has "closed my account." It lists a current balance of $1,125.77 rather than the $0 balance that appears in the letter Mr. or Ms. [Sprint Financial Person] forwarded to me. The letter I received in the mail also begins with the greeting "Dear Customer" whereas the letter from [Sprint Financial Svcs] begins with "Dear [Variant of My Name]." I must assume there is some reason for the various discrepancies, and I would like to understand the rationale. It is curious that both letters also state "This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose." I would assume that Cavalry's closing what they allege in the letter to be "my" account means that Cavalry believes am not responsible for the charges they list. I would assume Cavalry is no longer reporting the account to the credit bureaus so they feel it is unnecessary to mention the credit bureaus in the letter. I would assume someone other than me still owes Sprint $1,125.77, or that Cavalry is attempting to reflect the concern I expressed to you and [Sprint Financial] about having it appear that I paid and thereby admitted responsibility. I would assume Cavalry is using the greeting "Dear Customer" rather than "Dear [Variant of Name]" not because they believe I am a Sprint customer or a Cavalry customer but because they have the name "[Variant of My Name]" on the account and "[Variant of My Name]" is not my name. I would assume the statement "This is an attempt to collect a debt" is legally mandated on all communications from debt collectors, but it is an odd thing to be told someone is trying to collect a debt if the purpose of the letter is actually to say the collector is no longer trying to collect the alleged debt. Since the correspondence from Cavalry is so very ambiguous, I would appreciate it if you could either confirm my interpretations in the preceding paragraph or deny them with explanation. I have enclosed copies of both letters for comparison. If I had not received your email, I would not have known what to make of the letter I actually received in the mail from Cavalry. Since the letter states "This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose," I would assume that the sentence "This is to inform you that Cavalry Portfolio Services has closed your account" might mean that they still think I am responsible for it but are no longer giving me a chance to "pay up"--that the statute of limitations has been reached and the trade line will now stay on my credit reports indefinitely. I realize there is a technical meaning for the term "closed account" in finance departments, but I would think Cavalry would understand that it is writing for a layperson, in my case one who has no prior experience with debt collection agencies. If Cavalry wishes to communicate clearly and effectively with alleged debtors, it would be in Cavalry's interest to send me a letter telling me in plain English that it no longer considers me responsible for the charges associated with the alleged or actual account in question or that it no longer intends to pursue collection (from me and/or others) on this alleged or actual account. Can you explain why Cavalry feels they must use such circumlocution? Are the accounting and/or legal issues involved in this case truly as complex as Cavalry makes them appear? I understand that it is possible that you feel you cannot speak for Ms. [Cavalry Rep], but I would also hesitate to speak first with Ms. [Cavalry Rep], since the line "any information obtained will be used for that purpose (attempting to collect a debt)" appears to suggest Ms. [Cavalry Rep] may be baiting me into calling her to obtain an explanation, only to get me to say something she could interpret as suggesting I am in some way responsible for this alleged debt. According to Cavalry's attorney, [Attorney's Name], Cavalry is Sprint's assignee and therefore cannot be the purchaser of the debt, so I would assume anything Ms. [Cavalry Rep] might write on Sprint's behalf is an accurate reflection of Sprint's wishes. The fact that the letter [Sprint Financial Person] forwarded me via email contains Cavalry's logo in color, whereas every letter I have received from Cavalry has been black on white only, suggests that Sprint is in possession of Cavalry's original documents, further supporting the notion that Sprint is in control of any communication from Cavalry on its behalf. Thanks once again for your assistance. Sincerely, [Conned Sumer's Real Name Spelled Correctly]
Conned sumer
Washington,#3Author of original report
Wed, November 21, 2007
Sprint has procedures in place for submitting claims of identity theft. These can be found on their web site, and there's standard forms their Executive and Regulatory Services department can send you (though they differ from the instructions on the web site regarding what certification you need to provide). However, the amount of scrambling by various members of Sprint's senior staff to clear up my credit suggested they do not have a standard policy for dealing with billing error or mistaken identity as opposed to identity theft. To me that suggested that cases of mistaken identity or billing error are not common enough at Sprint to warrant any such procedures. However, it may simply be that not enough people who have experienced such problems complain to Sprint directly. A quick check of Ripoff Report suggests a pattern of experiences much like mine. A few have actually had Sprint accounts that were closed years ago in good standing, but many have never been Sprint customers. Some have submitted claims of identity theft to Sprint or the bill collectors and still have not had the fraudulent alleged debts removed from their credit reports. For class action attorneys and the media who may not have time to do their own research, please review the following Ripoff Reports: 222097 from Peter, 245776 from Laura, 256088 from Ramona, 248044 from P., 243842 from Michael, 236445 from Roberta, 216528 from Donald, 223738 from James, and of course 267129 from Gokula. Sprint is being very helpful to me. Why is Sprint not helping these people? Or have these people not updated their Ripoff Reports to reflect the resolution Sprint has since provided?
Conned sumer
Washington,#4Author of original report
Tue, November 20, 2007
I spent most of last night and this morning (taking unpaid time off work) writing emails to various Sprint executives who have contacted me over the past few days. I got a nice email back from the VP of Customer Finance Services apologizing for the different messages I was getting from different people at Sprint. I replied that it was better than waiting with no response at all, and that the lack of coordination seemed to indicate that my experience was not a common enough occurrence to merit any one's being assigned to deal with it, which is a good thing for the public. The VP also explained that she is monitoring the credit reporting agencies and that once what is referred to as a "trade line" is removed from my credit reports, it should not have any residual impact on my credit scores, so these scores should be back to what they were before this alleged debt was reported. "Trust but verify" said one of our US Presidents I never thought I'd be quoting. I called Equifax and was told that though I could purchase my current score for about $8, no one could ever provide me with my score from before the alleged debt was reported, not even the supervisor or the manager at Equifax. So I am now trying to contact people who checked my credit in the past for a mortgage and new car purchase. I am hoping they can tell me what my old scores were.
Conned sumer
Washington,#5Author of original report
Tue, November 20, 2007
I spent most of last night and this morning (taking unpaid time off work) writing emails to various Sprint executives who have contacted me over the past few days. I got a nice email back from the VP of Customer Finance Services apologizing for the different messages I was getting from different people at Sprint. I replied that it was better than waiting with no response at all, and that the lack of coordination seemed to indicate that my experience was not a common enough occurrence to merit any one's being assigned to deal with it, which is a good thing for the public. The VP also explained that she is monitoring the credit reporting agencies and that once what is referred to as a "trade line" is removed from my credit reports, it should not have any residual impact on my credit scores, so these scores should be back to what they were before this alleged debt was reported. "Trust but verify" said one of our US Presidents I never thought I'd be quoting. I called Equifax and was told that though I could purchase my current score for about $8, no one could ever provide me with my score from before the alleged debt was reported, not even the supervisor or the manager at Equifax. So I am now trying to contact people who checked my credit in the past for a mortgage and new car purchase. I am hoping they can tell me what my old scores were.
Conned sumer
Washington,#6Author of original report
Tue, November 20, 2007
I spent most of last night and this morning (taking unpaid time off work) writing emails to various Sprint executives who have contacted me over the past few days. I got a nice email back from the VP of Customer Finance Services apologizing for the different messages I was getting from different people at Sprint. I replied that it was better than waiting with no response at all, and that the lack of coordination seemed to indicate that my experience was not a common enough occurrence to merit any one's being assigned to deal with it, which is a good thing for the public. The VP also explained that she is monitoring the credit reporting agencies and that once what is referred to as a "trade line" is removed from my credit reports, it should not have any residual impact on my credit scores, so these scores should be back to what they were before this alleged debt was reported. "Trust but verify" said one of our US Presidents I never thought I'd be quoting. I called Equifax and was told that though I could purchase my current score for about $8, no one could ever provide me with my score from before the alleged debt was reported, not even the supervisor or the manager at Equifax. So I am now trying to contact people who checked my credit in the past for a mortgage and new car purchase. I am hoping they can tell me what my old scores were.
Conned sumer
Washington,#7Author of original report
Mon, November 19, 2007
In my last update, I was feeling pretty cynical to see the word "[My name]--Customer" in my email responses from Sprint and a form letter email from the CEO that didn't seem to apply to my situation. But it turns out a lot of Sprint execs are trying to resolve this issue now, so Sprint's CEO does seem genuinely concerned, maybe about this ripoff report, but maybe about me, since he still seems to think I'm a customer. They're still putting "Customer" in the emails. Now I'm getting emails from their financial department saying they're closing the account and recalling the collection. That's all great, but they sent me a copy of a letter from Cavalry saying that basically that the balance on my account is now zero and that the account has closed. So even if Sprint asks the credit reporting agencies to remove notice of any delinquency, as they promise to do, it may appear to the credit bureaus that I finally paid the bill or negotiated some sort of customer credit with Sprint for an account that was mine, when it was never actually my account. As a result, my credit score may still suffer, because it may appear that I admitted to having the account. I'm also concerned that the alleged debt may be sold or resurface, since I'm not claiming identity theft, and therefore cannot request that it not be sold. I'm looking into this issue.
Conned sumer
Washington,#8Author of original report
Sat, November 17, 2007
After emailing a copy of this report to Sprint, I promised Sprint I would revise my report to reflect Sprint's actions on my behalf. Well, what can I say? I got sick Monday having stayed up all night Sunday to write that letter to the BBB so I'm finding my new hobby as legal expert is getting in the way of my real life. I figured I'd email this report to Sprint's Executive and Regulatory Services and jump the line by cc'ing their CEO. He's actually their CFO and acting CEO. (Gary Foresee doesn't work there anymore and no one seems to want the job; not sure why.) I understand this guy is working two jobs for what one can only hope is one salary and that he probably would rather be paying whatever attention he pays to Sprint's finances than answering questions from people who've never been Sprint customers, but still. I'm not saying I didn't appreciate his sending a reply the same day and offering to have someone in his office look into the matter, but it was a bit disconcerting to read "Customer -- [My Name]" in the subject line and to be informed that Sprint "appreciate[s] the opportunity to keep [my] business" when I had never ordered any products or services from Sprint. OK, I suppose Sprint is in some way "keeping my business" from me by withholding the evidence of the alleged billing transactions despite my repeated requests, but it was an unfortunate choice of words. It was apparent that this CEO had not read my message but that he had probably received quite a number of desperate pleas from the public and had created a canned response to deal with them all. I don't know what I was expecting, but I'd also CC'd their VP of Customer Service so I guess I was expecting a little more quality control. Maybe I need to look up the email address of their VP of Non-customer Service so they won't get confused. But I do have to compliment the CEO on what appears to be a public relations effort to convey the impression that, from the top brass on down, no one at Sprint is competent enough to develop an intentionally deceptive scheme to defraud the public. I must also thank Mr. CEO profusely for suggesting, through his inattention to detail, that before I discuss my alleged verification of alleged debt with representatives of his Executive and Regulatory Services department, I had better confirm with them that it is truly the documentation Sprint provided or meant to provide to Cavalry Portfolio Services' attorney and that it is truly associated with my social security number. It is still possible that Cavalry found me and my social security number in DC, but that the original account in Chicago was not associated with my social security number. Thank you Mr. CEO!!