original creditor - debt validation is BS! Sounds like we have no rights!

It's true...request the documents on the account, you'll probably be charged for them ...see what they send you...write to them the basis of the dispute, why are you actually disputing it? Have you called them?

 

FDCPA is not for OC's or their internal collections, they have their own rules. If you are trying to get it removed off your cbr good luck. Requesting the docs will do no good, atleast I dont see how. You've paid them and will just have to suffer it out for the next few years until the 7 years is up.

 

They are still liable for erroneous reporting under FCRA, as is any data furnisher. In addition, under the FACTA additions to FCRA, data furnishers, including OCs that report, must respond to disputes of information they are reporting by investigating and correcting.

Is there information on your credit reports that they are reporting inaccurately?

 

Exactly why in more cases then not, I never suggest paying them unless they put in writing it will be deleted. Why? Because the day you pay them it moves to DOLA up and starts the 7 year cycle all over again, which in turn screws you over for paying them.
Laws should be changed that if a payoof is accepted by a OC or Ca that the DOLA does not change, maybe they would get more money....
The majority of items on your report have errors, dig until you find one, they are obligated by law to report 100% accuracy, nothing less.

 

This raises an interesting question.

If I know I have inaccurate info on my CR from an OC, how do I use it to maximum advantage?

(I am operating on the assumption that sending any documentation to the CRAs is bad.)

Would I send an OC their own statement?

If so, how would that get them to do anything but correct the error they are reporting?

I guess what I'm asking is when I've got a clear mistake, what is the plan of attack?


Thanks in advance, as always. When I get out of this mess and hit 700+ I'm going to buy everyone on this board a beer.

 

I have seen this same exact question on several boards. Interesting to see the replies to it all.

Oc does not have to follow certain FCRA laws, but they have to follow what the FTC and other laws regulate them to do, and that is to report accurate info.

I sent an ITS to an OC, they ignore it, when I filed the lawsuitat the courthouse, they called me so fast I heard my phone ringing before it actually rang.
They would not fix an error and it did not take them long to get it right.
Like, 1 day....

They must follow the FDCRA/FCRA laws but us consumers cannot use those laws to force it, but there are other means..

 

Welcome to America

You DO have rights and you sometimes have to FIGHT for those rights. That's the American way. When someone (or some company) infringes on your rights, you can roll over and let them or you can stand up and fight them.

If you stand up to them you might win and you might lose.

On the other hand, if you just sit there, you'll lose for sure.

It's your call.

 

"Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt."[3] The Court further stated that a request for validation of the debt is primarily intended to eliminate such problems as collectors contacting the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which have already been paid."

Debt collectors, particularly those that do not send validation, like to quote this excerpt, but it is taken out of context. In the actual case under review, the attorney acting as debt collector did, in fact, obtain validation from the OC, and forward it to the debtor. The case was actually about whether the attorney also had to validate their own fees, for costs which hadn't even occurred yet.

The FTC Wohlman letter outlines that validation must be obtained from the original creditor, in order to ensure both that the correct consumer is being billed, and to ensure that the amount is correct. It is hard to see, if validation is really limited only to the CA sending information in writing from it's own files, how the CA could "confirm" anything without first checking with the OC.

In fact the wording of the appeals court ruling implies exactly that, as it refers to the debt collector confirming what the creditor is claiming is owed, which can only be determined by contacting the creditor to obtain that confirmation. It is not merely a resending of information from the debt collector's own records, which even this ruling notes are not required to be complete.

Only the original creditor has the original business records, and the personel familiar with their manner of keeping that could testify to the accuracy of those records. No CA can do that itself, either to "validate" or "confirm" a debt, or to prove a debt in court. Furthermore, the CA and its employees can only attest to how they maintain their own records. The fact that some snapshot of the original creditor's records indicates that some debt was at some time owed is NOT proof by itself that it is currently owed.

CAs who send consumers this excerpted court ruling, along with their own letter saying that their own records show it is correct and that is all they have to send you, even if their own employee signs an "affidavit" to that effect, have NOT "confirmed" or "validated" anything, and are using deception to collect the alleged debt by claiming otherwise.

 

Since OCs are not subject to FDCPA, you cannot use validation or their failure to validate as a lever to force removal.

You can, however, dispute any erroneously reported information on your credit reports under FACTA. You can both dispute directly wiht the data furnisher (whether OC or CA), and you can dispute thru the CRA. Either way, if the data furnisher fails to correct or remove it, you can then sue. It would be to your advantage to be able to show damages caused by the error, such as denial of credit, or raised rates thru lower credit scores.

 

Note that this is in error:

"Exactly why in more cases then not, I never suggest paying them unless they put in writing it will be deleted. Why? Because the day you pay them it moves to DOLA up and starts the 7 year cycle all over again, which in turn screws you over for paying them."

Paying a debt does not restart the date of first delinquency for purposes of credit reporting. Only if you paid off and brought current an account, and then went delinquent again, would you create a NEW first date of delinquency. The old negative information should still age off based on its original date of first date of delinquency.

Paying some part of a debt MAY reset SOL, and affect how long a creditor has to sue you on the debt, depending on state law.

 

I am wondering....did you try the nutcase letters or just regular validation letters? Nutcase works great with paid accounts with the OC. I'll include a great link dealing with your issue that will have you reading for quite a while. I read all the links then crafted my own letter based on what I thought would get results. I had success with this as I had a TL from Wells Fargo removed along with an apology letter.

http://consumers.creditnet.com/Disc...e-is-the-nutcase-letter-29986.html#post213969

 

It's not exactly as cut & dry as ACA (which heavily promotes the Chaudry ruling) would have you to believe.

Validation serves two purposes.

#1 Is the debt the debtors?
#2 Is the amount of the debt correct? (And without any unauthorized charges.)

If you can defend the documentation requested under those questions, your request should be appropriate.

What they don't want us to realize about Chaudry is the type of documentation involved, doesn't apply to 99.44% of accounts.

The types of documentation involved were, attorney records which were covered by attorney client privilege; and documentation accounting for chargeable under the contract, BUT HAD NOT YET BEEN PERFORMED.

Chaudry upheld attorney client privilege, and established that attorney's don't have to hire the Psychic Friends Network to create invoices for services which hadn't been rendered yet.

 

You should also consider the source of any information posted in an article on Wiki.

Wiki is an anonymously and publicly created "encyclopedia", but as such, any particular article is no more accurate and authoritative than the people who create it. On subjects such as physics, or technical computer subjects, you can often find well written summaries and reviews of subjects, often by experts in the field, including links to much of the web-based literature on the subject.

With subjects for which there is disagreement, the article might evolve to represent the scope of that agreement, or it might be dominated by one viewpoint. This is particularly likely if only a few people take the time to maintain some area, and has been a particular problem for articles dealing with highly charged or political subjects, or where one faction has strong views and there is little other interest among others to counter that viewpoint. The impression the unsophisticated reader might be left with is that the source is authoritative, and the matter is cut and dried.


This particular article appears to reflect the position, and virtually the exact wording, of the ACA position on the issue of debt validation, as if they were the experts on what is legally validation. That position is slanted towards the interests of the members of ACA, who after all, are debt collectors. In effect, ACA's position, written by their attorney, gives their members at least the ability to claim "We thought this was adequate validation, since our attorney said it was." as a fig leaf under which to claim they made a bona fide error for which they should not be held liable if they are sued. You need to view any such position from the perspective of who produced it, and for what purpose.


There are other viewpoints on the subject, however, both from other courts, and from attorneys who represent consumers in FCRA and FDCPA litigation. Much of this litigations results in settlement, and seldom ends up in appeals courts where the decision is likely to be published.

There is also the position take by the FTC in numerous letters, including the Wohlman letter, which clearly addresses the same issues.

Several Attorney General websites have summaries of consumer information regarding debt collection, and they generally follow the ouline that FDCPA provides of the debt collector's legal obligations to provide proof that a debt is owed by the consumer being billed, recognizing that it is not uncommon for consumers to be billed for debts they do not owe. In particular, they do NOT use ACA's wording that implies that the debt collector's obligations to validate a debt are minimal and merely a formality.

You might take a look at a paper by Ed Combs on his site:
www.edcombs.com
http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Custom/collectiondefense.pdf
outlining the issues likely to arise in debt collection, including how to attack the validity of alleged evidence of debt in court, and where to find the holes in what many junk debt collectors present as "validation".

In addition, there are the positions on the meaning of applicable laws taken by FTC and various state AGs when they file complaints against debt collectors listing alleged violations of FDCPA and FCRA. Those cases have generally been settled one way or another to the detriment of the debt collectors, in some cases resulting in heavy fines and consent agreements, and in others resulting in shutting down and liquidating the company.

You might look, for example, at the FTC complaint against CAMCO, the IL AG complaint against Leading Edge Recovery, or the FTC complaint against NCO, for examples of practices NOT allowed and considered illegal, under FDCPA, FCRA, the FTC Act, or other laws, according to their interpretations of law. Debt collectors would be wise to do the same, as win or lose, if you go up against FTC or an Attorney General, it is going to cost you.

 

In other words, your "beef" with this OC is that they took your money but are still reporting the item. Is that correct? How long ago did you pay it? What is the date of last activity/date item was last reported on the item under your credit file? And roughly how much money are they reporting?

I have been through this myself. Sounds like your plan of action would be to let the OC know that you are aware of your rights. Per Ontrack's above post, these are the rights we are talking of: FACTA! This is key for you because:

"You can, however, dispute any erroneously reported information on your credit reports under FACTA. You can both dispute directly wiht the data furnisher (whether OC or CA), and you can dispute thru the CRA. Either way, if the data furnisher fails to correct or remove it, you can then sue. It would be to your advantage to be able to show damages caused by the error, such as denial of credit, or raised rates thru lower credit scores."

If the person reporting on your credit file is the OC, then they are the data furnisher. And you obviously feel this reporting is in error..so they do have an obligation to investigate! If they refuse to investigate and report back to you within thirty business days, they will be in violation. If they continue to report to the credit bureaus during your investigation period, this is a violation as well. This is a good thing! Well, good for your particular situation. If you have a violation, you can make them aware that this is the case and that you are prepared to sue if they fail to remove this item from your files. Since you owe them no money, it makes no sense for them to try and fight this. I personally doubt that you will have to actually file suit. At least, I have never had to.

Do I agree with not paying your bills and getting them removed? No. Do I think there are circumstances when the 7 year reporting law is crap? yes. Is this one of those circumstances, yes. That is my stand.

If you need help wording a letter, ask. You can do this.

 

Also, keep in mind if the dispute was with an OC; DEBT VALIDATION, per the FDCPA doesn't apply.

The FCRA would apply, but not the FDCPA.