My Dell CO has recently been placed with a new CA, ARS National. They called and in the initial conversation (I have not received a letter from them yet, but they say it was sent on 6/11), I mentioned that I didn't believe the debt was valid, but for convenience sake I had tried to work out a PFD arrangement with the previous CA. The supervisor told me that Dell doesn't do this and that it's in fact, illegal. Sounds like hogwash to me, but thought some of you might know better. I mean, if they're not required to report, then shouldn't it be legal to remove all mention of a previously delinquent account if it's paid in full? Or for any reason, for that matter? It's not like they're updating with a perfect payment record, just making things as if they decided to never report the account. Anyone think other wise? The supervisor told me that Dell would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if it was known that this is what they were doing. While I can't disagree there, since anyone can sue anyone else for any reason, I would have to believe that the lawsuit would be baseless since Dell is not required to report.
That is a load of horsemanure.They can remove anything that was originally placed on your report by them. The Fcra simply tells them if they report it has to be accurate. If it is removed during a settlement,they no longer have an obligation to report it.
In fact, I beleive they usually do not (or are not supposed to) report the CA account if you pay within the 30 day initial window. I do know it is a general practice to not report. So, if they've "just sent" the initial notice, and you have not received it yet, then the 30 day window should not even be starting. You have not even had a chance to be "aware" of the debt yet, let alone given opportunity to request validation. So, (in my opinion only!) what this supervisor is saying is potentially illegal! Also, I have spoken to "supervisors" who have made the same claim, I politiely suggested to them to read the FCRA and FDCPA act again. There is no "legal" requirement to report, only the legal requirement to report accurate and complete information IF you do report.
Actually, this is the second CA Dell has assigned. Dell is the only one reporting the CO as they have retained the account and not sold it, yet.
Just my view from the cheap seats. I think the "30-day" delay is more of a "grace period" to save the hassle and cost of putting the notice up on the credit report, taking it down while they are validating, then putting it back up after they validate. All the while pissing off the consumer from whom they are trying to collect. If they can get the money for just the cost of a letter, then more for them. If after a couple of letters, they get no response, then they can escalate and put it on the credit report.
It's not illegal to delete anything. However, it is a breach of most agencies contract with the credit reporting agencies so the action would be inequitable to the aforesaid CRA's. Still, not an illegality though.
I think I received the same information just yesterday. I mailed a GW letter to the GM at BNA Financial. She called me yesterday to tell me that she could not remove the paid collection from my credit report and that it was illegal and they had a contract with equ. If she did remove that they could get in trouble for not reporting. Then I asked her if I disputed it could they not verify; her response was "oh we verify everything" I give up. I guess it will be on my cr for 5 more years. I guess I'm out of options
CDIA manual... I found this in the CDIA manual at http://www.cdiaonline.org/files/PDFs/2006CRRGWholeManual.pdf in the FAQ at the end. So it looks like you would need to find a way to convince them that the account reporting is inaccurate.
So it looks like you would need to find a way to convince tham that the account reporting is inaccurate.[/QUOTE] Wow! Did you read the whole manual already?! I'm impressed!
Well, I can't say that I can quote it from memory. As specifications go, it's one of the clearer ones I've read (and I've read a few). Combining computer specifications with legal citations is no small task. Either one by itself is a challenge, let alone mixing both at the same time.
He could also find a reason to file suit over some FDCPA violation and make removal of the TL a precondition of any settlement.
To summarize, I think we have an interpretation item regarding "illegal" reporting protocol. I beleive the data furnishers feel they are following the "spirit" of the law, though perhaps TL removal does not violate the "letter" of the law. We must admit that the langauge of the CDIA manual does show the correct intent to maintain "fair and accurate reporting".
Agreed, which is why you want to be careful when you pay it and to make removal a condition of payment. The argument being that it's reporting is innacurate and/or unfair. For example, I had an account that ended up in collections due to the OC sending the final bills to an incorrect address. Does their error mean I'm a deadbeat? No. Consequently, reporting this as a negative mark on my credit is NOT accurate and any negative TL associated with this account should be removed or made positive. But, if you've paid it, and not made any conditions part of the settlement, you've in essence admitted that it belonged to you and belonged in collections and therefore should be reported as a paid collection and not removed. Going back after it's been paid is possible, in theory, but a much harder sell with much less leverage.
You, and your example, sum it up well. The "case" has to be removal is in the spirit of "fair and accurate", in essence a true representation of your "history" and behavior.
