Do FDCPA+FCRA violations depend on original debt validity?

I've talked with several law firms about filing a suit for FDCPA and FCRA violations against a CRA, but every one of them want to see documentation showing the status of the original debt.

If you send a dipute and validation request and they ignore it, then proceed to send bills, ignore a second D+V request, send more bills, start posting to the credit bureus, ignore a cease+desist demand letter, and CONTINUE to post to the credit bureaus, what do any of those violations have to do with the status of the original debt?

You don't have to have a gun license to get charged with discharging a firearm; you don't need a driver's license to get booked for DUI or wreckless driving; why would it matter if a debt is valid or not, or satisfied or not, for a CA to violate FDCPA + FCRA? ESPECIALLY if it's NOT a VALID debt!

 

Sorry 'bout that. I was, in fact, referring to a CA, not the CRAs. You guessed correctly. (I don't see much value in suing the CRAs, generally speaking.)

But you guys have simply reinforced what I understood to be correct. So why do the lawyers I'm talking with not want to take on the FDCPA+FCRA violations until/unless I can show some kind of status on the debt?

BTW, the OC was Sprint. At the moment they've got a huge case of corporate indigestion trying to merge their internal databases with Nextel's. I called nearly a dozen times on Thursday trying to get info on the original debt, and the first person I got in Customer Service was able to bring up my old account info, but she couldn't print anything for me. She referred me to their Finance Dept. and transferred me. The line dropped and I called them. When I finally reached someone, I was told that they couldn't access my records, that I'd have to call CS back. She transferred me and ... the line dropped. It took several attempts to get hold of someone again. She apoiogized and said I needed to talk to Finance. Nope. Been there, done that. Ok, how about Collections? Transfer was dropped. Finally reached them and they can't access the old Sprint records either. Everybody I talked with was in a different city, and nobody seemed to have access to the same set of records.

 

I don't know. The lawyers I've talked with won't take the case on unless I can show them that the debt either: (1) isn't mine; or (2) isn't valid. I disputed the original contract and the oc never replied to my dispute, so it's null and void. But I can't get anything that substantiates that from them.

From my experience with lawyers, they treat most things as some variation of contract law. Very few apparently know anything about FCRA or FDCPA, and they don't seem to care. It seems easier for them to focus on the original contract or debt, rather than FCRA + FDCPA issues.

UPDATE ON OC: I finally reached someone today at Sprint who was able to access my records and simply said the account was opened on June 21, 2003 and terminated on July 7, 2003, and that there's nothing owing. There was no explanation about why it was terminated, or if I ever owed anything or not after that. I asked her if she could PLEASE send me something documenting whatever she could, and she said she would send it to my email. But I have not received anything yet. (I'm not holding my breath. But at least I finally got the correct account number and I know the dates of the account!)

 

Sorry, but I just don't get this. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it just doesn't make sense to me. The BK, PI, and products liability fields are constantly being rewritten and novel nuances explored. I don't see any reduction in the number of lawyers in THESE fields! FDCPA and FCRA are at least, what, 10-15 years old now? There haven't been a whole lot of changes to them, nor a lot of caselaw established.

I suppose the lack of caselaw has more to do with the following facts:

1) the SOL on FDCPA violations is 1 yr, and FCRA is 2 yrs (or vice versa);

2) a consumer has an extremely narrow window (30 days after initial contact by a CA) to assert his rights or end up waiving most of them;

3) most consumers don't call a lawyer until the proverbial sh*t is about to hit the fan, by which time there's very little that can be done.

Consumers would have to be trained to contact a qualified FCRA/FDCPA attorney IMMEDIATELY after being contacted by a CA -- literally, within a week for all practical purposes. And the attorney would have to be able to respond equally fast to preserve the consumer's rights. If there's one thing attorney's do NOT do is "move fast", unless the consequence is an immediate loss of income (eg, like a fine or contempt citation).

And collection actions like this tend to be an on-going problem -- mine have been going on for nearly 5 years now.

Any smart attorney is going to look at this game card and say, "Show me the money!" There's ain't any unless some fairly gross FDCPA and/or FCRA violations arise, and then it STILL might not be worth their time.

The lady in California (Nelson?) who was awarded $100k in June is an extremely egregious example. It was a 3-day jury trial. One can only wonder what the legal fees came to. (I don't know if the award included legal fees, or if they were awarded separately.)

I see FDCPA and FCRA more as toothless laws that exist purportedly for the benefit of the consumer, but for all practical purposes, they accomplish little since it's so hard to get a lawyer to do anything.