My First Documented Legit Violation, need advice extracting payment from CA

I'm going to go ahead and say that Jam is probably your best resource for this issue!! I've never had to follow through with anything like this. Good luck... I know Jam is ruthless and is an expert at extracting money from CAs

 

Kam:

When I am at a computer I can answer in more depth.

Basically, you just want to memorialize everything you just said with the complete time-line.

Then draft a cover letter, ITS.

 

No need to send a second DVL. You already sent one and they responded admitting they either no longer owned the account or it was no longer assigned to them. There's no --Requirements Relating to Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Material-- here unfortunately since it was only on EQ and TU and now it popped up on EX. But there's definitely a violation of:

[15 USC 1692e]
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

(2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt;


I don't see this being a 'bonafide error'. If you were just wanting it to go away, I would dispute and see what happens; likely it would delete, but if they verified, that would just be more to pile on to the lawsuit. HOWEVER, since you're looking for more than a deletion, you risk losing any ground to stand on if they delete after your dispute. (not that it still was not a violation of the FDCPA, but just that you may get a judge that doesn't 'see it' that way).

I would (wanting something out of this) immediately go after them with an ITS letter for trying to collect on a debt they have no legal status on. It may help to get the forms for your federal courthouse and fill out the first page or two where it indicates they're the defendant....Point out that they previously sent you documentation agreeing they had no right to report the debt and demand $1,000.....or do what I've done....give them an offer, like a 50% settlement of $500 that's only good until x/x/xx.

 

FCRA penalties wouldn't apply, the DF is only liable under the FCRA after a CRA dispute. So as mindcrime pointed out they may wiggle out of it in front of a judge? (do I think they would take it that far? )

While I don't specifically offer the settlement offer in my ITS, I don't reject their calls for talks.

 

They can try that route, you just make sure they realize an apology doesn't cut it without a check being cut with it.

no need to wait or pile.

 

It would only be evidence if the 'Date Reported' updates, showing further collection activity. You could wait it out to see if this happens, but with the $1k cap on the FDCPA, it won't net you any additional money, just further proof that this CA is playing games.

Are you able to pull fresh reports on all 3? If you can, what is the last Date Reported for them on EX?

 

Yeah that would be continued collection activity updating your report WITHOUT validating anything. It's another violation, but not more money. 807 and 809 in your ITS.

Be sure to include filled out docs from the courthouse with your ITS to show them you're not playing.

Or if you're comfortable just going for the kill and potentially getting a better chance at an OOC settlement, file a suit for the violations....you don't need to 'ask' them to do the right thing anymore a Last Reported of June, when in April they agreed to delete says it all.

 

Deleting it doesn't unring that bell.

I would still ITS with a copy of the suit.

 

Deleting it doesn't unring that bell.

I would still ITS with a copy of the suit.

 

Verify something....each time you pulled your reports, what dates were from what source and which ones was CA#1 reporting?

 

For the ITS, I would only name the CA.

If you need to file, then you can add the CRA.

Think of the ITS as an opportunity for them to settle the matter with the least muss & fuss.

The difference in this situation also is that the CRA wasn't told about the account until 2 months after they've already put into writing that they have no interest in the account. The CRA didn't create the account information they report, they were given it by the DF, after they've already said that they don't have the account any longer.

 

Just make sure that the account was previously reporting on EX, then deleted, THEN re-inserted if you intend to pursue against EX as well, and not just reporting through the CMS and not really on EX. I had an issue with EQ's CW once where they 'reported' something on TU and when I pulled a fresh report (from TU), EQ wound up being wrong. (amazing how they were so flippant about it too "oh, a system error")

If the account was previously listed on that report and then it was reinserted, then Yes, they would be liable under ii and iii:

[15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a)(5)

(B) Requirements Relating to Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Material
(i) Certification of accuracy of information. If any information is deleted
from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may
not be reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency unless the
person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is
complete and accurate.
(ii) Notice to consumer. If any information that has been deleted from a
consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A) is reinserted in the file, the
consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in
writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized
by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the
agency.
(iii) Additional information. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under
clause (ii), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in
writing not later than 5 business days after the date of the reinsertion
(I) a statement that the disputed information has been reinserted;
(II) the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted
and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available,
or of any furnisher of information that contacted the consumer reporting
agency, in connection with the reinsertion of such information; and
(III) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the
consumer's file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the disputed
information.

I second Jam's suggestion leaving CRA out of ITS, but maybe for different reasons....if CA sees you're going after CRA as well in ITS they may be less inclined to settle with you them only being a co-defenant versus and all out case against them alone.