T-Man, instead of arguing the point, why don't you call the FTC yourself and ask. Maybe they will confirm what you are saying, but for me and Candi, they did not. Also, where in that rule does it say if it is reported to a cra, they must send you notice. It doesn't say anything like that.
No worries LKH, I'm sure you were told just that. Just think of the alternatives, someone would have to prove an initial communication in writing, and you know they don't, LOL, and I'm pretty darn sure they don't want to start either. Could work for us, someone may have to prove they provided an initial communication in writing, AND the price of postage is going up in June, I think it's effective. You know creditors don't want the burden of doing their jobs right, they want the good ole days back, pay it because I say it's yours to pay. Christi once posted, I have to pay 4 bucks to prove it, so should the CA's. I think my granny used to say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander ;-) Sassy
T-Man I don't disagree with you, I beleive it is a violation. I'm just saying that the FTC doesnt seem to recognize it as such. Then again it's not in any of their published opinions so maybe someone else at the FTC would think it is a violation.
LKH, I don't mean to argue, just debate. It is very important that we look at situation's from all angles, many times in life no one is "right" or "wrong" it is important observe from all perspectives . I believe that the FTC gave you this information, but I don't agree with it. I apologize if I came across in any negative way. T-Man
No need to apologize. I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that the rule you cited says nothing about what you are saying. And, if the FTC is correct in what they are saying, then the law needs to be changed. But, if they are correct, we need to plan accordingly. I still think that anybody facing this situation needs to call the FTC themselves for answers, and then prepare accordingly.
Initial communication can be a phone call. BUT. thatâ??s the easy part for the CA. That initial communication has to be followed up within 5 days with an unambiguous notification of your rights. They cannot attempt to collect the debt on this notice. No offers of settlement or threats can be contained in that second letter. I found a case on Cornell's Law site where a district judge threw out a case because a CA decided to clutter this second communication letter with collection references. In reference to a CA being able to report before they notify you. Yes, technically they can but most of the time they can legally not. Now let me explain. Most CAs don't follow the correct protocol in their initial communication/FDCPA rights second letter so in effect they have deprived you of your rights under the FDCPA. If we are to look at this as the courts already have, the "spirit" of the FDCPA should prohibit them from reporting. CA hide behind a pillar of ignorance of the law and ambiguities in the statute. My understanding of a CAs latitude in reporting disputed accounts. 1. They can report an account before they send you an initial communication 2. They can continue to report after you ask for validation, BUT...must list the account in dispute(as per the FCRA). This time frame is 30 days from the validation request. 3. After 30 days and no validation. They MUST remove the entry according to my understanding of the Cass opinion letter. The reason why CAs fight so hard to keep entries on your credit report is exactly why Cass clarified this point. They have little leverage over a debtor to collect beyond them tagging your credit reports.
Its not the *reporting* of the debt to the ca prior to notifying the alleged debtor that is a violation. It doesn't become a violation *until* the alleged detor requests their credit report and sees this alleged debt there. That would be the first communcation by the collection agency with the debt collector. There is a distinction here that has to be followed all the way through. Hang in there with me....this is fun <grin> Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] Paragraph (a) states: (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; then.... 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a(2), defines the term "communication" as "the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium." The collection agency's first communication was when alleged debtor became aware that the alleged debt was being reported by the credit reporting agency and then did not notify the alleged debtor in the initial communication or within five days of same, of the alleged debtors rights under the FDCPA. The collection agency I was dealing with had on their website that they felt that reporting on a credit report was a good "passive" way to collect a debt. Once validation is requested, if they do not validate, but do verify...there again is another cause of action. L
I know this thread has shifted a bit but I want to make one comment. I'm currently disputing a debt that is valid and within the SOL. I have sent letter 1, letter 2 (estoppel), intent to sue - they are not biting. I will agree with part of what the other posters are saying in regards to not pushing a debt within the SOL, but if the CA cannot validate AND you have them on violations AND the total of those violations is far greater than the amount they are attempting to collect, in my opinion, (and I am) going for the gusto. I have them on at least 2 violations and the amount they are trying to collect is $500. Now if they want to counterclaim against me but we'll see. I'll be emailing letters to their officers tomorrow.
does this work for the original creditors who has been given back the file after the collections gave back. collections gave it back to them after the validation letter. they have had it for four months. they keep verifying. what to do with this charge foo with original debt as charge off. I keep telling them it is not my account thay have not validated but sent me only statement with charges. I can't seem to get this straight!!!
You need to read section 623 of the FCRA which in short says that if the completeness or accuracy of any info being reported is disputed, it must put a notation on the creditors report stating it is in dispute, or they may not report it.
Just to throw this out... Would anyone go after a collection agency who is collecting for defaulted student loans if they have reported the collection activity on my credit report during the validation time and called me to harass me, which I took pictures of my caller id? The loan that is defaulted is really on the way to rehabilitation. The loan amount is 6,000, but they added 2,000 in "fees" and that is not the interest. Anyway, I think I have them on violations, but I am not sure if I really want to mess with anything affliated with the government. What if they counter sue? I know there is no SOL on student loans, but maybe if I do sue them, I will get some of the debt or "fees" removed/reduced.
I agree that they should have to send you the 5-day notice after putting something on your credit report. In some areas, if a person wants a divorce but cannot contact the spouse, publication of the divorce in a local newspaper is considered enough notice to the estranged spouse. So why should this be any different?
When I rehabbed my student loan, after the on time payments were made, they removed all of the collection fees (about 2K worth). You might want to check with the place you went through to rehab the loan and see if they will do this for you. L
