please don't shoot the messenger. lol They still maintain that a ca does not have to notify you after placing an entry on your report. I also asked if they don't notify me and 6 months later I find out about it by looking at my credit reports, is that considered the initial notification? The answer was no. So, again I am just repeating what the FTC told me and if in doubt, call them for yourselves so you will be certain of the answer.
Not gonna shoot you, LKH...lol, but I still think the statute is very clear on this (okay, I know I'm not an attorney and the FTC should certainly know more than I do...but...) I also think it would be successful in court. The thing is...it has not been tested in court and so there is no caselaw one way or the other. If things were black and white, there would be no reason to go to court and no reason for a judge to decide the "conclusions of law". It simply has not been tested. Makes me kinda wish I hadn't settled in that case just to see how it would have played out. So does anyone know how to get the FTC to issue an opinion letter? Do they only do this for the collection agencies and businesses? L
LKH, I'm not sure if you know the answer to this, but here goes: Since the CA does not need to notify the consumer before placing an account on the consumers report, and when the consumer checks his/her credit report and sees the notation, that is still not considered "initial notification", when does the initial 30-day timeframe begin? Or in other words, according to a FTC opinion ltr (CASS), within the first 30 days if the consumer notifies the CA that he/she disputes the validity of a collection account, the CA must remove the account, however if it's after 30 days they just need to place a notation on the account. So... my question is if the consumer sends a validation request to a CA after the consumer first realizes an account is on his/her credit report, does the CA have to remove the account (because its within the first 30 days that the consumer knew about the collection account) or can the CA simply say "hey it's been there for 6 months, your inital time-frame has expired, we don't have to remove, just notate as in dispute."
Whyspers, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I do think that the FDCPA needs some further expansion as far as what is and isn't a violation or allowable. Mindcrime, I don't think the Cass letter said they must remove an acct. if disputed within the first 30 days. If it hasn't already been reported, and they receive a validation request during the 30 day period, then they may not report it until they do validate it. and LK - lawsuits can work wonders. LOL PS - Whyspers, good luck with experian.
LKH, Okay I see what you mean. I guess the way I read it was if during those first 30 days (and the CA has already reported the account) they (the CA) receive a valdation request from the consumer the FTC views the placing of the account as "collection activity". Here's section II of what I was talking about: II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. The original question asks if it is permissible for the CA to report or continue to report (meaning it's already been placed on the consumers credit report within the first 30 days). And the short answer the FTC gives is no. Just my opinion.
The FCRA needs to be amended to FORCE the CRA's to report to YOU everytime a new listing is added to your report or adversly changes to a derogatory listing. We should not have to pay monitoring services to protect our own credit report from being abused. And as LKH has found it appears NOT to be the responsibility of the furnisher. It would protect against identity theft as well. Although they don't inform you of re-insertions...I don't know what makes me believe they would comply with original insertions. -Peace, Dave
whyspers, Don't you work for/in a law firm? Haven't you asked any of the lawyers for their opinions on this? Charlie
I don't want to sound like a know-it-all or anything, but those guys that take the calls and answer questions for the FTC are not experts - I'm serious. I have asked them stuff where I know they made up the answer!!! Just try it - call and ask something that is legally complex, but very clear in the law (i.e. you already know the answer), and see what kind of answer you get. I think they hire law students or college students and they have to either get their answers from a computer program, or wing it. Lots of the time they wing it.
I can somewhat relate with you breeze. Last week when I called the FTC to lodge a complaint against a CA that's been giving me a hard time the rep/agent who took my call sounded bored and uninterested in what I had to say, in fact I don't even think he took down most of what I said. Even at the end (when they're supposed to give you a complaint/reference number) he was getting ready to hang up on me when I said, um, aren't you forgetting something? I guess it's just better to get the info. straight from the opinion letters or from an actual case if there is one.
Charlie, I have spoken with them generally about this sort of thing, but they don't do consumer law as a rule so I probably know more than they do...lol. What is that law firm that does the free consultations? Maybe someone could send them that thread and ask them for their input? I don't know...but I'm convinced that it would fly....lol. L
I would tend to agree with you in most cases Breeze, however, in this case, this is the 3rd or 4th time I have called with this exact same question, and have gotten the same answer each time. If they are wrong, then whoever is giving them the bad info at the FTC is going to cause themselves some problems at some point.
LOL, LKH!! they prolly discussed this on their break. I can hear it now "...this dude asked me....blah blah blah...I just told him...blah blah blah.....what do they think we are.....lawyers???" <guffaws> "hey, some idiot asked me the same question last week, that's what I told him too..." "...he must be making the rounds..I got a similar call the other night...don't these people have anything else to do??" "you better be careful, if the QA people hear you making up answers, you'll get an error, and there goes your promotion..." "promotion, heck, you can get fired for that..." "well I was looking for a job when I came here. Besides, I'll have my law degree in a few months, and then I'm outta here....."
Dancer, This is the LeFevre-Cass letter (FTC opinion ltr): UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Federal Trade Commission December 23, 1997 Robert G. Cass Compliance Counsel Commercial Financial Services, Inc. 2448 E. 81st Street, Suite 5500 Tulsa, OK 74137-4248 Dear Mr. Cass: Mr. Medine has asked me to reply to your letter of October 28, 1997, concerning the circumstances under which a debt collector may report a "charged-off debt" to a consumer reporting agency under the enclosed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In that letter, you pose four questions, which I set out below with our answers. I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g. II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992). IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8). I hope this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney Enclosure
Here's that one: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm Want to read them all? You'll need a rainy weekend, LOL: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters.htm
