I am going to court. I have gto a compnya on refusing to report my account in dispute, or at least I hope i have them they are the original creditors. they have just now after 5 months added consumer diputes. Cna I sue for each month they did not add the notation. I disputed the accont every thirty days. How much can I sue for damages? I have been turned down for credit simply because of the charge off, which they did not validate cam I sue for: 1000 for non reporting account in dispute 1000 for non validation yet continued reporting 1000 for defemation of character 1000 for reporting false information Does this sound right? I am asking for 4000.00 dollars and deletion
They do not have to validate - throw that one out. Reporting false information - can you prove willfull negligence? if not, throw that one out. Defamation of character - I don't think you can sue for damages such as this in small claims. I think the only damages you can get in small claims are real damages. the only one you seem to have a good basis for is the faiure to list acct in dispute but that could also be because the CRA took so long to update the record.
You can't sue an original creditor for not validating as they do not fall under the FDCPA. As for your others, if you can prove it, you can do it.
LKH...Are you sure you can sue for defamation in small claims? I though you could only sue for tru damages (increased interest, etc).
the collection agency gave the account back to the oc after they said they could not validate. so the collection agency has been out of the picture for four months or so.
so it looks like I have 1000 dollars to sue for ( the account is a 1300.00 charge of) I hope it not worth it to them to fight in court ove rthis. also can a original creditor report at the same time thier collection agency does. they also did this.
I have damamges I have damamges. Previously, I had to finace ac ar at 24% that got to be damage suit worthy. Also if the collectors sent the account back because they had no proof or validation and the oc kept reporting the account, should serve as willful damage to me. Does that sound right?
No. Just because the CA couldn't validate, doesn't mean the OC is liable. It could have been something as simple as a letter from the OC to the CA that was lost in the mail or vice-versa. The OC is not bound by the laws that demand proper validation.
so we ae back to square one with only basisi for suit being not reporting the accoount as disputed? Well that sucks. But I guess I'll take into court with me. There has to be something else I can sue them for. Well, ok I'll take the 1000 dollars for not reporting account as disputed. It is pretty cut and dry Tanks any way.
No problem. Remember - that also is not cut and dry. they could always claim they requested the update and the CRA dragged their feet. I'm not trying to be a wet blanket but I just don't want you to walk into court and look like an idiot.
they dragged thier feet for almost five months Yeh right. Would a judge really believe this? I have proof they added the dispute with in three days after intent to sue notification I will post my results. Donot plan to look like an idiot just the facts mam I'll let the facts speak fro them selves thanks for the caution though
Dear Tanya, As to your first question; YES! You may sue for each month they failed to follow the law. Here is one of my favorite items of case law; FTC Vs. Perimeter Credit. It settled outta court but even in the complaint the FTC acknowledges that EACH violation is a separate violation. Here's a clip "Each instance within the five years preceding the filing of this Complaint in which Defendants failed to comply with the FDCPA in one or more of the ways described above constitutes a separate violation of the FDCPA for which Plaintiff seeks monetary civil penalties." It's at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9902/perimeter-cmp.htm As to your second question; The "Furnisher of the information" is defined in the FCRA. It is the "Furnisher" who MUST validate or remove. They MAY NOT subvert that responsibility by shuffling the file. This seems to be an area of confusion that they are taking advantage of. They act like a bunch of kids bouncing this responsibility back and forth from the OC to the CA. Here YOU do it. No YOU do it. Congress foresaw this problem. They said simply whoever furnishes the info is the one required to validate. Often they attempt to kick the file back to the original creditor to avoid being governed by the FDCPA and supposedly absolve themselves of further responsibility. In other words avoid being sued. Why would they do that, you ask? BECAUSE THEY CANNOT VALIDATE. It's that simple. There is an FTC Staff opinion that speaks to this very issue. Unfortunately I can't place it right now but I'll look because this question does come up sometimes. It's in the FCRA opinions not the FDCPA opinions. When are you going to court? As to your 3rd point; YES the OC is also required to prove the validity of a debt but only if you place it's validity in questions. It's not via FDCPA so we don't use the word "validation" here. Technically speaking it is a billing error. and covered by the Fair Credit Billing Act. You may want to see my post to Singledad at http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=179682#post179682 Your right to question the validity of ANY bill FROM anybody is carved in stone. We just need to make sure we are using the right law with the right problem. Indeed if an OC were not required to substantiate a debt what mechanism would we have to correct THEIR blatant errors? I'll try & get back to ya on that,
awesome, awsome, awsome! I have court date for 6-17-02 if it still availble . The clerk told me I could probably get this date if I come in by the end of the day tomorrow. I would love to hear more thank you so very much. I will wait for your update and keep an Eye out for applicable laws. awesome thanks.! I will check this post time to tiem and I will look for your general post perhaps others will appreciate this info as well. good job.
Dear Tanya, The opinion I spoke of is the Wollman opinion and it IS in the FDCPA opinions: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm Here's a clip; "...Who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer. "The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor [and sent to the consumer by the debt collector]. .... As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer." [emphasis mine] So we can see that once you dispute with the CA they must be the ones to send you validation as required by law. They may obtain that validation from the OC. Of course. From where else would they get it? The point is the CA must supply the request. They may not just shuffle the file back to the OC. If they try you can sue them again. What probably happened in your case is this: You demand (notice I did not say request) validation from the CA. The CA calls the OC and says send me ALL this stuff. The OC says we can't cause we can't find it. The CA say's well fine, here's the file YOU deal with it. YOU'VE ALREADY WON! Just stick to your guns Hang tough,
By the way, Obviously I took all your post's into consideration while answering. You said: "I have proof they added the dispute with in three days after intent to sue notification" Hang on the that one, it's big. "See your Honor, they can do it when they want to." Which, by default demonstrates the willfull part of the negligence that TMitchell mentioned. lol
Uhmmm...if the only thing you are suing them over is not noting the account in dispute, I feel that you will not be a happy camper when standing in front of that judge. Them noting the account was in dispute would not have made any difference in your interest rate. Are they reporting the account incorrectly? Is it not yours? If they are reporting it incorrectly and that makes a difference in your creditworthiness, then you can build a case against them on FCRA violations. I would just hate to see you have your case tossed out and not be able to refile because you had not built a good case against them. L
I agree with whyspers. I don't think I would ever sue for just a single borderline violation. Unless you can prove that the "in dispute" notation would have gotten you a better rate, i think you may have a hard time in front of a judge.
