Ok... I promise, if someone will answer this, I will stop asking questions for today. I just need to know - when disputing with a collection agency, are they required to note the account as being in dispute to the CRA's? In all the times I have disputed with collection agencies, none of them, NOT ONE,0 has noted on my credit reports that the item(s) are being disputed. If they are required to notify the CRA's, how long do they have to do it? Thanks again for everyone's help.
Yes the CA is required to note the account as in "dispute" on your credit report. From the FCRA: § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.
Dear Girlie, This thread may clarify your earlier question: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=1&postid=188190#post188190 As for this question, you should give about 30 days for the CA to udate with the CRA. They usually do it on tape, once a month on stuff like this.
Mindcrime and Butch - THANK YOU!!! I wish I had more time to devote to this - then I would probably understand it better. I get so confused between the FCRA and FDCPA - I have both printed out to refer to, but it's been a long day. So thanks again. :O) Have a nice night!
You're welcome girlie. Just one other thing I'd like to say. They should be placing the account in question in dispute within 5 business days, not 30. Under the FCRA they need to provide the CRA's with accurate information, and after receiving your validation request letter, they are now aware of errors, and that you dispute the account. By waiting out 30 days to report the account is in dispute, it's not only not accurate, it's somewhat pointless for the consumer.
Great point MindCrime, In reality tho how often does a dispute show up on the CR on the 6th day. They most likely will just put it on the tape and insist they complied. Don't ya think?
Butch, The FCRA doesn't say it has to be noted when it's conveinient. That they don't should be used to your advantage. Sassy
awwwwwww butch, As usual, SNORT, that's just for you. You were right about when they get around to doing it, I just wanted you to use it -- make it work for you. A violation is a violation is a violation. Sassy
Thanks again, Mindcrime. Ya know, in all the times I have EVER disputed an account with a collection agency, NONE of them have ever placed a notation with the CRA's on my credit report. Never. I am going through my reports today and disputing medical collections on TU - the local collection agencies only report to TU here. So, when they don't note the account is in dispute - that's a violation. So if I end up writing the intent to sue, is that $1000 per item that they failed to note the dispute on? (I have 4 medical collections all placed with one CA.) Also, if the do not respond, or if they do respond but tell me that it's my responsibility to obtain copies of the bills from the hospital, how many total violations will that be? And one more thing - is there anywhere in the FCRA or the FDCPA that states specifically what validation means? I know if they send me anything, it will be a computer generated bill - not something with my signature, and I want to make sure they understand that a copy of a bill is not adequate validation. Thanks again.
Yes, if they do not note the account as in "dispute" it is a violation of the FCRA. Also, TU's system as you may know is out of date, and does not note an account as in "dispute" even when a CA tells TU to do so, so.... even if the CA followed the law (which they almost never do anyway) you still have them on that If they send you a letter saying that, just go ahead and send estoppel. Also include the Wollman FTC opinion letter (this is the one which explains what is expected of the CA when requesting validation) Well, not that I know of in the FCRA or FDCPA, however, the same letter I mentioned above (wollman letter) explains that mere itemization of what the debt collector already has (IE: computer print out) is not enough. Here's the letter: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Division of Credit Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection March 10, 1993 Jeffrey S. Wollman Vice President and Controller Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. 1261 Broadway New York, New York 10001 Dear Mr. Wollman: This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .â? in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask 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. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer. Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney Division of Credit Practices
Dear Girlie, One thing is for sure. You are entittled to see the actual document that contains your signature that makes you liable, in other words the original contract. This one thing seems to be the most difficult for them to come up with, which is to our advantage.
