I have a current situation with a somewhat OC. An old Moms & Pops Finance Co. 6yrs old. The debt had been off for 2yrs, EQ screwed up and somehow the OC verified.. Anyways. I'd posted here recently If the OC had to validate and were they under FCBA or FCRA. I sent a Validation letter to the OC, but i made it weak and didn't want to quote all the laws and etc, because I wanted to trip them up. OK a couple of things happened here. I received a letter from a Management Service on the behalf of the OC, indicating they provide auditing and acctng for the OC. They listed what they think is the balance should be, mentioned a rtn chek fee that was an error then suggested contact the oc to get the exact bal because it could change daily(WTF) Ok. The killer part this letter mentioned the FCRA as F.c.R.a (1.) I thought the OC needed to Validate the debt and not someone on the behalf of the OC or CA. Or at least the results of the validation should only come from whom it was sent to? ( This happened before when RMA allowed the OC to send me the Validation results and not them, I was able to get it removed because of that thanks to LKH and LizardKing). 2. The Management Co/Auditing co sent this letter, which to me isn't full accting. It had no mention, I repeat on Mention of Mini Miranda (i.e "This is attempt to collect a debt and so on") 3. I got my Credit reports saturday and they didn't put the account in dispute.(Eventhough they are the OC, aren't they required to also put dispute notice within 5days right?)
The way the FDCPA reads, you request validation from the CA. They have to get it from the OC, and they send it to the CA who then forwards it to you. Sounds a little questionable on whether they are a 3rd party debt collector or not. Did they ask you to pay the debt, or did they just mention you needed to check with them on the accounting? (not that this determines if they are a CA or not!). I've seen five days mentioned a couple of times over the last few days. I have not seen anywhere in the FCRA this 5 day limitation for it to be marked in dispute. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. What I think, is you are confusing it with the 5 day time limit the CRA has to notify the furnisher that there is a dispute.
I put the line of tilde's down through there to help illustrate the differences. First of all OCs are not required to validate under FDCPA. That in itself is a bit of a catch 22 because if validation of the 3rd party collector is demanded he must go to the OC who must send the validation to the collector who must provide it to the debtor. If there is any requirement other than that in FDCPA for the OC to validate if demanded by the debtor of the OC then I have failed to see it. So in the first instance you are demanding of the OC and in the second you are demanding of a 3rd party collector. I believe that it pretty clearly defines the course of action required of both and it appears to me that if the OC sends directly then the CA is hung out to dry. I tend to think that the management co. has no obligation to include a mini statement because they are not trying to collect anything. They appear to be an accounting firm more than anything else. I'm not sure that the OC has to do that umder FDCPA although they probably are under FCRA.
Jlynn and Bill, Thanks for responding.. Ok This Management Co isn't a CA. I guess the OC, who may i add has never tried to collect or assign this to an agency. They just have written it off. No activity has happened. I'm been the aggressive person. . They are just reporting the debt(FCRA) not Collecting(FDCPA) correct? I would think eventhought they aren't a collecting agency technically would they be of some sort, since they are validating it? Jylnn I thought OC and CA or obligated to mark an account in dispute once they receive a validation request from a consumer? Bill I agree with your answer on my #1, i think that what got RMA hung. In this instance again the Management co isnt' a CA per se, but within the process of validating arent' they taken on the role? Here's the letter I received from them below. I know the disputed amt is small, but I like the principal(smile). Dear XXXXX, Re: Account# We are responding to your letter dated February 10, 2003 on behalf of XXXXXXXXXCorp. in XXXXX, XXX provides accounting and auditing services to XXXX. Your letter requests that XXXX Finance remove your credit record from your personal consumer credit file You indicated that the balance and account status being reported is inaccurate. You stated that you have concrete facts that XXXXX Finance's records are invalid, but will not disclose these facts. We have carefully reviewed your account and each of the transactions associated with the outstanding loan made on April 15, 1997 in order to validate XXXX Finance's records. We identified a $20.00 return check fee that was assessed, but should not have been. We have determined that the correct unpaid balance of your account is $52.05. There is also about $47.00 in after maturity interest that has accrual of 16%annum. Please call XXXX Finance at XXX-XXX-XXXX for an exact balance, as this amount is subject to change daily. In accordance with the F.c.R.a you are hereby requested to provide XXXXX Finance with any documentary or other concrete evidence that world result in an appropriate correction to your account record within forty-five (45) days of this letter. Otherwise, XXXX Finance will continue to report your unpaid balance as stated above. Your concern with this matter is appreciated. Alternatively, we would suggest that you make arrangements to pay your loan account balance in Full. XXXX Finance would then be able to report a paid in lull status to the consumer reporting agency. Sincerely. For XXXXX. FINANCE CORP.
This is smelling Rotten..... Today(Friday) I got a call on my answering machine from this mangement co, asking if i'd received thier letter, and please call the OC to resolve the past due immediately!!!!! WTF! To me it sounds like they are flirting with the tendacies of a CA???? I had to replay that over and over. First of all the letter to me wasn't no where close to validation, and the OC didn't even mark the $%%@ accoun in dispute,so who are they to place calls and letters about a debt? Thats a Collection Agency to me..... I must create a Master Piece to send out.......
I tend to advise against inventing any Master Pieces to send out. I tend to think the first thing you need to do is to find out the following: What is it that is out there in the chicken house? Is it a pole cat (skunk) or a coon or a possum or what? Once the critter is identified then you can figure out the best way to kill the beastie. I'd start there.
Now it is getting stinky. I can't put my finger on it, but my suggestion would be to read thru the FDCPA opinion letters about what is a debt collector. You might find some answers there. Also, you might go to collector.com, click rosters, click CA members, click on advanced search, and see if by chance they are registered as a CA with them. THAT IS NOT DEFINITIVE either way, but might be interesting to find out. Finally, yes, the OC should mark it in dispute. What I was correcting was something you said about "within 5 days". There isn't anything that says that in the FCRA or FDCPA.
Oh yeah, and if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Save that message on your answering machine!
Bill, Good Point... I actually just came back from lunch. During my time i drove to the bldg where this company resides. The Accting/Management Co does Accounting & Auditing for about 10 Mom & Pops High Interest Finance companies. I'm a Computer Consultant, so I went into the bldg on a Cold Call. I ask for the Owner and explained my services and wanted to know if they had a IT Dept or a Technical liason when there's problems. I was killing myself inside. The Office Manager/ Supervisor indicated when they had problems they'd call PC on call or Comp USA, but would like to save money. Obviously I didn't give my Card, but told him i would fax over some quotes.... He then told me what they do, which basically do the auditing & acctng for high interest finance co.. do research, and verify loan apps when the OC needs it.!!!!!! This dude kept wanting a Card because they wanted to save $$$ on Technology... I left there with a potenial customer and someone who's trying to collect from me!! How ironic is that.... Bill they are weasels!!!!!!!!!
jlynn, Thanks... I've already saved the msg and made it a .wav file, and now that I think of it. It may be the same dude I spoke to about consulting... them Ducks!!!!
I thought you said they was weasels. If that's what they are and you got weasels in your chicken house you got real problems. Them weasels are so mean they even named a jet fighter plane after them. The Wild Weasel. LOL
Well, you need learn a lesson from the old farmer and that is to treat all weasels alike.. KA BOOOM!!!! Equal opportunity, dontcha know?? LOL Just don't be like the slick old chicken thief. He's out in Farmer Brown's chicken house about 3 A.M. Here comes Farmer Brown with his shotgun and throws open the door and hollers out, "Who's in here" Slick ole chicken their pipes up in a sqwauky voice and says "Ain't nobody here but us chickens" LOL
BTW, I just found out I may very well have a weasel to contend with too. The news team from the McNeil Leher news hour is looking into creditwrench. I can just imagine how that is likely to turn out. May have some rat killing of my own to do. Those kinds are never going to do anything positive for me. They are always looking for the next scandal to pop on their listeners. Never anything good. LOL
What is it that is out there in the chicken house? Bill ============== Probably one of the foxes they have guarding it. LOL The END ************************* LB 59
They are always looking for the next scandal to pop on their listeners. Never anything good. Bill Bauer =============== They need look no farther than unFAIR IKE. How much are they getting Paid by the Credit Industry to rat you out? LOL
Bill, I found some ammo to "Kill my Weasels"!!!!! I GOT THEM! § 812. Furnishing certain deceptive forms (a) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. (b) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 813 for failure to comply with a provision of this title. [Codified to 15 U.S.C. 1692j] [Source: Section 812 of title VIII of the Act of May 29, 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-321), as added by the Act of September 20, 1977 (Pub. L. No. 95-109; 91 Stat. 880), effective March 20, 1978]
This may also be a good time to hit the OC with a request for validation under the FBA. Especially where they're claiming a returned check charge that sounds new. It's a good test, eh Bill? Also, sounds like the 3rd party is a debt collector, but you'd have to see the contract between the OC and "CA". Remember, they (the CA) has to get the debt in default to be a debt collector. They also have to be working as a third entity, not under the OC's control for the FDCPA. I've done a little research into this: http://www.creditreportrights.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=758 http://creditreportrights.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=784
