I am progressing with my case against RMA. The debt is for $2300 (ish) and they are still within their SOL, so I want to make sure if they do sue me I am fairly protected. Here is the timeline possible violations so far: 1. Credit report from 2/14/02 shows two accounts, the real and the duplicate. Same account number. RMA pulls a hard on 5/10/02, so it can be assumed that they realize that they are showing two accounts. 11/11/02 both account and duplicate come back verified on Equifax report. 2. 1st Validation letter sent CRRR. Green card comes back on 5/12/03. RMA pulls a hard on 5/12/03. 3. Duplicate is removed from CR and labeled as duplicate. However, CA fails to send validation on account. 4. I am 99% positive that the account has been re-aged but won't know until I get validation. So from what I can tell, I have at least 3 violations and likely 4. Am I correct? And what about the loans I have been turned down for and the higher interest rate on my new home loan? Is there recourse for those? I am sending out a 2nd val. letter today CRRR. What am I looking/hoping for? What are my next steps?
This one might be iffy. As LKH said in another post. How you going to prove they pulled the report AFTER they received validation on the same day. Labelled duplicate? I don't understand. Did they mark the other TL in dispute? I'm seeing maybe 1 or 2. Failure to validate is not a violation. They just have to cease collection efforts. As far as the loans and such, this part of the statute would concern me with that claim: (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
Now, that's not to say you can't scare RMA into submission with your claims LOL! From what I have read here, they do roll over pretty easily.
Re: Labeled Duplicate... I disputed both accountings. This time around, Equifax verified one and said that the other was deleted because it was a duplicate. Re: Hard pull on 5/12. I am sure that it is iffy, but why would they have pulled another hard right then? We know why they pulled it and I am sure that they know why they pulled it. I am hoping it won't be an issue. Re: Failure to validate. I know the CA is not required to provide validation but I was under the impression that they could not collect any further. Wouldn't verifying the debt be continued collection? Or am I mistaken on that point?
Re: Re: Am I on the right track??? Right, that's why I wanted you to clarify what you meant! They don't have to delete it, since its already there, but they do have to mark it in dispute.
Re: Re: Am I on the right track??? Sorry to be so dense. This point has always confused me. I get the green card back dated 5/12. I immediately disputed both accounts. Equifax showed both in dispute because I disputed. I then get the online dispute notice stating that the original account is verified and the duplicate is removed. On 6/4/03 I am sent a report by CSC that shows just the one account. It does not say that it's in dispute. Is it that the CA can leave the debt, even verify it but they have to show the account as in dispute until they send validation? Is that the whole point I am missing here? lol
Hmmm good question. I don't know if they "verify" the information is reporting accurately, or they just put a "consumer disputes" statement on there. The ones on my reports that have actually noted the dispute put: Consumer disputes per FCBA or Consumer disputes after resolution As opposed to the CRAs statement that consumer disputes investigation in progress.
How long do the have to include the notation "Consumer disputes per FCBA ?" RMA has yet to do that at all.
I guess where I am going is that if I received the green card back dated 5/12 and have a report from CSC dated 6/4 that does not show the account in dispute, isn't that another violation?
Actually I have one dated 5/26/03 directly from the EQF site that only states "consumer disputes, reinvestigation in progress" so that would be my dispute with EQF but nothing from RMA.
Great discussion. Hypo: Consumer begins by demanding val. from the DF (Data Furnisher). DF is required to notify the CRA that the debt has been disputed, and the TL should so state, (during the 30 day period). Provided the CA STOPS collection activity, I don't believe that anything else is required to happen. It's up to YOU, the consumer to push the issue to resolution. The CRA could put "Resolved, consumer disagrees" and leave it that way. That's when we come back with an FCRA issue, and if necessary sue them (the DF) for violation for reporting inaccurate info. However: You MUST first dispute through the CRA before you can sue the DF. You cannot go directly to the DF w/o disputing first, or you won't have a case and it'll be dismissed. Hypo: Consumer begins by demanding val. from the DF (Data Furnisher). Upon return of the Green Card lodges their dispute through the CRA. The CRA must include "in dispute" notation. If the DF verifies, the CRA will put something like "resolved, consumer disagrees", OR, delete the TL. It can remain this way indefinitely, IF you do nothing at this point. However: You now have a case against the DF for supplying inaccurate info. to the CRA. Here's the little trick that makes this whole thing work; whether the info is correct or not, IT'S STILL WRONG. When we dispute a TL it usually says "Consumer disputes via FCBA". Wrong! Consumer dispute via FCRA. See what I mean? ~
So if the DF has not marked the account in dispute during that 30 days, they are in violation. Right? Also, Butch, what is your take on DFs pulling a hard inquiry the day they sign and return the green card?
I sort of figured that I would have to get Equifax involved in this whole thing...since they are the ones that verified the account in November, then deleted it 6 months later as a duplicate. Does it appear, so far, that I have a solid case? I will continue down the validation road, but like I said the SOL isn't up yet so I am kind of playing with fire.
Sure, We could figure something out. Don't forget you only need one violation, or perceived violation, to file a court case. You just need to make sure it looks like ya did it in good faith and not for the puprose of harassment. Yes, you're on the right track Shelley. Just keep omn this road and gather as many violations as you can get. It does look like you'll have to file to get resolution tho. The good news is they almost always fold as soon as they get served. The tough part here is the size, $2300 is not peanuts. ???
Re: Re: Am I on the right track??? Duplicate is removed from CR and labeled as duplicate. However, CA fails to send validation on account. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1*Labelled duplicate? I don't understand. Did they mark the other TL in dispute? jlynn ==================== It has to be deleted because it's stilll 2 dings on your report for one and the same item. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'""""""""" Work for an operator --------------------- The following are real conversations Directory Enquiries operators had with callers, as revealed in interviews with staff at the Cardiff DE Centre. Caller : I'd like the number of the Argoed Fish Bar in Cardiff, please. Operator : I'm sorry, there's no listing. Is the spelling correct? Caller : Well, it used to be called the Bargoed Fish Bar but the B fell off. * * * Then there was the caller who asked for a knitwear company in Woven. Operator : Woven? Are you sure? Caller : Yes. That's what it says on the label - Woven in Scotland. * * * Caller : I'd like the RSPCA please. Operator : Where are you calling from? Caller : The living room * * * Caller : The water board please. Operator : Which department? Caller : Tap water. * * * Operator : How are you spelling that? Caller : With letters. * * * Caller : I'd like the number for a reverend in Cardiff, please. Operator : Do you have his name? Caller : No, but he has a dog named Ben. * * * Caller : The Union of Shopkeepers and Alligators please. Operator : You mean the Amalgamated Union of Shopkeepers? * * * On another occasion, a man making heavy breathing sounds from a phone box told the worried operator: "I haven't got a pen so I'm steaming up the window to write the number on. http://www.memail.com/fotos/index.htm ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Re: Re: Am I on the right track??? I was wrong... the debt is for $2700. The OC did send me a letter in January 2000 offering settlement for $1000. I am not in the position to pay that right now, but perhaps by the end of the year. I'd prefer they just have so many violations that it's a wash. But that's me. My biggest issue paying anything is that the attorney just didn't do her job! It's not like I got any benefit from the service costing $2700. If anything her not doing her job has cost me thousands of extra dollars to undo the damage.
