So, I sent a dispute letter in response to a CA's collection letter, and they responded by saying "your dispute is frivolous or irrelevant... you have not furnished us sufficient information to investiage any disputed information... the minimum required on a dispute is the following: 1. A description of the exact fees and/or charges the consumer is disputing. 2. The specific reason or reasons the consumer is disputing them. 3. The exact dollar amount the consumer is disputing." My initial dispute simply said "This is a notice that your claim is disputed." Can anyone cite case law or general logic that would rebut their attempt to turn this around on me? Thanks for the help...
"Frivolous or irrelevant" is FCRA verbage which applies to the credit reporting agency, not to a collection agent. Do you have your green card proving that they received your initial dispute? Contest this account immediately with the CRAs. If it comes back validated, and it's not notated that you dispute the item, it's an FDCPA violation. The burden of proof is on them, not on you.
Yes, I have proof they received my dispute. They acknowledge it, they just refuse to accept it qualifies as a dispute. LOL. I don't know if they've put it on any of my credit reports as of yet.
Re: Re: CA attempts to define "dispute" Disputing alone would appear to be sufficient to place an obligation on the CA to obtain and send verification from the OC, under FDCPA S809(a)(4). There is no requirement on the consumer that specific items be disputed, nor is there provision for the CA to ignore frivolous disputes. For the CA to represent that they have no such obligation, when FDCPA specifically requires them to notify consumer that they have the right to dispute, would appear to be deceptive, overshadowing consumer's rights under FDCPA to dispute. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 "�§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (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; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor."
Re: Re: CA attempts to define "dispute" FDCPA does not require that the consumer already have full knowledge of the details of the account in order to dispute part or all of a collection. The wrong party may have been dunned, in which case the consumer's dispute would basically be "What the hell is this?". CAs seldom have full details, even on accounts they have bought, which is why on receiving a dispute they must obtain information from the OC to send to the consumer. Did the CA send you the FDCPA required letter notifying you of your right to dispute? Did the CA just send a letter saying "You owe us $XXX.", or did they send you a breakdown of charges and fees with their initial letter? If the former, their argument is utter nonsense, as you would have no information to base a detailed dispute on, while if the latter, it still can't remove your right to dispute under FDCPA, and it is a deceptive misrepresentation to place restrictions on the consumer's right to dispute that are not in the law.
