CA Bureau before Letter

From the day they buy (or consider to buy) the account, they can pull your credit file UNTIL they receive a validation request, and can not comply with the validation request.

 

The hard inquiry issues is this. If they "buy" your account and send you off a collection letter they have to give you 30 days to send a dispute to that collection letter, after which they can assume that you admit the debt is yours. There is no regulation in there that limits their collection activities such as performing a hard inquiry. If you sent them a validation demand immediately, as we all know you always should, upon recieving that demand for validation, and until they comply with it, it then becomes illegal for them to perform any collection activities. This includes sending any more letters, making any calls, validating the debt back to a CRA if it's already on your credit report, or making a hard inquiry. Based on your comment, they made the inquiry long before they recieved your letter of dispute, hence it is within their legal rights.

I don't think it's been decided on CN if there might be some grounds for at least demanding that hard inquiries be deleted along with any tradelines they might have placed if you demand validation for a debt, and the CA has no such proof of the debt. In theory, if they can not prove that it is your debt, could one inferr that they had no permissable purpose to pull your credit report in the first place, and use that lack of proof of the debt being yours in the first place as a weapon to force the CA to demand their inquiries be removed? Ahh, the questions we ponder here on CN.

ChrisB

 

Re: Re: CA Bureau before Letter

• [color=0066FF]FCRA § 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports
  
  (a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:
  
  (3) To a person which it [/color]has reason to believe[color=0066FF]
  
  (A) [/color]intends to use[color=0066FF] the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer;
  [/color]
  
  
  Spooky language ... the CRA did have a reason to believe that the CA intends to use ...

 

Re: Re: CA Bureau before Letter

My understanding is that if you hit them within the first 30 days of initial communication, then they cannot pull a hard or place the TL on your reports.

If you dispute the account after the 30 days, then they can still continue to collect, pull hard inquiries whatever...

But, there is this little thing called estoppel.

Estoppel is a common law legal doctrine that in essence acts as a waiver of rights through silence.

When dealing with CA's, a CA is obligated to provide proof of a debt after recieving a demand for validation. If a CA sits on its ass and remains silent when it is in reciept of a demand for validation after a resonable period of time has elapsed (30 days is what most here deem reasonable) the consumer can rely on that silence to take action.

Normally that action means filing a lawsuit (after giving a 14 day estoppel/ITS letter) for reporting false information to a credit bureau and for pulling a report without permissible purpose (you have to have an account with a balance that belongs to the consumer to have pp for collection purposes).

You then can use the impending lawsuit as leverage to have the CA terminate collection of the account and remove the entries from your reports in exchange for you dropping the suit. It is also possible to get a small settlement for your troubles, but I wouldn't push it.

If for some reason the CA doesn't settle and you have to go to court, then the CA shows up in court with full validation, then estoppel would work for you as a shield, protecting you from recieving sanctions by the court for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

 

Re: Re: Re: CA Bureau before Letter

• In theory, the "Estoppel In Pais" could also apply in court. It's a type of estoppel that bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position. Hasn't been tried yet ...

 

1*My understanding is that if you hit them within the first 30 days of initial , then they cannot pull a hard or place the TL on your reports.
2*If you dispute the account after the 30 days, then they can still continue to collect, pull hard inquiries whatever...
3*When dealing with CA's, a CA is obligated to provide proof of a debt after recieving a demand for validation.
dixidriftr
==================
1*But they can pull a hard and report the debt and never send you any communication
2*Wrong: these are all violations of FDCPA If The ca does so prior to validating.
Nothing in the FDCPA says the consumer looses these rights after 30 days.
3*Wrong CAs don't HAVE TO VALIDATE PERIOD.
All they have to do is cease collection actives Which includes the items you stated in #2 above

THE END ** *** ** LB 59
""""```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''

 

• [color=0066FF]§ 809. Validation of debts
  
  (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. [/color]

 

Re: Re: CA Bureau before Letter

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with LB, but he is correct. Debt collectors do not have to validate a debt. They just have to cease all collection efforts until they do.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm

 

Re: Re: Re: CA Bureau before Letter

• jlynn, I think it started from crispb's question:

• So, regarding collecting you are right - FDCPA obligates the DC to validate only if the DC wants to keep collecting, but in this case, DC's validation is used to prove they have the right to collect the debt, so they can produce a PP to view a consumer's report as per FCRA.
  
  Then Dixie posted that if you take the DC to the court for a no PP hard inquiry, you can use their silence (i.e., not validating) as an estoppel to protect yourself if they do show a full validation in court.