Okay, it is my understanding that a CA (in my case some *** lawyer) must first notify you before reporting to the CRA. I ask this because I have a $120 collection account where the OC is a Pizza Co. Experian just verified it and I am baffled. Is it reasonable to call the CA and request a copy of the letters they might have sent me regarding this matter and to request validation? Yes, I admit to screwing up my own credit, but never did I screw a pizza company. I was in a fraternity for God's sake and pizza was as sacred as Keystone.
No where is it written that a ca must notify you prior to reporting to the cra. They can report it. Send them a validation demand and make them prove what they report.
Thanks LKH, I'm still learning. I did find that the BBB states that So I can see that they don't have to inform you of their intent to contact the CRA, but they must inform you that they are attempting to collect a debt. My new question would be - Do they have to prove that they tried to contact me? I would like a copy of the letter they sent out.
A CA in no way has to contact you before entering negitive info with a CRA. What you may be confused by is that if you demand validation they must under the FCRA, correctly validate with you before verifing a disputed debt with a CRA. So you definately want to start the validation sequence with the CA and catch them in as many violations as you can. Read up on validation. I would suggest these links: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...threadid=37975&perpage=20&pgnum=&pagenumber=1
Again, they do NOT have to contact you at all. However if they do contact you in writing they HAVE to include what is called a "minimiranda". Read up on validation and realize they in general will have no idea what you are asking for or what is required. Don't worry about that. Read the FDCPA and catch them in all the violations you can. Then, file suit with the idea of settling for deletion of all negitive entries. Good luck! P.S. Realize even if you paid the $120, the negitive tradeline will stay and be just as bad as the unpaid tradeline. Your goal is to get that line removed.
Has anybody tried this argument? As used in this title -- (2) The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. From 809: 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 -- Would it be a big jump to say placing on your credit report is "indirectly thru any medium"?
I would say that yes, it would be a terrible leap to make because you have not been contacted by the reporter of the information.
Re: Re: CA Protocol I asked the same question a few months ago. Glad to know that someone noticed the same thing I did.
Re: Re: CA Protocol But that's my point, they have contacted me indirectly via my credit report. You don't think so?
Re: Re: CA Protocol So a collection agency who puts a report on your file but never contacts you in any other way has violated the law by that simple act? Maybe so but I find that hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that a judge is going to accept that as a valid reason to file suit. And even if you did file suit on them they would have an out under FDCPA as its having been a one time excuseable error on their part. They do have that defense.
Re: Re: Re: CA Protocol I do not study the CA laws bc I do not live in CA, but I have read many here say that CA has very STRICT laws about that, which stems from the FDCPA. I believe I read that they have 30 days to contact you or 5k. Pam can elaborate.
Re: Re: Re: CA Protocol Looking at my old post, our questions are similar but not exactly the same. This is the one that I was referring to: If: 1. you send a CEASE COMM letter to a CA they must cease further communication with the consumer, and 2. The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium which includes reporting to a CRA, then, once you send a CEASE COMM letter they should be bound from reporting to a CRA. Is this a far-fetched idea? Butch, Would you agree or disagree that reporting to a CRA is "communication"? http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...threadid=28312&highlight=medium+communication http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...threadid=21584&highlight=medium+communication http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...threadid=28135&highlight=medium+communication
Re: Re: Re: Re: CA Protocol Yes Queen Bee, it's a stretch. The law quoted above says: "CA ... must cease further communication with the consumer." Keyword "with the consumer". It doesn't say ALL communication. Unfortunately. Nice try tho.
Re: Re: CA Protocol I've used it in letters, but not in court. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. It may not hold up in court, but it is certainly worded as though it might. I personally don't think it is that big of a leap. With the easy access to credit reports now days, I think it is reasonable to assume that a consumer will see the information they place there. Gib
Re: Re: CA Protocol Exactly! And that is exactly the main thrust of the infamous estoppel letter too.
Re: Re: CA Protocol What if they made the same mistake twice, or multiple times and you had proof they did not notify you? It's reasonable to assume if the CAs are able to pull a hard inquiry they will have access to your demographic info and are able to notify you at your current address. We can eliminate the possibility they use this as an excuse for not having an address to mail to allow the consumer to respond to the validity of the debt, along with the 'minimaranda' they are supposed to include. They can also use an excuse that they did notify you of your rights and the vailidity of debt upon initial communication and perhaps still get away with it in court without proof, but if they were given SEVERAL chances to notify you of your rights and did not do so, then is this a violation that can be effectively argued? Let's say the first time I found out about the collection was from my credit report. Then I contact the CA by email requesting validation and include that I have never received any notice (email is allowable as evidence in court). They fax documents but no 'minimiranda'. At this point THEY had two opportunities to notify me (mail and fax). Does this constitute 'proof' that they did not notify me of my rights?
Re: Re: CA Protocol There is ultimately only one way to find out. Go file a case on one and see how the judge rules and then you can report back to us.
