I am just trying to figure out the in's and out's of reporting still. Here's the story. Recieved a letter from a CA for an unpaid phone bill at my last address. Answered their letter with a validation request. 30 days later I did recieve from them a full printout from the phone company of the bill, I believe it was like 3 months worth. Now these were just standard phone company monthly statements, It shows there was an account, my name was on it, someone paid it. I know this was mine and the argument could go both ways. Pay it because it's yours...or ...they didn't validate because it doesn't prove "I" paid these bills as in there are no cancelled checks or anything. thats not my question...my question is, IF I'm reading right...Can they put this on my CR IF they also note that it is in dispute? Because that is what they did. Even with a notation that it is in dispute, is the fact that it's even on my report considered continued collection? Respond as you will on any aspect of this...
Yes, I believe they can do that. You sent them a *Validation* and I believe they can continue collection activity unless you send a *C&D* which some experts here do not recommend doing. I'm running off my memory here, so someone please correct if I am wrong.
§ 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. (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. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. As We can see, the above indicates that collection activity must cease once a demand for validation has been received by the CA. A C&D will accomplish the same thing but is not required. Second, as far as I know there are no members who say not to use a C&D. If they do, they're wrong! lol Probably what you mean Luckymom, is that the FULL C&D is not wise because it disallows the CA to communicate with you at all. Their only alternative is to file suit. Therefore, we use a partial C&D. It inidcates that ALL communication must be in written form and they are NOT to call you on the phone. This at least leaves the door open so they can still communicate a resolution to you without inviting a suit. It also provides them with an opportunity to break the law IN WRITING. Whether or not a CA can report a TL to a CRA, AFTER the reciept of a val., provided they include the "in dispute" notation, is a matter of some debate. Some Staff Opinions say they cannot, but the Annual Report To Congress says they can, as long as they include the "in dispute" notation. Why not go with "they can't". Afterall you have a lot of info. to fall back on that bolsters your assertion.
Sigh. Thank goodness Pop never reads this board, I have him convinced I am NEVER wrong. lol Certainly thats what I must have meant I was referring to this thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43300 This really *is* what I was talking about; reporting being allowed as long as it includes dispute notation. Thanks for popping in to help OP. I may need a disclaimer in my signature line!
