Hi I'm a newbie with a newbie question. I sent a validation letter to a CA regarding a paid collection and then disputed with the CRA's. I just received verification from one of them saying verified, but have not heard from the CA. They did mark it in dispute, but don't they have to validate to me before they verify with the CRA? Thanks for reading.
You paid off an account and it was sent to a collection agency anyway? Or, you paid the same collection agency and are now disputing their entry on your credit report?
Sorry...my ex incurred and settled the debt without telling me. We were still married but living apart, different states. I found it on my CR. It's a contract (rental) without my siggy. I wrote disputing the account and asking for proof of my signature.
You might need to go back to the OC and have them show you a contract. If they list you on the contract then you'd probably have to file fraud charges against the ex. If you're not on the contract, then you might be able to tell them that, for some reason, this account is listed on your credit report (for whatever reason) and you'd like that corrected. If they balk, you might remind them that this is against federal law. Of course, the teeth from that would only come from your powers of telephone persuasion or a law suit. Chances are the CA only knows what they were told and is probably not digging very deep. Q. Is this account valid. A. Yup we have a valid account under that number. And that's probably as far as it got. Of course if you're in a community property state, it's possible that you're responsible for whatever she did while you were married, so it could be that's how they determined your name should be on it. Good luck!
Thanks, it is a community property state, but there are statutes that can be argued concerning indemnity, guaranty and such without consent if indeed they are just reporting because of the community debt aspect. But I need a contract to find out if my name was forged. I DV'd the CA because they are the only ones reporting. I guess I will have to DV the OC as well, but I thought the CA had some obligations as furnishers beyond, yeah we have an account assigned with that name. I found this on another board: 1. Send validation letter, when green card is returned, dispute with the CRA's. Disputing with the CRA's forces a 30-day time frame. The CA can't verify with the CRA before mailing validation to you without being in violation. I need a way to force the CA to give me some proof, or stop reporting, and that doesn't sound like it's going to happen without a violation, beyond the obvious fact that it might be fraudulent. They have updated since they received the DV. Isn't there some recourse?
Well, if it's already been paid, there's not much motivation for the CA to do anything about it any more. That's why I suggested trying to go through the OC. Disputing further through the CA is probably not going to do much good. The CA is probably not in violation if they are reporting based on the information they received from the OC. I had a similar problem with a bill that was assigned to me erroneously. The CA just said "it says you owe, so pay." So I took it up with the OC and after a letter or two (pointing out politely how they made a mistake), it disappeared.
Was the request for validation timely? That will impact whether or not they would be able to "verify" the accuracy of the tradeline pursuant to your dispute through the credit reporting agencies.
Is "timely" a consideration if the debt has been paid? What's left to dispute/verify at that point in the eyes of the CA? They had a debt. It was paid. End of story. Not to stick up for the CA, but what is there to verify? It was paid! What more verification does anyone need? Clearly, it it wasn't valid, then it wouldn't have been paid. Therefore, since it was paid, it must be valid. If you dispute to the CRA, they just ask the CA if it's valid. My guess is they pull the file, look at the name (submitted by the OC), look at the fact that it's paid and say, "Yup! Shore is!" And, to them, based on the available information, it is. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but in this case, I don't think pursuing the CA will bear much fruit. Assuming the CA is reporting the information they have or even assuming they are lazy slobs and they just hitting "enter" on the validation request without ever lifting a finger, I think the best place to gain traction will be with the OC and the source of the original contract. If they accepted your name just based on your separated wife putting it there without you being present or signing the application, you might want to look into a fraud charge against them (or, perhaps mention that in the conversation with them). The OC has the power, with sufficient motivation, to make a phone call to the CA and make this all go away.
Yes, I think you're absolutely right. The OC is probably the way I'm going to be able to make this go away, and am going to do just that. I am trying to gain information too. I just don't want to let this CA off the hook if possible just as a matter of principle. I am in the middle of reading a 14 page thread right now that is a real eye opener. Obviously, their duties are not cut and dried, but between all the acts of congress if you bounce around enough, they do have obligations. I really want to know what they are outside of the "timely" reply, since I was denied that particular opportunity.
Timely reply to what? Technically, the FDCPA doesn't cite any reply requirement for a CA. They only need to reply: if you send them a validation request within 30 days of initial communication (that is usually in the form of a phone call, a letter, or you notice it on your credit report, whichever comes first) about the collection. AND They want to continue collection activity. If you request validation, they never have to respond, but, at the same time, they can't continue collection activity. However, in your case, they don't need to continue collection activity because they already have their money, so they don't really need to respond to anything insofar as the FDCPA is concerned. There may be some violations, but not responding in a timely matter is probably not going to be on that list. I wouldn't waste any more energy on that avenue. This is rather an odd situation since, most of the language (and case law that I read) has to do with collection BEFORE the account was paid. I don't think there's much of a requirement for the CA to do anything AFTER the account has been paid, other than to report the account accurately to the CRAs. My guess (although this would be something to find out) is that, so far as the CA is concerned, they are doing just that...Which, of course, is what's causing all the problems for you.
