I dispute DIRECTLY with CRA, not CA? I got a call from this CA for the very first time once I disputed with TU directly. FDCPA states: § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (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. This statute seems to be if CONSUMER initiates comm directly with CA. I am a bit confused b/c several people seem to think if comm is made to CRA directly CA must cease collection as well. Please advise which is correct.
In order to invoke the Validation of Debts - 809, you need to notify the CA in writing. So just disputing with the CRA deosn't invoke 809. Depending on the CA, you may wake the sleeping dog by just disputing with the CRAs. 809 doesn't get invoked if you notify anyone other than the CA.
A very common problem is for the consumer to wake up one morning and find a derog on his CR, ABSENT any notification of dispute rights. This is a violation. This is what Beavis seems to be implying. ???
I'm very familiar with that situation... One CA still hasn't contacted me, and they received their VD letter almost a year ago (they probably received the audit VD letter that I sent to the previous CA who they bought the account from as well, but probably right after they listed on Ex.) But, I got their address, and fax number from ACA International's web site (EX had them listed as being in the wrong state); faxed the VD letter, and disputed it on EX. Still haven't heard from them even to provide the 809 notice...
As an afterthought to my question, yes. The CA gets jarred because they are sent a consumer initiated CRA dispute and decide to call the consumer directly just to say what's up after listing it on the CR for 3 years? NO, it's because they believe they are being threatened by the consumer beginning to exercise their rights and if they start to become aggressive their scare tactics may help to coerce payment rather than a litigious response. Well, I woke them up and they were after me for about a week. Didn't talk to them, though. Then, suddenly the calls stopped. Haven't received the TU response, yet, they still have several days. Where's the specific infringemnet(s) you elude to as violations here, Butch? THinking about including them in my growing list of violations against this CA, which are expired bond, adding apparent monthly fees, and this: § 807. False or misleading representations if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose Their first communication, by phone, had no said mention of the above, just advised they were aware of my 'dispute'. I believe they violated the above as well, am I correct? That msg has been recorded.
It may not mean that they realize you are asserting your rights. It could mean something like you're applying for a mortgage, and if they contact you, you'll be stupid enough to run right down and pay them so the mortgage company will approve you. Better check, they might have pulled an inquiry to see if you've applied for credit!
While I did have a CC for a mortgage several months ago, dispute and CA calls are too coincidental. Got PG, no pulls yet.
