A CA was a listing a debt on my credit report. I disputed the debt as "account not mine." The account was verified but all the numbers related to the debt changed to $0 and everything else changed to N/A. So, on my Equifax report, the CA is still listing a collection account but everything says $0 or N/A. It also says disputed. I disputed it again through Equifax as "account not mine" and it was verified (no changes this time). I sent them a letter and showed them how, according to United States v. Performance Capital Management, when they receive a dispute through a CRA, they must either verify their listing with original account records (which they have already admitted they don't have) or they must delete the information they are reporting. I gave them 5 days to delete their listing or I would sue and file a complaint with the office in my state that licenses collection agencies. It appears they are not going to comply. My question is: When I sue them, are they able to take the stance that, since the account was listed as disputed and listed $0 as past due, we have the right to continue reporting it? This is the only reason I can think why they haven't deleted but it seems pretty clear, according to the above court case, that whether or not the account is listed as disputed is irrelevant. The case clearly states either verify with original account records or delete. Since I disputed the account as "not mine," chaning the past due amount to $0 doesn't quite fix it.
Re: Dispute notation nullify deleti I'm having a similar problem with a paid collection on two of my reports. After I disputed, the amounts were updated to display "N/A" or just "$0". This is inadequate, to say the least. However, I'm not sure how effective USA vs. Performance Capital, et al is going to be when trying to get the CA to act, because there was no decision in this case. It was ended by consent decree with no litigation. Because the allegations at issue were never argued and decided upon by a court, I'm not sure if it holds up as caselaw. Does anyone know this for sure?
Re: Dispute notation nullify deleti Just curious . . . who is the CA? I have been fighting this exact thing for about 8 months now. Every time I send the CA a letter stating that they basically must prove or remove, they send me a letter saying they've received my validation request and they'll forward me info when they receive it. Mine is with American Agencies.
Re: Re: Dispute notation nullify deleti I checked out the definition of "consent decree" and found this: A judicial decree expressing a voluntary agreement between parties to a suit, especially an agreement by a defendant to cease activities alleged by the government to be illegal in return for an end to the charges. So, as you correctly stated, it was a voluntary agreement. HOWEVER, although the case was not argued, judgment was entered in favor of the plantiff against the defendent. Therefore, I don't think it matters. I stated in my letter to the CA that the court ruled in favor of the Plantiff and agreed that FTC complaints were valid. Based on the statement JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE ENTERED in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, pursuant to all the terms and conditions recited above., it seems like the court agreed that the Plaintiff's complaint was valid. But, you make an excellent point and I am not completely sure. Although the CA may use your same reasoning as a means to avoid deletion and as a defense in court if it comes to that, even though it may not technically be considered case law, the FTC is the governing body of collection agencies. If the FTC says failing to delete w/o original account records is a failure to properly investigate, that alone should be enough...especially in small claims. You have the FTC backing you...they have nobody other than their opinion that they didn't break the law. Even though there was no arguments, the FTC stated they broke the law, the CA consented, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, and the case was over. Plus, as you probably know, many times, people use opinion letters from the FTC as justification for a suit in court. How many times have we heard reference to the CASS letter regarding the validation period and reporting a debt. This is simply an opinion from the FTC that has no legal basis. However, this is coming from the supreme authority that governs these companies so that opinion is very strong. In this case, not only do we have an opinion, but the CA consented to the opinion so one side alleged and one side agreed. Even if it isn't "case law," it is still very strong evidence.
Re: Re: Dispute notation nullify deleti I brought up a relevant post at http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56262 regarding this situation. Did the CA update the listing as disputed? I think that contacting the OC and asking "Do you have original accounts records to verify this debt" may be considered verifying the debt with original account records by the CA. Also, listing the debt as $0 and disputed may not fall under continued collection activity as defined by the FTC nor continued communication as defined under the FDCPA. Although I think it is obvious that they must verify their listing with original account records, whether or not they have to provide you with them is a different story since continuing to list the debt as disputed allows them to avoid communicating with you and continuing collection activity. However, it does continue to show other creditors that a collection agency is dealing with you which may scare them away.
Re: Re: Dispute notation nullify deleti I brought up a relevant post at http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56262 regarding this situation. Did the CA update the listing as disputed? I think that contacting the OC and asking "Do you have original accounts records to verify this debt" may be considered verifying the debt with original account records by the CA. Also, listing the debt as $0 and disputed may not fall under continued collection activity as defined by the FTC nor continued communication as defined under the FDCPA. Although I think it is obvious that they must verify their listing with original account records, whether or not they have to provide you with them is a different story since continuing to list the debt as disputed allows them to avoid communicating with you and continuing collection activity. However, it does continue to show other creditors that a collection agency is dealing with you which may scare them away.
Re: Re: Dispute notation nullify deleti I love the FTC V. PCM case, although you're right. It's not case law. It does however relay to any court the firm opinion of the FTC, in brutal eloquence. Here's why: The footnote: The Commission vote to file the complaint and proposed settlement was 5-0. The proposed settlement will be presented to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, which is overseeing PCM's bankruptcy. If approved, the agreement will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It's hard to argue with a unanimous vote from the staff judges. Their vote was unanimous in BOTH their decision to accept the decree, AND also to file against PCM in the first place. The company accepted a decree AND would have had to pay $2 Million. Without a STRONG case on the FTC's part PCM would have litigated. The fine was waved ONLY because the co. was defunct. As I keep saying, you don't need a winnable case before you file, all you need is a legitimate argument. The fact that you guy's are discussing the ramifications of the PCM case, absent case law, by it's very nature creates a case which ONLY a trier of fact can sort out. In other words you have all the ingredients for a disagreement, which [arguably] can be sorted out only by a Jury. It's the litigation your adversary fears, not the gamble that they may win or lose. If your adversary says: "Well hey there's no case law". Respond by telling them: "Well hey, maybe it's time we develop some". See where I'm goin? .
Re: Re: Re: Dispute notation nullif Hmm... I think that because the FDCPA and FCRA are in place at least partly to protect consumers from being defamed by inaccurate, incomplete or just plain old unsubstantiated debt claims, it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that debt collectors DELETE information unless and until the claim substantiated by original records. Period. Otherwise, the protections of both statutes can be circumvented simply by marking completely BOGUS debts as in dispute. And, we all know that the "in dispute" notation on the negative information does nothing to alleviate the damage to the consumer's creditworthiness. Unless the unsubstantiated information goes away completely or is suppressed or otherwise handled in such a way as to take them out of play COMPLETELY when it comes to credit applications, the spirit and intent of the law is not being followed. The FTC opinion seems rockhard on this, caselaw or no caselaw.
Re: Re: Re: Dispute notation nullif You're exactly right Cnoob. If an error is to occur, it should accrue to the benefit of the consumer. Therefore, this TL must be deleted, even if only temporarily. Trouble is the CA's couldn't extort pmt. if this is enforced. So a natural opposing juxtaposition is created. What happens when an unstoppable force meets with an immovable object? The answer is painfully simple: The court must decide. .
Re: Re: Re: Dispute notation nullif I wouldn't go so far with this line of reasoning that the CA agreed or admitted to doing anything illegal in USA vs PCM, because they did not. The consent decree clearly states that the defendants admitted NO LIABILITY or FAULT in the matter. Also, the fact that the court allowed the Judgment to be rendered is irrelevant and does not lend credence to the allegations by the plaintiff. The court allowed judgment to be entered solely because allegations were brought and the defendant DID not present a defense. I would venture to say, that this court no more agreed with the allegations in this case than does ANY OTHER COURT agree with allegations brought in cases where the decision is entered by default. I also think it's perilous to start speculating as to PCM's motives for not litigating the case. PCM's decision to consent to the decree may have had more to do with the costs involved rather than the merit of the allegations. Considering that the company was already in the sh*tcan when the case hit the fan, the cost/benefit issue seems to be just as likely a reason to roll over as does the merit of the allegations. I think USA vs PCM can be a powerful tool to negotiate removal of disputed information. However, I'm unsure as to how to use it effectively to get what I want. That nature of USA vs PCM seems to invite debate. But, I don't want to debate the finer points of the case with the CA's compliance manager. I just want them to delete. How do I present this information to the CA in such a way that the CA deletes the info, rather than engaging the CA in a war words over what the decree means?
Re: Re: Re: Dispute notation nullif Well, once again I agree wholeheartedly with you Cnoob. To be sure, I talk to you guy's quite differently than I would an adversary. So you and I can discuss the weaknesses of the PCM case, that's great. But sometimes I portray my position as though I were arguing with the adversary. It's the argument I'm talking about, not a court room victory. 97% of he cases filed get resolved OUT of court. That's a 97% probability you'll be able to meet these guy's half way, (which includes deletion of course). A litigious mindset means [to me at least] is to find legitimate issues of material fact with which to perpetually disagree with these guy's. Even if your position is slightly ... ahem ... "less than perfect". That's how I presented myself above. And that's how I'd argue it. Don't ya think? ???
Re: Re: Re: Dispute notation nullif By the way Sunhawk. To answer your question. There are no circumstances whereby, a previously disputed / deleted TL may be re-inserted without the required "certification" that the info. is in fact accurate. Which of course would be a matter for discovery. Placing an item as in dispute does NOT nullify anything. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dispute notation nullif EXACTLY!! I also believe that the USA vs PCM case is an excellent tool to get deletion but exactly how to use the case in your favor is a little more difficult. I think I may have messed up by quoting both the complaint and the consent decree in my letter to the CA. As you clearly point out, since this case was settled without litigation and since the CA admitted no wrong doing, the consent decree does little for us. However, it is very clear, from the complaint itself, where the FTC stands on verifing accounts without original account records. The FTC states: 11. Section 623(b)(1) of the FCRA requires furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies to conduct an investigation when a consumer reporting agency forwards to the furnisher a notice of dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 611(a)(2) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. 12. At the present time, PCM receives notices of dispute from consumer reporting agencies in the form of written consumer dispute verification forms. When PCM receives consumer dispute verification notices, it is the practice of PCM to compare the name, address, and information in PCM's computer database with the information provided on each consumer dispute verification form. Where the two match, PCM reports that it has verified as accurate the information in its files. The actual records of the original creditor are not reviewed, nor is the matter referred to the original creditor for the original creditor to verify the accuracy of the information. 13. Because PCM collects accounts that are often old, information in its computer files may not be accurate for a variety of reasons, including incorrect updating of addresses, errors in recording names and information, and problems with the original creditor's records. Accordingly, verifying information in the computerized PCM file does not constitute an "investigation" for purposes of Section 623(b) of the FCRA when a consumer disputes the accuracy of the information. 14. The acts and practices alleged in Paragraphs 12 and 13 constitute violations of Section 623(b) of the FCRA, 16 U.S.C. § 1681s(b). Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(1), the acts and practices alleged in Paragraph 17 also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Therefore, I think, in my complaint to the attorney general and licensing body of this collection agency, I will just quote the complaint and make it clear that the FTC is the governing body of collection agencies and it is the FTC that clearly states the collection agency is violating the law by verifying disputes without original account records. I think I will also quote some of your statements like: The FDCPA and FCRA are in place to protect consumers from being defamed by inaccurate, incomplete and/or just plain old unsubstantiated debt claims. It is absolutely IMPERATIVE that debt collectors DELETE information unless and until their claims can be substantiated by original records. Otherwise, the protections of both statutes can be circumvented simply by marking completely bogus debts as in dispute. A "in dispute" notation on negative information does nothing to alleviate the damage to a consumer's creditworthiness. My little addition: They are attempting to manipulate the law by changing the past due amount to $0 but refusing to delete the entire account. They are doing this in an attempt to coerce me into paying them knowing that, although they are listing the past due amount as $0, the mere fact that a collection agency is reporting an account on my credit report will adversely affect my credit in the eyes of other creditors. Unless the entire credit report entry, which is unsubstantiated, is deleted thereby removing all connections to a collection agency, the spirit and intent of the law is not being followed. Maybe something like this?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dispute notatio I think you've got the makings of a good letter here and if you get someone at the CA with a brain and some level of accountability to read it, it should get results. Even if it doesn't get results at the outset, I think it will still be a valuable addition to your arsenal if and when you should end up in front of judge. Considering how much sense you're making in the letter, anyone who isn't willing to "work it out" with you is going to look like an ignoramous or just a big ol' crook.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dispute notation nu Oh, I definitely agree with you. All we need here is an arguable point of contention to get the job done with regard to suits and settling prior, etc. However, I guess I'm starting from the position that I don't necessarily want to sue. I want bop them over the head with logic so strong that I bend space and time around them to get my way. I once wrote a very snippy letter to a notoriously lawbreaking CA and what I got back, to my surprise, was a long letter from the compliance manager citing several cases where CAs were able to get away with murder. But even after all that talk, they still deleted the entry on my report and PRONTO. I know now, of course, that the letter was intended solely to deter me from suing. It had nothing to do with the CAs belief that they could win against me in court. In this case, the long conversation worked for me. But, I don't want the long conversations anymore. I want the short conversation without the "file suit" element.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dispute notation nu With many collection agencies, such as Asset Acceptance, they don't care if they are blantantly breaking the law. They don't care if your case is so strong that you could win in court. They just know that 90% of the people will not sue so they can continue to break the law. I don't want to sue either and they use this to their advantage. I think my letter was very strong but they just don't care and in fact contacted the OC and had them just add a new TL. This shows how much my letter means to them. Now, if I file a suit against them, the tables may turn and they may delete faster than you can say VIOLATION. The problem is, most of the time, companies like asset just don't care if they are breaking the law or what evidence you have. I look at it this way. A CA is in the business of collecting debts. Therefore, they only have a right to report on my credit report if indeed a debt exists. The CA is reporting on my credit report a $0 balance and $0 past due. By their own reporting, no debt exists. Since no debt exists, they have no reason to report as they only report past due accounts being in the collection business. This is in addition to the fact that this account is not mine and they have no original account records to show otherwise as required by USA v. PCM
