FCRA or FDCPA?

• 
  CRA's violation:
  
  [color=0066FF]FCRA § 605. (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information:
  
  (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years
  
  (c) (1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)(2) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action. [/color]
  
  
  CA's violation:
  
  [color=0066FF]FCRA § 623. (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.
  
  (1)(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.[/color]
  
  Note: According to § 623 (d) all violations under § 623 (a) could be enforced by federal and/or state agencies, not by consumer.
  
  
  [color=0066FF]FDCPA § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]
  
  A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
  (2) The false representation of --
  (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt;[/color]
  
  
  
  HTH

 

• CRA does not create the information, they report whatever is provided by the DFs.

• The DF (Data Furnisher) is responsible for furnishing the information. The CRA is responsible for reporting the furnished information. In your case the DF is responsible for reporting an account which isn't yours, CRA is responsible for reporting an account which is more than 7 years old ...

• Sure they can, but this is why we have the law to protect us from screwing ... Try telling in court "Sorry, judge, I was speeding and killed few kids, but that was just a mistake". The law defines which "mistakes" must be paid for ...

 

This isn't right, there is no cause of action nor liability unless and until you've disputed with the CRA's.

Nothing happens until someone disputes, there is always an opportunity to correct.

Isn't that just what happened????? You discovered an error, sent a letter, and it was fixed. I'd be cheering for you if you'd sent a letter and it wasn't resolved or took more than 1 letter.

Unless you are in a state that specifically prohibits the collection of time-barred debts, and I believe that is only Vermont and Wisconsin.

And, there are indeed bona fide error provisions that allow for mistakes.

Do you have any idea when it first appeared on your reports?

Sassy

 

Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

• You are right, there is no cause of action by the consumer, if you are referring to the CA's violation under FCRA § 623 (a).
  
  How about the CRA's violation under FCRA § 605 (a) and (c), and CA's violation under FDCPA § 807, as quoted in my previous post?
  
  I don't think there are "bona fide error provisions" when you have real damages ...

• Hmm .. how about the SOL?

 

Re: Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

No, I wasn't refering to section 623 specifically, I was referring to all of your citations.

They may all be violations but there is no liability attached to them if there haven't been any disputes.

Both the FCRA and FDCPA allow for errors, they even allow for inaccurate reporting.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

Responding to your edit:

Neither the FCRA nor the FDCPA address statute of limitations.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

ohhhhhhh pibb,

I thought you only sent one letter!!!!!!! There's no excuse for 3.

In those letters you said that you disputed, yes? with or without requesting validation.

I'm sure they didn't notify the CRA's of your dispute, so there was no notation made either.

And, if EQ verified, they're on the hook as well.

I think your best course, to get around the error provisions (since they eventually apologized and fixed it) is to find out when it was first reported, do you have a report showing when it appeared?????

And hang them on the commencement of delinquency date and when it was reported or NOT(required within 90 days of the information).

You have to show that they weren't following reasonable procedures -- so eliminate that argument.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

ok October,

That's not going to work then.

Your timeframes are to tight is the problem, you've barely given anyone 30 days, and they get 30 days.

And, taking back what I said above, because of the timeframes, 3 letters, that with each I assumed you gave them time to respond.

What was date of first letter and what was date of dispute with the CRA's???? and did you use the word "dispute" in your first letter?

Send the CRA's a copy of the letter by fax and tell them you don't feel like waiting 60-90 days for them to get around to updating.

That timeframe isn't the CA, that's the CRA's.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

• Sassy, then what the FCRA Sections 616 and 617, and FDCPA Section 813 are for?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

Willful noncompliance; negligent noncompliant and ummmm civil liability under the FDCPA.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

FDCPA § 813. Civil liability [15 USC 1692k]

(c) A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this title if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

You could try to make the case that the expiration of the SOL was a misrepresentation of the legal status, and based on that they knew or should have known that it was beyond the 7 year reporting clock for furnishing information. In fact, I believe there's plenty to support that.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

Sassy is correct. My comment here is regarding the FCRA only.

Under the FCRA a consumer must make an OC aware that they are reporting inaccurate/incomplete information to a CRA, assuming the OC has an official address for receiving consumer disputes. This address would normally be printed on the CREDIT AGREEMENT that was mailed a consumer when they got a credit card.

Then the OC is liable for $1,000 per violation under the FCRA.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCRA or FDCPA?

The problem with the above is, though I agree with you, it's not illegal to attempt to collect on time-barred debt.

The expiration of the SOL is an affirmative defense that has to be raised.

The court's have all ruled like this:

Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc., No. 00-2661 (8th Cir. 04/27/2001).

Only one court has found a violation of the Act in the absence of an express threat of litigation when a creditor attempts to collect on a time-barred debt. See Stepney v. Outsourcing Solutions, Inc., 1997 WL 722972, 4 (N.D. Ill.)(FDCPA claim stated where collection notice promised "no further collection action" if the time-barred debt was paid). Here, no legal action was taken or even threatened. As several cases have noted, a statute of limitations does not eliminate the debt; it merely limits the judicial remedies available. We decline to extend the reasoning of Kimber, and hold that, in the absence of a threat of litigation or actual litigation, no violation of the FDCPA has occurred when a debt collector attempts to collect on a potentially time-barred debt that is otherwise valid.

Sassy