FDCPA/FCRA Question

In case its relevant, my state is PA.

In September, I was contacted by a collection agency, I immediately sent a letter requesting that the account be validated... A few weeks later, I called the collection agency and was advised that the client recalled the account from the collection agency... About a month later, I received a "We've received your inquiry, and have two billing cycles to respond." response.

In two months, they sent their first response... However, their first response was incomplete (it only included a few statements, and a discrepancy of over $700.00)... I notifed them that it was incomplete, they said they'ld provide the rest of the documentation requested, they updated the amount on the form letter to match what they've been reporting to the collection agencies, however, their documentation still substantiates the amount of the original form letter...

I've been in a continous cycle of sending them the letter requesting that they document the discrepancy, or delete the account and cease all collection activities, they return sending the same information that they sent in the second response, and refusing to remove the account, since in their opinion, they've answered the validation of debts request.

The question, does the FDCPA apply to a creditor, if the creditor recalls the account from the collection agency after the validation request? (My own lay opinion would be that once they bring the FDCPA rights into play by hiring the collection agency, they can't cancel those rights.) Or, are there FCRA protections in place to cover the provisions provided by the FDCPA?

Attached is a copy of the latest request for validation/removal and ceasing communications... The letter has been the same since the second request, only adding new sections each time to document the latest entries in the paper-trail of their refusal to correctly validate the discrepancy.

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

Eight months ago, on September 13, 2002, I submitted the first request for validation of the account (xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx), (xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx), (xxxx)

In this request for validation of debts, your company was required to provide "all historical documentation including but not limited to the original application, copies of the original sales receipts for all transactions, and all invoices for the account in question."

According to your letter dated, on October 16, 2002, your company received the request for validation of debt on September 25, 2002, and is required under federal law to have a complete response detailing the response of the investigation, within two full billing cycles.

Your company's response dated November 20, 2002 was incomplete, and contained yet another discrepancy of over $700.00, representing 40% of the amount involved. I immediately contacted your company at the phone number contained on the response dated November 20, 2002, and requested the remainder of the information requested in the September 13, 2002 request for validation of the debt, and a complete accounting for this discrepancy.

Your company's response dated January 30, 2003 was supposed to resolve both of the above mentioned issues with the November 20, 2002 statement. While your company changed the amount on the cover-letter to match the amount which you have been reporting to the credit bureaus, and was included in the letter from xxxxx xxxxxxxx Credit Bureau, your company provided no statements to account for the discrepancy in question.

Under the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, your company must provide complete historical documents to account for the entire balance, without any discrepancies, I allowed your company an additional three months above and beyond what your company is entitled to under federal law to provide all of the historical documentation requested in the September 13, 2002 request for validation of debts.

Therefore, under the terms of the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as stated in the September 13, 2002 requesting validation of the account, your company must immediately cease and desist any collections activity, including but not limited to reporting to the credit bureaus, and third-party collection agency activity or in-house collections activity, until your company decides to provide the complete historical documentation which your company has thus far decided to withhold on the three previous requests.

On February 13, 2003, I submitted yet another request for the information which has been constantly requested for the past eight months, that response was returned on March 13, 2003 with the same inaccuracies which have plagued all of your company's previous responses to these repeated validation of debts requests. Any response to this validation of debts request which does not fully explain this overwhelming discrepancy in this account is not a legally satisfactory response to the validation of debts request, and make your company, employees, agents, and affiliates civilly liable for damages due under federal law for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and any, and all other applicable laws and statutes.

This discrepancy of 40% must be fully accounted for in its entirety. Any attempts to respond to this validation of debts request with anything less than a full complete, and detailed accounting of the above stated discrepancy will be a violation of Title 15, Chapter 41, Subchapter V, Section 1692c, Part c "Ceasing Communications" statute of the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, since each and every one of these validation of debts requests included a request that your company, in-house or third party collections agencies cease all activity until after the complete historical documentation requested to explain the discrepancy is provided, and will be fully enforced.

The only response allowed from this point forward is the complete validation of the discrepancy, including complete historical documentation to support the discrepancy, or under Title 15, Chapter 41, Subchapter V, Section 1692c, Part c1 a statement "to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;" In order for your company to apply under Title 15, Chapter 41, Subchapter V, Section 1692c, Parts c2-3, a statement "to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy. If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt"; your company would need to provide the above stated complete historical documentation for the discrepancy which has been repeatedly requested since September, 13, 2002.

Any other responses including but not limited to your companies form response stating that you received the inquiry, and have two billing cycles to review and respond to the request, or the resending of the previously inadequate and incomplete validation of debts response will be treated as a Title 15, Chapter 41, Subchapter V, Section 1692c violation.

Sincerely Yours,

 

I hope someone can give a definative answer.

The first request for validation was sent to the CA, and the OC recalled the account directly back from them, as soon as the CA notified them of the request.

If they can evade FDCPA protections by recalling the account on the first validation request, provide documentation with discrepancies, and then what good is the FDCPA protection, if the OC can recall the account to evade the consumers rights under the FDCPA.

 

Ok, Not sure if this may answer the question or not...

From the FTC's commentary on the FDCPA
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/commentary.htm

Section 807(6)

Section 807(6) prohibits falsely representing or implying that a transfer of the debt will cause the consumer to (A) lose any claim or defense, or (B) become subject to any practice prohibited by the FDCPA.

1. Referral to creditor. A debt collector may not falsely state that the consumer's account will be referred back to the original creditor, who would take action the FDCPA prohibits the debt collector to take.

I would take that to be that once the OC sends it to the CA, transferring it back to the OC so that they could evade complying with FDCPA would be impossible, and hold the OC to compliance with the FDCPA.

If its illegal to represent that the transfer back to OC causes the FDCPA to become nullified, it should definately be a violation to actually try to do it...