Does a hard inquiry into my credit report during the validation period constitute collection activity? I sent a validation letter to a CA and, 10 days later, the CA inquried into my report with a permissible purpose of collections. I would think this is forbidden until they validate the debt.
Do you know of any FTC opinion letter or any part of the FDCPA which I could use to prove this in court? To me....looking at my credit report with a permissible purpose of collections would obviously qualify as collection activity. But, sometimes, what is obvious and what you can prove are two different things. I believe I am going to have to take the company to court given that their lawyer sent me a letter stating that my claim is frivilous and I will be sued if I attempt to take them to court. I guess we will have to see about that Thank you for your reply!
The best I can come up with is the following FTC opinion letter. Although it doesn't speak of pulling reports (inquiries), it does talk about reporting during the validation period being continued collection activity. Also, be aware that if you file a lawsuit against a ca for FDCPA violations, they cannot file a counter claim against you for debt that caused their violations. They can however, file a new suit. December 23, 1997 Robert G. Cass Compliance Counsel Commercial Financial Services, Inc. 2448 E. 81st Street, Suite 5500 Tulsa, OK 74137-4248 Dear Mr. Cass: Mr. Medine has asked me to reply to your letter of October 28, 1997, concerning the circumstances under which a debt collector may report a "charged-off debt" to a consumer reporting agency under the enclosed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In that letter, you pose four questions, which I set out below with our answers. I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g. II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992). IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8). I hope this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney Enclosure
something to look at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm this seems to only deal with their REPORTING though, not inq's. Check out some fo the FCRA opinion letters on PP as well. If a CA's PP for inq is for collections, then it seems if collection activity must stop then they have lost their PP.
OC's don't have to validate. only CA's ===================jason_l================= But both have to prove it if you ask. The END ************************* LB 59
??? I never said that in relation to this thread.. I don't want to go off topic here, but I'm getting beat up on this point a lot all of a sudden. Please, somebody point me to where I can find supporting evidence to this. Some one mentioned the Fair Billing Act - is that the source? Personaly, I'm not here looking for "yes" and "no" answers - I'm here to educate myself as much as possible and to share with others what knowledge I pick up. So when I ask for "proof" it's not because I'm being arguementative - it's because I am trying to learn as much as I can. I'm not looking for someone to give me a fish, I'm trying to learn how to fish I appologize if I come across any different....
