I have three PAID collection accounts which are being reported by two different CA's. 30 days ago I sent a demand for validation to them via CRRR. So far, nothing but the green cards. But after more closely reading, the FDCPA, I am wondering if they are truly obligated to validate? After reading Section 809(a) which states "...a debt collector shall...unless consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing....." Is that going to be their escape clause? Are they still also mandated to report the accounts as disputed, etc etc. even though it's paid. If they don't respond, I fully intend to pursue litigation, so I want to be as clear on the text of the FDCPA as possible. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Litigation for what? Are they reporting them incorrectly? In my own case, that was pretty much every trade line. I had already paid off every single debt, 100 cents on the dollar (I'd do it again, BTW- can't see blowing off legitimate debts, but that's my problem). I hit them with modified validation letters, modified estoppel letters, ran disputes through the CRA's concurrently, modified nutcase letters; you name it, I did it. Most of the derogs are gone now. I outlasted them. I wanted them off worse than they wanted them on. One more just came off this week from all three CR's, plus my wife's three CR's-- that's SIX deletes, plus six more coming tomorrow or Monday!!!). These were from two paid collections with Cap1. They just couldn't seem to get the reporting 100% accurate. Finally, they gave up and agreed to delete. Probably my 15th attempt. I wanted them off worse than they wanted them on.
In essence, I am considering litigation based on what I believe to be violations of the FDCPA and FCRA. My only concern is that perhaps the wording within the acts may somehow create a loophole large enough for them to slither through. It is my understanding that some consumers have successfuly sued based on CA violation of the FDCPA and FCRA. If anyone has some specific advice on how to proceed, I'd really appreciate it
Did you see this thread? http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=2&postid=195202#post195202 I thought the linked info was a great way of nutshelling the violations to be on the lookout for. DemPooches
Those are indeed the violations I had in mind. But, as I mentioned in my original post, do you think the wording of the FDCPA may somehow exempt the CA from all provisions of the act if it has been paid?
lexman Quixote is right, if you paid the CA's in full, they are reporting correctly and not "slithering" away from anything unless it was out of agreement that you had previously negotiated before payment. CA's are exempt from Validation adherence when an account is paid. Lesson: If your going to pay (and you should), prenegotiate and get written confirmation If they won't do it and you are compelled to do the right thing anyway, then you've got a tough row to hoe- per Quixote's note. That's what the nutcase letter rational is all about doing something inspite of not being able to use FCRA and FDCPA ...check it out.
I recently sent a validation to a CA for DH asking validation for a paid CA account. I also included a letter saying DH did not pay the balance, I DID! I included a notarized affidavit signed by me saying that I paid. I really did pay it too, a $25 vet bill for my cat. So I think since DH did not pay this account.....which is really mine AND we were never notified of the $25 balance (CA billed at wrong address), he should be entitled to validation.
In light of Nelson v Chase Manhattan, I think we have more power on a paid collection than ever before. There are several factors working in your favor: -Seldom is a tradeline perfectly accurate; challenge every slight innacuracy. They have more liability than ever before. I liken it to someone standing on the street corner holding a sign that says "Quixote is a deadbeat and a CheeseWeenie!!!" ('Zat you Bkev? lol) It's a free country, right? They can do that, right? Well, maybe. I would contend that they have crossed the line into libel. They had better have some proof of their statement, or I just might have something to say about it. Absent that proof, they'd better shut the heqq up. -They have nothing to gain by engaging you. They already got their money. Make a pest of yourself and make it plain you aren't going to go away. Try it. It's fun! -I reiterate my earlier statement; we want those derogs off worse than they want them on our CR's. Every minute they spend dealing with you about an account with no potential profit in it for them costs them money. All of which goes back to Doc's Nutcase Hypothesis. I have used it succesfully several times now, both before and after it was given a name; both in writing and verbally. It works. The threat need not be an idle one. Outlast them. Read up on Nelson v Chase Manhattan if you haven't already. It's easy to find with a google search.
