After a little hiatus, Iâ??m back, and still helping family and friends defend their credit. Looks like Iâ??ve had a troll pop up from under the bridge, but given my history, and the situation, I feel good that Iâ??ll prevail again. Hereâ??s the latestâ?¦I have flower shop that I purchased gifts from in the past using a credit card. They sent a â??store accountâ? card to me, which I used for several purchases. The total was less that $200, and I started to receive bills for the purchase, which included interest and late fees. I contacted the OC and inquired about the â??contractâ? which established the amounts due, and requested a copy of a signed contract or some other document that would establish the amount that I owed. They were unable to produce this, and sent the account to an unscrupulous CA (trust me, Iâ??ve seen a few and this one is a doosey). After a couple of mails back and forth, including an ITS, the CA sent a real nasty letter basically calling me stupid, and foolish for trying to fight with them because they know the law. The account has sat in a â??dispute statusâ? for over 3 years now without the CA ever producing any real validation, other than the bill, So, looks like I need to take them to court, and sue for FCRA violations given the continued reporting although they have failed to produce a validation. I know this one is a little tricky, and I could use a little help on any other claims that I can use from the FCRA.
You will have to do some research on the SOL for FCRA violations - they may have expired. You might have to dispute again. You may have the same problem with any initial FDCPA violations.
Thanks jlynn, it's been a long time.... Wierd thing is that they are still reporting as in dipute, but it wasn't until the last few months that they started to report as delinquent (I9), and that has caused a little concern. I'll start with the dispute process once more, and I think that the lack of validation, coupled with the the failure to remove the credit line, gives a little creadence to the argument that the CA had no intentions to comply with the spirit of the law.
So it was a store credit card for a flower shop? Which is unfair in what way? You bought something, you didn't pay, you are complaining about it for some reason. Keep in mind that a contract doesn't have to be signed to be valid. When you used the card, that formed a binding contract. They sent you letters like that? That's a stupid CA. Usually a CA will say that on the phone, if it is that sort of CA, but putting it in writing is just asking for an FDCPA lawsuit. Is this the "bill" from the flower shop? Because what more do you want? If you bought some flour from a local shop on credit, you'll pay once a month, do you think there's more than that "bill"? Do you think you don't owe the local shop for the flour? Of course if by "bill" you mean something that the CA just made up one day in Microsoft Word, that's an entirely different story. That's not valid documention, if the law is followed, because it doesn't establish anything at all. Is it a FCRA violation to not validate a FDCPA validation request and still report on a credit report? If you are saying that you disputed with the credit reporting agency, I was under the impression that it had to come off if it was not found valid. (Of course I understand that this isn't necessarily how things happen)
It is only a FDCPA violation if the request for validation was timely sent, they did not validate and report or validate but, report before doing so. That would constitute continued collection activity. It can be an FCRA violation if you dispute a field that is inaccurate or incomplete and they verify it or fail to mark it as being in dispute. Of course, that would be a FDCPA violation as well. Therefore, most of your outcome depends on whether your validation request was timely.
Ok, rather than hit these point by point, Iâ??d much rather be confusing and lump them all into one ;-) Trust me, I follow the validation/dispute routine to the letter, so letâ??s eliminate that from the equation. That said, validation in and of itself does require the production of a contract to establish the validity of a debt for the purpose of a debt. For the purposes of collection, however, the FDCPA states: § 808. Unfair Practices [15 USC 1692f] A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt ... the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. The â??late feesâ? assessed by the florist must be established by a contract, or some other instrument, provided they are outside of what is permitted by law (checked this out already). Hereâ??s where it gets a little sticky, as the definition of â??continued collection activityâ? does not explicitly include the continued reporting of a debt that has been reported as disputed yet not properly validated (given the above Unfair Practices rule). I remember seeing several postings in the past, although not with any real conclusions, as to the likelihood of this as something that is actionable. My thought pattern here is â??Your Honor, I disputed this with the CA over 3 years ago and they never produced the required documentation for validation. Their continued reporting, as well as the defamatory letter, shows their wanton disregard for the consumer protection laws. I am seeking relief for time, damaged credit scores and ratings, as well as a deletion of this line item from my file with all 3 CRAâ??s." The violation of the FCRA comes from their continued collection activities vis-à -vis the repeated listing of the "late fees" included into the total amount reported to the CRA's. As to the question of if I took something without paying for it, versus a credit transaction, Iâ??ll state it this way. There is a distinct difference between what can be collected, and what can be reported. If I walk into your store and take a bag of flour and walk out, itâ??s theft. If I walk in and you give me a bag and tell me to pay you back and I donâ??t, you have a civil case (still not to the level of credit reporting). If I walk in, you agree to give me a bag of flour in which I have to repay you within 30 days, or else I will charge 10% interest, if I donâ??t pay you back you have both a right to report to CRAâ??s and as well a civil case. The dispute is not if they have a right to collect, but rather, do they have a right to report, and I say no, they have no right to report.
