Insertion Notice Question

If the account was previously deleted and is being re-inserted you are suppose to be notified in writing I believe 5 days prior. Check the FCRA for the exact time frame.

TU did this to me on a deletion without advance notification last year and because of that I was able to get them to take it off permenantly.

 

If this is the first time this item appears, then NO they do not have to notify you of the insertion, they only have to notify you of a REinsertion, if the item was previously deleted.

 

You are correct about the 5 days except that they must notify you no later than 5 days AFTER it was reinserted, not prior.

 

Thanks for the clarification LKH.

 

As is customary with CA's they may have inserted the item to your CR without sending you your first notice.

This IS a violation on the part of the CA.

 

ok Butch dude,

You keep posting this but have ever answered where it says this is a violation or based on what.

Where?
What?

Sassy

 

§ 803. Definitions [15 USC 1692a]

(2) The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or INDIRECTLY to ANY person THROUGH ANY MEDIUM.

This includes the indirect communication of communicating a debt through ones credit report to the debtor or ANY OTHER PERSON.


§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(a) Within five days after the initial "communication" with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

Notwithstanding the fact that reporting a debt to the CRA IS collection activity.

Kiss,

 

Smoochie, smoochie!

We had this conversation before, lol lol.

I don't disagree with you still and read communication the same way and used both those arguments in letters successfully.

Until the FTC or a court says any different, that is what it says, I say, and I'll say the same to a judge the first time anyone wants to push it -- It's not right to find out of a bill firstly through your reports.

So here's the question, knowing I agree with you.

Yes, AGREE (smoochie).

There's a 2 year SOL for violations of the FCRA, yes? yes!

If a CA listed an account on Sassy Snort's reports, all 3, different of course, showing on those same reports as reported 05-1999 (so your whole reaging argument isn't applicable -- smoochie)

and

I never know about it until I get my report because I'm denied for something in 05-2002.

When does the 2 year SOL apply?

When they first reported, in excess of the 2 years, or does it click in when I first discover it on my reports?

There's still the problem of proof.

If it was from the date I discovered it and everyone agrees it is a violation to put something on my report without first notifying me -- why would I need to dispute and request validation at all?

Why couldn't I just file in small claims court for defamation just based on the CR report alone?

Or, if it's from the initial reporting date, 1999, then they would have escaped any legal recourse I may have had before the 2 years expired.

Actually, that's what I think the problem is with the way we are reading it -- the practical impacts of making that a requirement of furnishers would be too big a burden.

Even in the other thread the furnishers aren't required to participate, though the CRA's are.

And, it's a plain language statute, or supposed to be, like the timeframes for validation. If it meant we couldn't validate after 30 days, I could see that we were absolutely right in our interpretation.

That we're free to validate at any time makes it too burdensome a requirement.

snort and smooch,

Sassy

 

Well Sassy,

Ya know how courts are, especially small claims. This 2 year SOL is utterly absurd. Simply because, as you state, one may not become aware of it until afterward.

Some day some high court will agree to the sheer folly of such and set a new ruling. Or maybe we'll have to wait for Congress to adjust. LOLOL

In the meantime, aren't we the lucky ones since we know we need to watch our report carefully.

It's a well settled legal principle that "the beginning point of any statute is the language of the statute itself".

I'll push the law the way it reads and hope some dumb jackass of a judge doesn't disagree. That's all we can do.



~

 

ok by me, Butch dude,

Here's to folly and dumb jackass judges!

Sassy

 

So . . . "hypothetically" - a CA re-inserts 1 pd acct on EQ and 2 pd accts on TU = $3,000+/- or delete all three plus the one that was originally requested via goodwill and pleading phone call?