I am confused regarding the various consumer protection laws. Ok, I know that FDCPA applies to a debt collector, and FCRA applies to a credit bureau (but can also partially apply to a debt collector.) Which laws apply to an original creditor which is furnishing inaccurate information to a debt collector, who collects on their behalf?
Both laws apply to an OC; as a "furnisher" of information. If you read the FCRA, you will find the areas where the laws directly apply to "furnishers". The FDCPA also details what a furnisher can and can not do. In your case some more specifics must be obtained to point you to the applicable sections of the law.
OC is claiming that they investigated and determined that "collection activity will continue". Someone else at the OC confirmed for me (only verbally, unfortunately) that the account in question belongs to someone with the same name but a different SSN than mine. They have told the CA that the debt is valid, and thus my disputes with the CRAs have come back as verified accurate. The OC is being uncooperative and is refusing to answer any of my questions regarding the debt, including with regard to their relationship with the CA. My strong assumption is that the OC still owns the debt, and the CA is collecting on behalf of them....I base this upon the fact that the OC got involved enough to "investigate" the account. Therefore I am wondering if cease&desist against the CA would be appropriate. I would appreciate any input regarding the laws which are being broken by the OC.
"Someone else at the OC confirmed for me (only verbally, unfortunately) that the account in question belongs to someone with the same name but a different SSN than mine. " Are you also saying that based on your own records and recollection, you know that this is not your account? Do you know that you did not open an account with this OC? What type of account is this? How much are they attempting to collect, and how old is the debt? What contact have you had with either the OC, or the CA? Are either the OC, or the CA, reporting this on your credit reports? Have you received anything in writing from the OC, or the CA? Have you sent anything in writing to either the OC, or the CA?
Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC My answer is that I don't know. To clarify, I had an account with a vendor who may, or may not, have been a subsidiary of this creditor. To my knowledge I don't believe I had a delinquent balance, but I lack the records to substantiate this either way. In the absence of such records, I would think that a representative from the creditor itself, telling me that the account under review belongs to someone else, answers this question for me. It's < $300, for a form of utility. Debt is not SOL. DV with CA, they sent me an original contract which conveniently has the signature line blotted out and illegible. It wasn't a document I recall ever signing. My contact with the OC is as mentioned previously...telephone call with the rep who confirmed it's not mine, and then e-mail exchange and postal letter from a rep who claims that it is mine. CA is reporting it on behalf of OC. Yes, as mentioned above. I'm now working on an ITS.
Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC Address of service, or billing address, and service start and stop dates would appear to clarify whether this is your responsibility or not. That would presumably be on information obtainable off the original contract, possibly supplemented by copies of statements from the OC. Have they provided that to you as yet, in response to your request for validation? if not, why not?
Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC "It's < $300, for a form of utility." Is it a form of utility that would require that they know an address at which the alleged service was provided, in order to provide it? Electricity, gas, land line phone, cable, garbage pick-up, cannot be delivered except to a specific address. If it wasn't your address, it would be pretty clear, at least to a judge, it wasn't your account.
Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC Looks like this is being cleared up and will be removed from my credit. Watching the credit reports to make sure. If it's a collection which is between 2 and 3 years old, any idea how significant a change this might make in my score?
Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC Get it in writing. For all the trouble they have caused you, to get to this point, don't just accept their verbal claim they will remove it, even if they do. Insist that they send you a letter acknowledging they have determined that the account is not yours and will remove it. Otherwise you run the risk they will remove it for now, sell the debt to another CA, and you are back to square one. Since the utility rep has sent you a letter claiming that it was your account, insist that they now send you a letter concluding that it is NOT your account and that they have directed their CA to remove it from your reports. If the rep won't send that, go up the chain to the executive offices and rattle their cage. Also, dispute thru the CRA, so that they are also removing it in response to the CRA dispute, establishing requirements that they specifically certify it as "accurate" to the CRA, should they later try to reinsert. All letters you send, certified, of course.
Re: Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC This "conversation" occurred in e-mail. Although it said that they were directing the CA to remove the item from the credit reports, the language didn't say "we found that this wasn't your account". They did apologize though. Will be preparing a salvo of postal mail shortly.
Re: Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC Then, since you have an e-mail from the OC, you could send a letter, certified, to the CA, include a copy of the e-mail, and demand that they immediately remove their TL, and acknowledge to you in a letter that they have done so. Don't just trust whatever the OC claims it will do, or whatever pace they do it at. On delivery notification of your letter, also dispute thru the CRA. Insist on written responses, just to ensure you force the issue to completion before they "forget" it, and claim they have to "research" it before they can do anything. If this pops up again at some inopportune time, such as when you are closing on a mortgage, you don't want them to have any excuses. If they screw up again, you want their "research" to be no more than receiving a copy of their own letter by fax, and fixing it fast, or they get to pay.
Re: Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC The reason, of course, for insisting they document their agreement to correct in writing, is this: "OC is claiming that they investigated and determined that "collection activity will continue". Someone else at the OC confirmed for me (only verbally, unfortunately) that the account in question belongs to someone with the same name but a different SSN than mine. They have told the CA that the debt is valid, and thus my disputes with the CRAs have come back as verified accurate." Their systems are barely able to correct errors. Since you can't count on them to correct their errors, you have to create an independent paper trail.
Re: Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC Good stuff. I am sidetracked with my other issue, which I'll explain in another thread.
Re: Re: Re: Intent to Sue vs. OC Thanks for all the feedback. This situation now appears to be resolved....I check my Experian every day (did y'all know that you can do that at experian.com/dispute if you have a report number which is anywhere near recent?) and the derog disappeared from there. Have not pulled my other two reports yet but would anticipate that it's being removed there as well. Will of course start some trouble if it's not. The tip that the OC is a "furnisher of information" really helped. I was then able to solve this with some strongly worded letters.
