I'm sure this may have been discussed, but I wouldn't know where to begin. this is the thread section I saved... Collection Agency violated the FDCPA § 809 [15 USC 1692g] by failing to properly notify the obligator prior to taking derogatory action against obligator via reporting to all three CRA's, referenced: "In Dec, 2002, Plaintiff reviewed his credit report as maintained by TU and noticed a debt he did not recognize was bieng reported by the Defendant, CA. The Plaintiff had never recieved any type of communication from or by the defendant in regards to this alleged debt and had no knowledge of this debt. Plaintiff contends that the reporting of this alleged debt to TU by the defendant violated the FDCPA under § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] paragraph (a) which states: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; section § 803 (2) of the FDCPA [15 USC 1692a] defines the term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. the defendant's first communication was when the plaintiff became aware that this alleged debt was bieng reported by TU and therefor he was not notified in this initial communication or within 5 days of same. Would this hold true? I know this wouldn't be enough for a deletion alone, but is this a valid claim? Has anyone used this successfully in incorporating violations?
Wrangler you know we need a link to this case. And YES, technically, posting to your report IS a communication. I've preached that all along. Says so right in the FDCPA. Where's this case? ???
That's not right either. The first communication occurred when the item was posted. Makes no difference whether or not, or when, the debtor became aware of it.
Butch, This isn't an actual case. I'm sorry. It's a statement of facts to a CA who I suppose has many violations.I found the thread that I got this off: http://creditreportrights.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8233&highlight=#8233 I guess what I was wondering, would this be a gimme violation to add to any others for the fact that, I believe, NO CA has proof that they contacted you in the first place. So if I had, say 2 good violations...maybe not listing the account in dispute, and verifying with the CRA before validating with me, I could add this one...to make it more likely to get a deletion? And if it ever went to court, I could use this with the defense that the CA cannot prove that they sent me an initial communication? Am I understanding this right?
Re: Re: is this true about "communication" Here's a thread worthy of review: http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3515&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 On 5/27 @ 1:37 Sassy began her remarks that should interest you. Scroll through the thread until you find that and start there. She and I discuss 2 cases (Mahon & Lee) that address this issue. BOTH are worthy of reading. She provides links to both cases. So yeah, you have some homework to do. (sorry) http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42188&highlight=mahon
Re: Re: is this true about "communication" Thank you Butch, as I am always trying to follow your threads. Your resources are as always excellent. I did catch that thread last night, but just briefly. I will be sure to give it my undivided attention tonight. I'm sure Imay have some more questions later!!
