to the experts ... senerio a consumer formally resided in a state where an alledged debt occured which also happens to be the same state the CA is located in. but now the consumer resides in another state and the CA needs to be sued can the consumer file their claim in their present state that they reside in or does it have to be filed in the former state. thanks for the help
It sounds like since your cause of action is due to the violations of FDCPA and FCRA, which damage you where you live, you would sue where you are. Whether that would allow you to include the OC if the OC has not directly violated FCRA I don't know. Is the CA collecting on the account for the OC, or did they buy the account from the OC? You might have the strongest case for including the OC, under FCRA and FDCPA, if the CA is collecting, but the OC still owns the account, and therefore might have chosen to exercise some control over the illegal actions of their agent the CA, after you notified them of those illegal actions. In effect, the OC owning the account has posted erroneous negative information on your CR thru its agent the CA, who would not have done so without OC's negligence in accounting, etc. You might ask these questions of TowerRat at artofcredit.com.
Since you have disputed with the CA within 30 days of their (lack of) notice to you, they cannot assume the debt valid. Did they verify to the CRA in your dispute with the CRA after receiving your notice of dispute and request for validation? If so, continued collection activity (FDCPA violation), regardless of their likely claim that they depended on the OC in assuming the debt is valid when it was sent to them. They failed to validate, and continued to collect. Did the CA even mark the TL as "in dispute"? If not, another violation. After ensuring that the CA has failed to remove after your validation request and their verification to the CRA, you might want to try to open a new account, based on a balance transfer offer to a lower rate, even if it is likely to be rejected. That establishes actual damages, of at least the interest difference between your jacked rates and the balance transfer rate. If your scores were in the 700s before, you would likely have been approved for any new account. In the low 600s, you would likely be rejected, and the lender's adverse action notice should indicate the reason for rejection, and which CRA's report was pulled to make that decision. Even better for documenting damage, your account rejections were obtained in the course of attempting to mitigate CA's damaging illegal acts, and not just some theoretical value being placed on being able to open an account for some unspecified purpose. You shouldn't have to put your life on hold to prevent damage caused by someone else's negligent and illegal behavior. Having to put your life on hold, and paying more to other lenders is itself damage.
Regarding regulatory jurisdiction, phone, gas and electric utilities are often regulated by state public utilities commissions. You might also file a complaint with them, including copies of your documented payment on their final statement, not because they would likely force the utility to do anything, but they might forward your complaint thru a different channel, to a party at the company that has to work with them routinely, and not to a department whose job is to collect from deadbeats. Utility companies like to appear competent and credible to the agencies that regulate and approve their tariffs.
