I am having a bit of difficulty with CenterPoint because of utility service they apparently provided to an address in Houston. I had written them a letter back in February, to which they replied with a note that they were a utility and did not require contracts for providing service. I am just now getting around to responding to them. This is my first stab at this and would appreciate you all reviewing the letter below for me. Any tips, suggestions, or advice would be appreciated (especially anyone knowing Texas law and having any good ideas). Thanks Dear Mrs. XXXX: I am writing in response to your letter of reply dated February 26, 2003, responding to my dispute of a charged-off account (No. XXXXXXXX) that has been placed on my credit bureau reports in the amount of $76.00. For your convenience and easy reference, I have enclosed a copy of the form letter that you sent to me. To refresh your memory, I had contacted you when I found this account listed on my Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion credit reports. I told you that I had not lived in Houston, and that at the time this bill seems to have been incurred, I was stationed with the 82d Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. As far as I know, CenterPoint does not contend that this bill was incurred in North Carolina. Because of this, I asked for you to provide some sort of verification of this debt, or, in the alternative, I asked for immediate removal of this derogatory information from my credit reports. CenterPoint provided neither. Instead, I received a filled in form letter stating that CenterPoint is a utility company and does not require written contracts for service. Be that as it may, this does not exempt CenterPoint from the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC 1581, which provides, in part, that providers of information have the responsibility to provide accurate information to credit reporting agencies. It is my contention that you have not, and are not, doing this. Section 623(a)(1)(B) makes clear that, as a furnisher of information, you are required to validate the debt and show that it belongs to me. You are further prohibited from reporting this information to the credit bureaus while an investigation (for which you are allowed 30 days) is pending. In answering my original letter, you did not validate this debt, and in fact admitted that there is no proof that I asked you to provide any utility service to the address in question (i.e., â??â?¦we are a utility and do not require written contractsâ?¦â?). I therefore renew my demand that you either provide me with some proof of this debt or you remove it from all of my credit reports. In addition, I expect that on this occasion (unlike the last time that I brought this matter to your attention), you will fully comply with the law and cease reporting this disputed debt until the matter is concluded. I await your prompt response in this matter. Sincerely yours, XXXXXXXXXXX
OC's do not have to validate the debt. Sec. 623 is the duties of a furnisher to a consumer reporting agency. Have you disputed thru the CRA? To have a claim against an OC under the FCRA, you have to utilize 623(b) Texas doesn't have alot of extra protections against an OC.
Not Bad! However, I would add in there that their 30 day investigation period expires on 15 Aug, 03 (or whatever) to make sure that you keep an accurate timeline and that there is no misunderstanding. Given the fact that this is not your debt, I would actually avail myself of the oppty to call the OC and attempt to get cooperation via telephone. You: I have never lived in Houston. This is not my acct. Them: Sir, you opened this account on xyz date at such-n-such address. You: really? Now why would I have done that since I was in NC at the time. Them: this is your acct You: What SSN do you have on this acct? You: What is the applicant's DOB? You: Do you have MY signature on ANY document including any alleged payments made on this acct? Them: No You: So you have *NO* proof that this acct belongs to me and I HAVE proof that I wasn't there when this acct was active. Sounds like YOU were suckered by someone else and in court I will prevail. Please repeat your name and get your supervisor so that I can get this resolved. I have actually been successful using this approach. (My maiden name was Smith so you can imagine the sheer number of folks with the same name!!)
Hiya Jlynn!!! OP: Have you researched TX UCC laws? Also, TX dtpa laws? These laws apply to OC's and your situation may fall within these parameters.
Hey there 420 - its not my problem , but I did not even think about UCC laws since it is a utility. It was my understanding that TX version of the FCRA IS a violation of the dtpa, but the FCRA limits OC's to being debt collectors as opposed to 3rd party collectors. Basically eliminates all the fun stuff! It is probably a good idea to look at both and see if the OC has messed up somewhere else.
Ok--lemme try to reply to everyone, one at a time... jlynn--I thought I read on one of the posts that Texas law extended the law to cover OCs? Was this wrong (or did I misunderstand)? You seem to be saying that they don't have to prove that I ahd anything to do with this and can still try and collect from me...that can't be right... SCMomof5--Thanks...that's a good idea to put a cutoff date into the letter...as a way to dummy-proof it (I bet if we dummy-proof it though, someone will come along and invent a better dummy). Four20Nik--I looked at several passages of Texas law, including the DTPA, but didn't find anything that seemed applicable in this situation. I was genuinely under the impression that my best bet in this case was by identifying CenterPoint as a furnisher of information (which they are), and making them prove the debt. Surely they have to prove that I owe it...there cannot possibly be a whole that big in the consumer credit protection statutes...
By the way, thanks everyone for your input...it is appreciated. P.S. I meant "hole" instead of "whole" in my last posting...don't want ya'll thinking this Aggie is uneducated....
Sorry, Jlynn, lol...wasnt very clear that my post was directed to OP OKAY, as far as OC references for FDCPA...OC is only bound by collection methods...not in any obigation to "validate" debt. The FCRA section with respect to furnishers of information only defines "furnishers of Info" as: § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. (C) No address requirement. A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address. (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. (4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed. (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action. (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and [bold/](D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.[/bold] (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. (c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s]. (d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section. While there is no indication they must validate, there is the "duty" that furnishers must abide by. Seems to me that an investigatin cannot be complete if they never even had a contract from you. Now, UCC law in TX may apply. Here's the link: Read Title 1... http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/bctoc.html
I dunno that the UCC applies here. Does anyone know what law it is that an OC must provide proof of a debt? Surely they can't just say people owe stuff and then commence to collectin'.
