Hey everyone again I saw on my report in April that Anderson Fin Network claims I owe them money for an account with an OC. I disputed with CRAs and EX and EQ verified. Then I sent a validation request to CA, which they received 9-29. I also sent a letter to EX to proivde the required information on how they verified (name adress phone number of OC contacted), which they have not sent. An EX report dated 10/1 states that this account as: Status: NO STATUS Your Comment: "Account in dispute under FCBA" This item was verified and updated on 6-2003. Shouldn't the STATUS read that the account is in dispute and not MY comment? is this right? ] thanks!
My understanding is that while your account is listed in this manner it is not reported to anyone but you and is not included in your FICO score. (At least, this is how it is supposed to work.) Did your FICO go up?
Re: Re: No status? Shouldn't it say "Disput nope -- and i know others can see it because a place i applied for a loan could see it! if you send them a letter to validate, do they immediately have to contact the CRAs and mark "dispute"? or do they not have to do that unless you send them a letter to validate, then dispute with CRAs and then when CRAs contact them to verify, THEN they mark dispute? tboy
Wrong Order 1*I disputed with CRAs .. 2*Then I sent a validation request to CA tboy74 =================== Correct Order 1*I sent a validation request to CA 2*Then I disputed with CRAs THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''...................... '''''''''''''''"""""""""""""'''''''''''
Re: No status? Shouldn't it say "Di Finally found the same exact thing I have on EX. 1.Validated with CA 2. Disputed with CRA. 3. CRA reports item NO STATUS, item in dispute under FCBA. So, what is next? Re validate with CA since they did not validate? HELP!
Re: No status? Shouldn't it say "Di Anyone?? Really need to move forward with this...ideas will be appreciated.
Re: Re: Re: No status? Shouldn't it say "Di does anyone know if "No Status" is legal if it's in dispute? and shoudl it say in dispute in the customer comment area or in the Status area? thanks tboy
Re: Re: Re: Re: No status? Shouldn' OK, after some reading of this FTC letter whose link I found somewhere in CN, it looks to me that it would still be considered as collection activity if CA continues to report the TL to the CRAs. No matter what is noted on the TL. If one would look at II, the opinion letter of the FTC realizes that continued reporting of the TL to the CRAs is not permissible. So, in this case, I do believe that any CA or OC should stop reporting to the CRAs until they have validated with the consumer. Any thoughts? And again, in the opinion letter part IV, it mentions that reporting to the CRAs any debt disputed with a CA constitues continued collection activity, therefore a violation. So from those points raised, I would argue that the CA should stop reporting the TL with any CRAs. Is my conclusion correct?? Sorry if this is really long, but I just wanted to get anyone's opinion on this. Thanks for your patience on reading this. ===================================== I. â??Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?â? Yes. As stated in the Commissionâ??s Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p.50103). We do not regard the action a reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumerâ??s dispute or verification rights under § 1692g. II. â??Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumerâ??s charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to. a consumerâ??s written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?â? As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes â??collection activityâ? on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. IV. â??Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?â? Yes, as stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8). =====================================
Re: Re: Re: Re: No status? Shouldn' bump Any opinions from the gurus? By the way, this is an FTC opinion letter that I quoted... Thanks!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No status? Shouldn' anyone?? no comments?? Will the Cass letter be sufficient to pursue this? I would think so but I need to be sure to get Arrow Financial off my back...only derog on my EX and TU reports...I wouldn't want any surprises when and if I may have to go through the court system with this... Thanks
