Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No status? Shouldn' ===================================== 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). ****************************************** Doesn't this pretty clearly say that they do not have to remove a tradeline when it is in dispute, but rather that they must notate it as in dispute? ****************************************** ===================================== If I were to understand this then, isn't the FTC contradicting itself: ##################################### 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? ----> "NO" by the FTC opinion letter and then mentioning that part where: 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.--> AGAIN, FROM THE CASS LETTER BY THE FTC in the same section of the opinion ##################################### So sorry if I sound like an a*sh*le in this reply but you can see and feel that I am desperate in trying to sort this out...Merlin, my apologies if I do sound like a d*ck...I am just so frustrated how to approach this problem...I know you are trying to clear the air with your response and I do understand...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No status? Shouldn' I think they are trying to cover off two separate situations: 1) If the debt has not yet been reported, it cannot be reported prior to validation. 2) If the debt has already been reported, it must be marked as in dispute. P.S. I in no way take offense to your reply. I think that it's important that we raise these questions with one another -- you know that they will be raised if we ever have to go to court.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No status? Shouldn' Merlin, wait..... in the first part of section II in the opinion letter, the question stands: "...for a debt collector to report, or CONTINUE to report, a consumer's charged-off debt...blah blah blah.... Then, that means that the TL could already have been reported with the CRAs wouldn't it, emphasis on continue...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No status? Shouldn' ===================================== Section 623(a)(3) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") concerns the reporting of information to consumer reporting agencies once the consumer has notified the furnisher that information is disputed. That section states that when a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished to a consumer reporting agency, the information in question may not then be furnished without notice that it is disputed by the consumer. That provision addresses the furnisher's obligation only when the furnisher continues to report disputed information. The statute is silent on the matter of the furnisher ceasing to report information while it is investigating the dispute. It is thus the opinion of the Commission staff that a furnisher that temporarily ceases to report disputed information while it investigates the matter, and then either (1) corrects the information if its investigation results in agreement with the consumer or (2) reports the item as disputed by the consumer where that is the result of the investigation, would comply with Section 623(a). ===================================== Another FTC opinion letter....could someone decipher this?? HELP!!! This looks like it is related to CAs reporting a disputed debt to a CRA and when they should cease collection activity.... Thank you...
Click here: CREDITNET | Straight Talk | | No status? Shouldn't it say "Disput Thred bump THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
