Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Well Cass isn't a case... Boy is that a toungue twister to type... It's just an FTC Opinion that it establishes that although (a) updates to a credit report are not continued collection activity, (b) verifications are, because of the manual vs. automated nature differences between verification and updating. I wonder why I got promoted to PH, huh?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... hmmm lets see PITA status and charming personality lol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... All Jam quotes and not necessarily in the order you posted them ;-): A big fat shame on them, youâ??ve read the slapping HH got for similar tactics and was liable under the FDCPA? I think youâ??ll find it very relevant: http://www.bankersonline.com/lending/mbg_fdcpacase.html http://www.bankersonline.com/lending/fdcpacase.pdf Iâ??m flying with ya and believe this goes with and is confirmation of the similar actions and tactics of HH. Hmmmmm, that could be tricky, but the validation provisions donâ??t extend to the FCRA and if reporting theyâ??re a furnisher and subject to the verification provisions -- even if validated before, it has to be verifiable or it canâ??t be reported -- initiating a dispute with the CRAâ??s triggers their responsibility to investigate, that takes care of that. The validation requirement is only triggered by a request in writing, ask them for a copy of your previous request. Further, Dan Edelman has this to say, the bolded part I believe is a light bulb moment regarding the 30-day bogus argument -- validate or cease collection (walk away without liability) or at any other time -- same options or donâ??t validate and donâ??t cease collection and you canâ??t escape the liability (itâ??s just under a different section, failure to communicate the information has been disputed AND hugely, continuing to communicate information that is known or should be known to be FALSE) -- False being the key word -- THIS is where Sullivan v Equifax and the Brady case comes in, and a big fat Iâ??m flying with ya too. Although the notice literally requires the debt collector to provide validation information, the Seventh Circuit has held that the debt collector does not violate the statute if it ceases all further collection activities without providing the information. Jang v. A. M. Miller & Assoc., Inc., 1996 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 10883 (N.D.Ill., July 30, 1996), aff'd, 122 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 1997) ("When a collection agency cannot verify a debt, the statute allows the debt collector to cease all collection activities at that point without incurring any liability for the mistake"); Sambor v. Omnia Credit Services, Inc., 183 F.Supp.2d 1234, 1242 (D.Haw. 2002); Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1031-32 (6th Cir. 1992). Both of these are awesome reads (Edelman and Pittman) if youâ??ve not read them before: http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33386 This bothers me, why are you thinking there is no SOL on a check -- is that something funky in your state that youâ??ve confirmed? In most states the check can be pursued through a program via the county attorney, though the timeframes and procedure must be followed to do so, most exclude checks that have gone to private collection methods instead. Hereâ??s a hint in the right direction, youâ??ll have to track down your stateâ??s specific statutes: http://www.ckfraud.org/penalties.html Reads like a lowly debt buyer to me. Nope -- no check = no validation under the FDCPA and no verification under the FCRA. This is like them claiming they previously validated (triggered by a request in writing from the consumer per the FDCPA), the cease communication provisions of the FDCPA are triggered by a request in writing from the consumer, so if true, make them produce your request, otherwise call it what it is BS and an additional FDCPA violation. They donâ??t put the notation on your reports -- God forbid they ever get the authority to do so. They have to communicate to the CRA that the information has been disputed and the CRA then have to include the notation in all subsequent reports. Anyway, additional fodder (I didnâ??t address what youâ??ve so eloquently already laid out, just nodding) and I believe additional confirmation for you and a way to refute their arguments should you go further. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CA is trying to claim that they VALIDATED the alleged account in 1998; so they don't have to validate againâ?¦ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2*How long is a validation good for before it expires?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... The validation requirement is only triggered by a request in writing from the consumer -- that's why I suggested Jam ask for a copy, if they don't have it and that is why they are saying they don't have to provide validation, I'd call it BS and another FDCPA violation. The validation section doesn't address a timeframe or require an initial communication at all -- the purpose to address dunning the wrong person and/or dunning for the wrong dollar amount -- I'd say, whenever there is collection activity there's a validation opportunity, it doesn't expire. Additionally, under the FCRA, any information reported has to be verifiable -- no timeframe attached there either, as long as it's reporting, the furnisher is responsible for the information. If they can't provide validation (whether required or not) they'd not be able to provide verification either -- just trigger the investigation requirement by disputing. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Did the CA claim just verbally, or in writing in response to your written request for validation, that they didn't have to validate again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... please confirm if my understanding on this issue is correct or not. a consumer send written notification to the CA informing them the debt is disputed and requests validation. the CA hasn't validated the acct but they verify the account with the CRA ( after investigation) & flag the acct disputed. since the acct is unverifable per the FCRA it should be deleted not flagged otherwise it is considered a violation for continued collection activity under the FDCPA ?
Regarding non-physical checks option in 1998: Yes. I know from personal experience that this was in use in 1995. (Some company I gave one-time approval to, tried to make an annual event of it and OD'd my account.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... The SOL on a check, I'm referring to is for civil, the only reference I found was to WhyChat's site, where someone re-posted that checks don't have a SOL for civil enforcement. (I'm trying to look on WC's site now to see if I can find the reference for myself.) Everything else in PA is cut and dry 4 years. Sassy, how'ld ya guess that according to their delusional marketing blurb on their own corporate web site, they're a lowly debt buyer... The best is how they tout the fact that all of their purchases are individually worked out based on a sliding-scale, dependent upon how much documentation is provided, the age of the account, etc...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... The SOL on a check, I'm referring to is for civil, the only reference I found was to WhyChat's site, where someone re-posted that checks don't have a SOL for civil enforcement. (I'm trying to look on WC's site now to see if I can find the reference for myself.) Everything else in PA is cut and dry 4 years. Sassy, how'ld ya guess that according to their delusional marketing blurb on their own corporate web site, they're a lowly debt buyer... The best is how they tout the fact that all of their purchases are individually worked out based on a sliding-scale, dependent upon how much documentation is provided, the age of the account, etc...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Another relevant section in the edcomb's article, posted in the linked creditboards post. Even C3's written admission that they claim that the debt was orally disputed in 1998, subjects them to FDCPA (for reporting false credit information) and FCRA violations (for verifying the account as non-disputed). C2's verification of the account on the three disputes as being non-disputed also makes them fall into the same FDCPA, and FCRA violations. Also... I'm debating whether or not to add in state law claims under the Consumer Protection Law, which in PA says that a collector or creditor who violates the FDCPA is committing a violation of the CPL, subject to a min of $100 damages (no max). This was partially extracted from the PA v. Cross Country Bank lawsuit, but it does have both an administrative enforcement, and civil enforcement option allowing for both monitary damages and injunctive relief. (And the best part is that the majority of the legalese for the state violations can be easily modeled from the state AG's suit against CCB.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... In their written letter they state that they provided the validation, they didn't explicitly refuse to provide validation again... However in their response to the BBB, they state that they have previously verified under the fdcpa and fcra, and refuse to re-consider their position. In their follow-up, they pass the blame for the date showing as 06/2004 as being the first reported date, on to EX, despite the fact that I have credit reports prior to that to prove conclusively that they were not in fact reporting on my credit report prior to 06/2004. They are suggesting that maybe EX changed the first reported date to 06/2004, when I disputed the account with them (when they received the dispute on 07/13/2004, and the company responded to the dispute with them in 08/05/2004). And now they're claiming (since I brought up the fact that neither C1, or C2, or C3 were registered until 2002), that back then they were doing business under another name and a different owner in 1998, and explicitly claim that the debt is valid (Anyone see their Chaudry claim here) and will not be removed from my credit report.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Doing business under a different name, with a different owner, is a different business. The state considers them to be a different busines, and they identify themselves as a different business. Regardless of whether that business validated, the current one did not. Did they name and identify the prior business?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Ontrack: One-step ahead of you... (i.e. just finished typing up my re-follow-up to the BBB.) Nope, they didn't out the name of the alleged company name and/or previous owner, that's one of the questions for my follow-up of the follow-up to the BBB. I also (w/o naming specifics) set up my other arguements, Sullivan v. Equifax, and Johnson v. MBNA. Still haven't directly brought the up, Nielson v. Dickerson, et al. arguement (which is also echoed by the DeMayo and the Zager Opinions, which I had ready in my text file notes for this case). (Thanx Sassy ) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/demayo.htm http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/zager.htm And emphasized that the reason I need to know whom they are claiming that they were communicating (phone #, and addresses, which they allegedly communicated) is to identify the party with whom they have just now misidentified me with, since if they were in fact reporting prior to June 2004, they are admitting that the only way that could have happened is if, sometime in June 2004, they altered their data in such a way to misidentify me. Yes, I am actually giving them an OUT... They can still claim that SOMEONE (the me that they claim to have talked to in 1998) disputed the debt, and that they even validated the debt to this same alleged SOMEONE, and EVEN HAD BEEN REPORTING on that alleged SOMEONE'S CREDIT REPORT. I'm just giving them the opportunity to gracefully accept the Sullivan v. Equifax arguement, and accept that it wasn't MY CREDIT REPORT, whom they had been reporting it on, and that SOMEHOW they may have done something to cause TU & EX to misidentify ME as the same someone whom they did the things that they're claiming that the unidentified C4 ( & C5??? or more?) allegedly did in 1998. So, I am putting the ITS on the back-burner for a little while, until I know the as of yet unidentified company's (if they'll reveal them at all).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Their stance appears to be all bluff to me. Here is how I read it: By their own admission, the debt originates in 1998, so it is about to fall off. They probably know it is out of SOL, whatever they call it or claim, or they would have acted legally, either against whoever they originally "validated" to, or against you. It is not worth anything to spend any effort to validate to you, and in fact they have less chance of collecting if they provide anything. They probably know the odds are low that they have the right person, but if you are a live person, and the TL went on your report, as long as they keep it there until it falls off, you might have to pay, perhaps if you are buying a home, etc. Their delaying tactics expose you to enough risk of damage that you might pay them just to go away. Their various claims don't all make sense, except as excuses to not validate, yet continue to pressure you. If you buy debt cheap enough, just figure the odds, you can have a bunch of these games going, and if a few pay off with little effort, you have a profit. Ollie North's "plausible deniability", do whatever you want. They're a debt buyer, no, they are the original creditor. Validate this TL. No we don't have to. We already did. Validate and show me paper records. There aren't any since it was a "phone check". How convenient. Sounds just like Camco's "you owe us, maybe it was VISA, or MC, or something else, but you owe us, and we don't have to tell you for what." Amoral, illegal, yet they expect little risk. Is there a pattern of similar activity by them visible, thru BBB, ripoffreport.com, etc.?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Ok, Butch... Here's a question for you... Would PCM be able to apply in this case, where their one business name can just claim to have asked their other business name, so they complied with one of the prongs of the PCM case? If you think PCM could apply, how does this sound. BTW: I am linking this to the debt validation thread, because the poster there may be able to borrow from this longer PCM based letter for their own situation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... The alleged 'OC' BBB profile is still negative. The alleged 'CA' BBB profile is currently positive after the BBB expunged information from their previous owner, when the current owner agreed to comply with their investigations in the future. (Well, the official statement is prior to 2002, this company had an unsatisfactory rating)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... They are claiming to you to be the "same" company that "validated" to someone in 1998, yet they are claiming to the BBB to be a "different" company, with a new owner and a new, clean, BBB record. How convenient. The new, different company has never validated and is refusing to validate. The old, same company has scammed the BBB into purging their complaint record. Presumably the BBB still has the old records on the old "unrelated" company, which claims it is really the same company?
