If Cap1 lists a TL inaccurately or incorrectly to a CRA, they are not bound by the FDCPA. So, the FCRA which guarantees us the right to a complete and accurate CR seems the way to go to force proper reporting by the 'furnisher'. Right?
Yes, 1681s-2b to be precise. Many state laws however, do not delineate between debt collectors and original creditors insofar as in if they are collecting, they are debt collectors. In addition, you can always plead intentional torts such as defamation. The force of the FCRA is not so broad as to preempt those state claims.
Well, that is the way it is with a CA as well. The two acts cover two different areas. The FDCPA was intended to hold off CA from extreme measures in collecting. There is an assumption that an OC would not, or could not, somehow take these measures for collecting. Hence the birth of the industry. We focus on the FDCPA here on the forum for its applications to credit reporting, but that is not the purpose of the Act. If you look at the FDCPA, many of the "rights of a consumer" are covered when an OC acts as CA. There is implied "verification", as they hold the original documents and account. This covers a major tenet of a CA going after the wrong person, or making up the debt. The only actions the OC would have to comply with are the "harassment issues of calling at late hours, calling work, etc. This would still come under many legal requirements. The FDCPA is also negated for CRs, in the aspect that it would impact only the CAs entry, not the OCs. So..an OC cannot "add" a collection account. In essence an OC "loses" this credit scoring leverage in pursuing its own collections. So, to answer your original question, it is a moot point. In the end, the OCs tradeline must revert to standing upon the FCRA. The FDCPA really has no tie to it.
It is no different . . . that carries much more damaging weight than the average collection tradeline.
