I just read this on another thread: "Some states such as California requires the OC to follow the same rules as a CA. If you're in Cal. then the OC is required to validate." Is this true?
[IMO]Any establishment that says you owe money, should have to validate.[/IMO] I'm not in Cali, but I read that here as well.
I had sent out validation requests (to CAs) and nutcase letters (which I am interpreting to be essentially a validation request) and upon receipt of the green CRRR card, I disputed with the CRAs. Most of the OCs are now verifying with the CRAs as accurate without providing me with any information whatsoever. Given that I live in California, I am wondering if I have any additional leverage to get the neg's removed.
Yes, in CA the OC is treated as the same rules as a CA and they have to validate. It doesn't mean they will. I haven't had any that did anything other than send me statements. The only leverage you have that I know of is you can sue them.
LOL, Bigmon -- it was you I was quoting! Anyway, I'm unclear as to whether they have to validate prior to providing the CRAs with verification (as is the case with CAs). Wondering if I point out to them that they have violated California law, would they be more inclined to remove negs (mostly some lates -- not really worth going to the effort of suing over, although I guess they don't have to know that). Thanks!
Well, if they are in violation and you have proof, and if it is going to make or break the decision of some kind of credit you are applying for, ... the answer is YES. I used that technique againt CAP1, the reported the wrong balance to my CR, and I was ready to apply for a credit card. All the planets where aligned properly except CAP1. I called and very politley told them that , "Sorry, its been 10 days after my billing cycle all 2 of the 3 cra's are showing correct balances, you guys have to do something and fix my 3rth CRA, or I'm going to have to sue you for DAMAGES". 1 day later, my CRA was updated. The way I look at, you have to put yourself in their shoes. If you were a CA, after a while you are going to have to take FDCPA violations serously, you can't get sued $1000 for every 2 bills you collect under $1000 dollars, you'll go BANKRUPT???? So, FDCPA violations are something to take serous!!!!, ... Maybe I'm wrong?????
Yes it is true that OCs are treated like CAs in Cali. Just thought I would let all of the Cali people know that it is also illegal for them to collect on a time-barred debt as well. It's in CA FDCPA article 2.6. Andi
I've never had a CA or OC cave in to threats from me. All the ones I've dealt with act like I don't know the law or they just figure I'm bluffing. If everyone sued they'd be out of business, but most don't follow through. If you're lucky enough to have a collector that realizes they are better off not being sued you are way ahead.
Just want to make sure I'm doing this right . . . The relevant CA statute (I think) is as follows: 1785.30. Upon notification of the results of a consumer credit reporting agency's reinvestigation pursuant to Section 1785.16, an consumer may make a written demand on any person furnishing information to the consumer credit reporting agency to correct any information which the consumer believes to be inaccurate. The person upon whom the written demand is made shall acknowledge the demand within 30 days. The consumer may require the consumer credit reporting agency to indicate on any subsequent reports issued during the dispute that the item or items of information are in dispute. If upon investigation the information is found to be inaccurate or incorrect, the consumer may require the consumer credit reporting agency to delete or correct the item or items of information within a reasonable time. If within 90 days the consumer credit reporting agency does not receive any information from the person requested to furnish the same or any communication relative to this information from this person, the consumer credit reporting agency shall delete the information from the report. **1) I need to first dispute an item with the CRA (already done) **2) Upon verification, I need to send a request for validation to the OC. QUESTION: The statute refers to "information which the consumer believes to be inaccurate." Does a broad request to validate suffice, or will I need to specifically mention an inaccuracy? (I suppose it depends upon what I ultimately want done with tradeline -- e.g., delete the whole tradeline or delete a late.) **3) The OC has 30 days to acknowledge my request (to me or to the CRA?) **4) I am assuming that I need to cc: the CRA on my request for validation. After 90-days, if the CRA does not hear from the OC, then the CRA must delete. **5) If the OC chooses to ignore me, that is fine because after the 90-day deadline, I should be dealing with the CRA, not the OC, to work on the deletion. Does this sound right based upon the statute above? Thanks!
Ok, I will try to answer your questions as best I can from what I understand about the statute. 1) You already did, so don't need to answer anything. 2)Just send DV letter with the account number from your credit report. You don't want to give them alot of information. Just your name and account number. Remember not to sign the DV letter. 3)From what I can tell, 30 days for you. You are the person that requested the information. 4)I think that this is if you don't hear from the OC in 90 days, but I could be wrong. I'm not really good at trying to interpret leagl words. Might want to check with someone else for sure, but I think if you haven't heard from OC in 90 days. 5)Yes, you will be dealing with the CRA and pushing for deletion Hope this helps a little. I'm not very good at the legal stuff. Maybe some of the experts will jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. Andi
