I have notified all CC's that were charged off that I want FCRA 623 verification of alleged debt. On 19-Apr-04 2 requests come due and so far no response from 2 companies. By the 26th all 6 will have to respond. What happens if they don't respond? One company admitted they don't have the documentation as they purged their system when they sold off the debt to your favorite scumbag bottom feeder CA. If they can't comply and I can get them deleted would that mean that the CA would not have a basis for listing because the OC could not furnish the original information to the CA as required by FDCPA? What is the next step? Should I notify CRA's of non-compliance of OC requests (including copy of letter and Green card) having no response and request deletion? Should I send the OC's another letter for 30 more days to comply? Any and all suggestions would be appreciated. I requested copy of signed application, 1st delinquency date, DOLA, accounting of all debits and credits for duration of account and a copy of assignment or purchase agreement. Are there any consequences to the OC for non-compliance to these requests?
"I have notified all CC's that were charged off that I want FCRA 623 verification of alleged debt." -FCRA 623, ONLY WORKS when you send a dispute TO THE REPORTING AGENCY, NOT THE FURHISHER OF INFO. -VERIFICATION is the result of a request for validation, NOT A DISPUTE UNDER FCRA 623. "On 19-Apr-04 2 requests come due and so far no response from 2 companies. By the 26th all 6 will have to respond. What happens if they don't respond? " -NOTHING! THEY DO NOT HAVE TO REPLY TO A DISPUTE SENT FROM A CONSUMER. "One company admitted they don't have the documentation as they purged their system when they sold off the debt to your favorite scumbag bottom feeder CA." -Did you get this in writing? "If they can't comply and I can get them deleted would that mean that the CA would not have a basis for listing because the OC could not furnish the original information to the CA as required by FDCPA? " -The collection agency DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE DEBT UNLESS YOU SENT A REQUEST FOR VALIDATION IN THE 30 DAYS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIER INITIAL CONTACT WITH YOU. "What is the next step? Should I notify CRA's of non-compliance of OC requests (including copy of letter and Green card) having no response and request deletion?" -What is "non-compliance of OC requests "??? -You put your cart before your horse. -IF the credit card company already said they did not have the account info, HOW could they verify the info to the reporting agency ??(this is HOW you should be thinking) -Well, you were close when you mentioned 623, unfortunately you have a slight misunderstanding about it, you are not the only one by they way -FCRA 623 (b), requires the reporting agency to notify the "furnisher of info" AFTER THE CONSUMER SENDS A DISPUTE TO THE REPORTING AGENCY ONLY! -THIS DOES NOT WORK IF YOU SENT THE DISPUTE TO THE FURNISHER OF INFO! -Once the reporting agency receives the dispute from the consumer, the reporting agency notifies the furnisher of info, and they BOTH are required to conduct a reasonalbe investigation. -SO IF THEY RECORDS DO NOT EXCIST, HOW CAN IT BE A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION OF THEY VERIFIED NON EXCISTENT INFO ?? -STOP EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING, OR THINKING ABOUT DOING, AND START OVER! -SEND A DISPUTE TO THE REPORTING AGENCY DISPUTING FACTS OR PEICES OF THE ACCOUNT, NOT A "NOT MINE" DISPUTE. I WOULD SUGGEST A DISPUTE TO THE ORIGINAL DELINQUENCY DATE OR THE AMOUNT ETC. -Then wait 30 days from the results. If they verified the info, which you said already do not excist, WAS THERE A REASONALBE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED?? THIS IS WHAT 623 is all about!! I have said it before, a reporting agency DOES NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO REPORT ACCURATE INFO!! They are required to conduct reasonable investigations and have procedures to ensure maximum accuracy. ITS NOT WHAT THEY ARE RESPORTING THAT IS REGULATED, IT HOW THEY GOT WHAT THEY ARE REPORTING! "Are there any consequences to the OC for non-compliance to these requests" -Maybe under your state law.
ok hiding this is were I was disagreeing with you. tell me what I am missing here... I sent a dispute to the CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES and the acct came back as remains. then AFTER the investigation, i sent a written dispute to the CA and requested validation ( outside the 30days limits) and stated that I just noticed this acct on my report and was asking for validation. pursuant to the credit reporting agency enclosure letter it states that if a consumer still does not agree with the results of the investigation they may contact the furnisher of info directly and dispute. so in your opinion how would you do this? the agruement I have is this *** the Credit reporting agency only requires the furnisher to verify the consumers personal info, and they assume that the furnisher is reporting accurate info relating to the debts. so if the consumer does not agree with this then they are to contact the furnisher directly to dispute the acct and request that the acct be flagged as disputed.( as the FCRA states and the enclosure from the CRA. when this occured I contacted the CA and requested validation if the CA does not have the proof to verify the acct with the CRA how can they legally furnish that info? I was told by my attorney that if no proof of the debt exists it can not be collected nor can it be reported.15 u.s.c 1692 as it is inaccurate , unverified info and both the furnisher and the CRA can be held liable. 15 u.s.c 1681 then you stated section 623A actionable causes under law that consumers cant enforce??? did you ever pursue federal court?
fun, A consumer cannot sue to enforce section 623(a) -- enforcement is specific to the named governmental bodies. However, a consumer can sue to enforce section 623(b) which has a relationship with the (a) provisions. Civil Liability under FCRA for Furnisher of Information Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation The issue in the case was whether the FCRA creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of credit information. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FCRA is to protect consumers against inaccurate and incomplete credit reporting and Section 1681s-2(b) provides a private remedy to injured consumers. Thus, a consumer can sue a company for furnishing inaccurate and/or incomplete information. In this case, the furnisher allegedly failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action once it was notified that it had reported inaccurate information http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0015946p.pdf Also read the FTC's supporting brief. Sassy
1*NOTHING! THEY DO NOT HAVE TO REPLY TO A DISPUTE SENT FROM A CONSUMER. 2*-The collection agency DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE DEBT UNLESS YOU SENT A REQUEST FOR VALIDATION IN THE 30 DAYS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIER INITIAL CONTACT WITH YOU. hiding90 | 481 posts since Nov 2001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1*But can they collect if they don't ????????????????????? 2*So how do they collect if they don't ??????????????????????? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
fun, A consumer cannot sue to enforce section 623(a) -- enforcement is specific to the named governmental bodies. However, a consumer can sue to enforce section 623(b) which has a relationship with the (a) provisions. Civil Liability under FCRA for Furnisher of Information *****************************************I gotta thx already knew this but I am also dealing with the truth in lending act that applies to OC.under FCBA i just posted a new question on another thread for hiding to see if it can be clairified.
Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 Actually, a CRA does have a duty to ensure they are reporting accurate information: Cushman v. Trans Union-US COURT OF APPEALS 3RD Circuit - June 9, 1997 TUC contends that § 1681i(a) did not impose on it an obligation to do any more than perform the reinvestigation it performed in this case. That is, TUC believes that when a consumer informs a consumer reporting agency that information contained in her consumer report is inaccurate, the consumer reporting agency is obliged only to confirm the accuracy of the information with the original source of the information. According to TUC, it is never required to go beyond the original source in ascertaining whether the information is accurate. This position has been rejected by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits. Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d at 286-87 (7th Cir. 1994); Stevenson v. TRW Inc. , 987 F.2d 288, 293 (5th Cir. 1993). We also agree with the cogent observation by the Fifth Circuit that the plain language of the statute places the burden of reinvestigation on the consumer reporting agency. See Stevenson , 987 F.2d at 293. The FCRA evinces Congress's intent that consumer reporting agencies, having the opportunity to reap profits through the collection and dissemination of credit information, bear "grave responsibilities," 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4), to ensure the accuracy of that information. The "grave responsibilit[y]" imposed by § 1681i(a) must consist of something more than merely parroting information received from other sources. Therefore, a "reinvestigation" that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor cannot fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.
Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 LOL "Actually, a CRA does have a duty to ensure they are reporting accurate information" -This is symantics It is NOT the info they are reporting, IT IS HOW they got the info they are reporting. Its NOT the accuracy of the info that is regulated or that can be sued on. IT IS THE WAY (investigation) WHICH IS REGULATED. Here is WHY this is important. SCENERIO: You see info on your credit report which is INACCURATE, for arguement's sake- NOT MINE. So you dispute it with the reporting agency as not mine. BUT YOU DO NOT SEND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR DISPUTE. The reporting agency contacts the furnisher with a "not mine" dispute. Well if you think about it, IT IS ALREADY ON YOUR REPORT, SO LIKE IT OR NOT, IT IS YOURS !! (in the furnishers mind) SO they verify it. Can you sue the reporting agency and win for reporting innaccurate info??? THE ANSWER IS probably not! WAS THEIR INVESTIGATION "REASONALBE" based on the "not mine" dispute. Probably. BUT, if you sent a dispute of "not mine" AND PROVIDE SOME "doubt", like fraud, common name etc etc, THEN IF THEY VERIFY IT IN THE SAME WAY AS ABOVE, THEIR INVESTIGATION WAS NOT "reasonable" and the consumer would more likely win in this case. The law says IGNORANCE is NOT an excuse for violating the law. BUT IN RELATION TO REPORTING AGECNIES, IF YOU CANNOT SHOW THEIR INVESTIGATION WAS "FLAWED" somehow (un-reasonable), then there is NO CLAIM available for reporting inaccurate info. In other words, if they are "ignorant" of a fact, you cannot sue them and win. I call this the "DUH!" defense. LOL The mere "allegation" of an error in accuracy, should "clue" the reporting agency into there investigation MAY BE unreasonable, but it does not establish that in fact it was. BUT, "a proponderance" that the info is inaccurate, WILL DEFINATELY PUT THEM ON NOTICE THEIR INVESTIGATION BETTER BE REASONABLE!
Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 Hiding, This is exactly the scenario that I was thinking of when I posted the following: Let's say an unsophisticated consumer disputes a credit report's TL and the CRA investigation comes back verified and the CRA attempts to point you back to the TL subscriber. Or for that matter, the individual requests the procedures used to conduct the "reasonable investigation" and the CRA responds with a name and number of someone at the CA and directs you back to them as the TL subscriber.... At this point you request directly from the CA the DOLA. Are they not obligated to provide the consumer with this infrmation per the FCRA? If this is true...if the CA's reported DOLA (to the consumer) does not match the one they are reporting to the CRA it sure seems to me that the CA would have been forced to place a rope over their own necks. Would this not help with a reaging lawsuit? Only, I should have been referring to the DOD rather than the DOLA...as you pointed out in that thread!
WRONG LK. "If you send the provider of info (OC, CA, etc) a dispute letter, requesting to know why they are reporting what they are reporting, and that you dispute it as inaccurate, unverifiable, etc, whatever, then they are fair game to file a lawsuit on. " -There is no consumer recourse under the federal laws for a dispute sent directly to the furhisher. PERIOD. -A dispute sent to the furnisher IS ONLY "gravy" and ONLY IF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES WITH THE REPORTING AGENCY.
Re: Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 yikes r u 2 at it again oh man I thought I had issues lol.
Re: Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 Dolphin, At this point, your dispute is with the reporting agency. Try that route. Hope that helps.
Re: Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 cant you just sue them both ? sue the CRA for failing to maintain accurate procedures when they report information, failing to correct the information, and failing to give procedures of how they verified that info? then sue the furnisher of info for continuing to report the inaccurate, or unverifable info after the investigation ? you guys can argue the codes lol
Re: Re: Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 You've not noticed there can be no discussion in any thread that the Hiding90 facade posts in??? He/she is right, everyone else is wrong. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 "He/she is right, everyone else is wrong" Nope Sassy....you're wrong LOL
Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 Excactly. If this wasn't the case, OC's would be invincible and could report what ever they wanted. Period. If an account is inaccurate and the furnisher refuses to correct it, they are wrong and can be sued. Original Creditor or otherwise.
Re: Re: Re: Re: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 really thx for the comp butch right back at ya sometimes its just hard for me to put words in what I really ment to say I think thats why I had so much confussion in the beginning I wasnt specific enough
: OC non-response to FCRA Section 623 "Hiding90" reminds me of BBauer. Lizardking I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
