OC validating debt?

FCRA and FDCPA say nothing about the OC validating the debt that I'm aware of.

But if you sue them they'll have to do just that in court - they'll need to provide evidence. I think this is the angle I'd pursue, as well as any FCRA violations you can get them for (not marking in dispute, reporting inaccurate info, things like that).

 

Fair billing act does, however.

 

Oh yes it does.

 

Re: OC validating debt?
grendel | 38 posts since Jan 2003 165.79.13.191 | 03.31.2003 @ 03:39
Fair billing act does, however.
================================
Thanks for the reminder:
People seem to forget about this one or aren't even aware of it.

 

Again, so does FDCPA

 

bill,
In genereal, I was lead to believe from my readings that the CA validates by way of the OC. ie, you ask the CA for validation, they get the req'd info from the OC. Of course, there's exceptions in there for OC's who collect their own debts using a seperate name, etc., but is it not targeted specificly to those who collect debts full-time (either 3rd parties or OC's who represent themselves to be)?

Grendel - thanks for the info.. more stuff for me to research

 

You real sure about that 3rd parties bit?

 

OK You guys COME CLEAN! LOL..
I have seen this mentioned several times on grendels board now on this one.

I admit my legal-ese SUX. But the way i read the FDCPA the OC doesnt have to validate unless they go by another name when collecting.

What if the OC is simply sitting on your report but not sending letters to try to collect?

I have read that one of the opinion letters talks about this but for the life of me, I cannot find it.

 

Portion of opinion letter of grendels site:

The core portion of the FDCPA's Section 803(6), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), defines "debt collector" as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business

the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts,

or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." (Emphasis added.) A person is a "debt collector" if he meets either of these two prongs.


But then it goes on to say in the same post:


This is where it gets sticky. The account has to be in default, when it moves from person A to person B.

Person B must NOT be in employ of the original
creditor.

Person B is a debt collector.


What if person(s) B listing on your report IS the OC and when they verify (during the "validation" period) it is still with the OC. It would be same to assume the person(s) verifying the info is employed by that OC.

 

Oh one thing that many of us have in our arsenals is a states Consumer Protection Act. While it may not specifically say that an OC has to prove the account is reported correctly I am guessing that a judge may hear a case concerning a consumer that has made a good faith effort to get the matter corrected. There are many prhinited actions listed but it also says that the list is NOT all inclusive. In other words if you can convince the judge that it was unfair them it was unfair!
furthermore some states multiply the actual damages. for example where I live (TN) I can sue for 3 X's actual damages. To top that off I can sue for up to 15K in small claims court here. read this portion of TN's code:




47-18-104. Unfair or deceptive acts prohibited.

(a) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce constitute unlawful acts or practices and are Class B misdemeanors.

(b) Without limiting the scope of subsection (a), the following unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared to be unlawful and in violation of this part:

It then goes on to list "unfari" practices.
Would it be unfair for an OC to list differently on all 3 credit reports after asking them to verify?
I guess a judge would have to decide.

Would it be unfair to list something they cannot prove is yours?
Mebee.
In teh case of a repo, would it be unfair to list a deficiency balance when they cannot prove they conducted all elements of the repo legally?
Who knows?


Anyway here is the part I like the best:


47-18-109. Private right of action - Damages - Notice to division.

(a) (1) Any person who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared to be unlawful by this part, may bring an action individually to recover actual damages.


(2) The action may be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the alleged unfair or deceptive act or practice took place, is taking place, or is about to take place, or in the county in which such person resides, has such person's principal place of business, conducts, transacts, or has transacted business, or, if the person cannot be found in any of the foregoing locations, in the county in which such person can be found.

(3) If the court finds that the use or employment of the unfair or deceptive act or practice was a willful or knowing violation of this part, the court may award three (3) times the actual damages sustained and may provide such other relief as it considers necessary and proper.

(4) In determining whether treble damages should be awarded, the trial court may consider, among other things:

(A) The competence of the consumer or other person;

(B) The nature of the deception or coercion practiced upon the consumer or other person;


(C) The damage to the consumer or other person; and

(D) The good faith of the person found to have violated the provisions of this part.