Here is a draft of my OC validation letter... I have recently received a copy of my credit report. My credit report has an account with an outstanding balance listed from your company as a revolving credit account. I immediately called your company and provided your representative with my social security number and obtained the above-referenced account number to use in any correspondence. I am writing this letter to you in an effort to get this item removed. Please delete your information from my credit reports. I have never charged revolving credit with your company. If someone has charged monies to an account in my name, please close it immediately before further harm is done. I am requesting that you notify all of the credit bureaus to delete this account until this matter is resolved. This is required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Furthermore, this letter serves as notice to you that if you feel I owe you money on a revolving credit account, that this is a request for validation of such claim. Please be advised that I am not requesting a verification that you have my mailing address, I am requesting â??validation;â? that is, competent evidence that I have some contractual obligation to pay you. This is a written dispute of the account per the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Credit Billing Act. Please be aware that I am exercising all of my rights per these laws and all other applicable laws protecting me. Your failure to satisfy this request within the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Credit Billing Act will be construed as your absolute waiver of any and all claims against me, and your tacit agreement to compensate me for costs and attorney fees. ---------------------------------------------------- I have not yet disputed this item with the CRA, but will do so after I receive the card back that the OC has received my letter. Please comment on the content of my OC validation letter.....providing any suggestions for change or whether it is sufficient as is. Thanks in advance.
Dont waste your time or the 4 bones to send your validation via CMRRR OC's are not regulated under the FDCPA You can request a billing error, but an OC is under no obligation to provide you with anything Trust me, Ive been trying to figure a way to attack AMEX and they wont budge, its my last derog and its a b*tch
Dont waste your time But aren't OC's regulated by FCRA and FCBA? I'm wanting to do an OC validation as per the sticky post in FAQ. FAQ answer indicates that OC's are bound to FCRA and FCBA, and thus, one idea is to send a validation letter to OC prior to dispute letter to CRA. Any comments?
Hope this helps ... FCRA § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. FCRA § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer. (2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information. (A) In general. Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer. (B) Provision of other information from consumer. The consumer reporting agency shall promptly provide to the person who provided the information in dispute all relevant information regarding the dispute that is received by the agency from the consumer after the period referred to in subparagraph (A) and before the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1)(A). IMHO: 1. Nigel, jethro is talking about FCRA and FCBA, not FDCPA. 2. jethro, OCs are obligated by FCRA to report and/or correct the information they submit to CRAs, but not to delete a TL. You should deal with the CRAs about deletion. 3. I am not a lawyer, not even an expert ...
Jethro, I'm kind of in the same place with this that you are. I've read about everything I can find on this board and others, and what I've come up with is this: 1.The OC has no obligation to validate. 2.The OC is required to investigate your dispute, and has 30 days to conduct an investigation. 3.If the account is closed, the OC can't pull your credit report without your permission. 4.The OC is required to report your tradeline as in dispute to the CRA's. So, the goal is not to make the OC validate your claim, they are not required to. The goal is to make them pull your report without permission, or not report the tradeline as in dispute. I think the best way to do this is to give them as little information as possible. If you come at them with "according to the FCRA, this that, and the other..." they're going to take you very seriously, and they are going to be more likely to dot the i's and cross the t's. If, however, you appear to be Joe Consumer who has never heard of the FCRA, it's more likely that your letter will end up in a trash can, which is what you want. I say chop it down to My name is____ you have listed account # _______ on my credit reports. I don't believe that this listing is accurate, please remedy this situation for me, Sincerely ______. The more you look like a regular guy, the better your odds, imo.
Kyle I agree with everything you say. I've done this successfully with one OC and they ended up with so many violations it was hysterical. Regrettably we fell upon some hard times and I tried to work things out with the OC before the account went bad, but as everyone knows they would not budge until it went past 90. IMHO just because you owe a debt is no excuse for anyone to break the law in their attempts to collect it. This debt was originally near 7K and it settled for five hundred. I'm with you when you say keep it simple and lay low for now. Once it goes to CA, then start the val tango, etc..... and document all the violations for future reference when you eventually send your ITS.
Thanks for the replies. I'm still undecided about which route to take first-----dispute with CRAs as "not mine"....or to take this OC Validation route first. The account in question is a revolving charge account that has been charged-off, is less than a year old and is under $500. There was only one charge made on the account and there were never any payments made. Dispute first with CRA or take the OC validation approach hoping for a violation first? Thanks in advance.
> kyle1979: If the account is closed, the OC can't pull your credit report without your permission. Not true, Kyle. If there is a debt, OC has a PP to pul a CR even if the account is closed: [color=0066FF]§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports (a)(3)(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer.[/color] OC can make very few violations under FCRA and FDCPA. On the other hand, CRA and CA can make a whole lot more - FCRA is watching every action of CRA, FDCPA is doing the same for the CA. The only OC violations you can look for at this time are if they don't investigate or report (§ 623 (b)(1)), or don't do it in 30 days (§ 623 (b)(2)). As I said before, and, as Kyle also said - OC is not obligated to validate the account. When you dispute it with the CRA, THEN CRA is required to validate it with the OC. THEN CRA is obligated to delete the line if it's not validated by the OC. It is my understanding that you have nothing to do with the OC. All you have to do is to dispute it with the CRA and hope they violate FCRA (which they usually do).
vghost, That just isn't correct information. You know that the word validate or any variation does not appear anywhere in the FCRA, yes? Sassy
Hey Sassy! You're right, the correct word is "reinvestigate" or "reinvestigation" (§ 611 (a)) ... I use the word "validate" because this is the word used in several sample DV (Debt Validation) letters and, this is a common word used by everybody when it comes to disputing with CRAs. Toby Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortage Corporation, et al. No. 00-15946 In the case you are referring to Nelson "[color=0066FF]was the primary obligor on the mortgage and made all payments in full and in a timely manner, even after his cosigner declared bankruptcy[/color]", while Chase "[color=0066FF]reported to Experian that his account was included in or discharged through bankruptcy[/color]", i.e., Chase reported incorrect information. I think we have a different case here - his bank has reported the account correctly and he is trying to validate it through the bank, so he can catch them in some violation. You know that the OC is not obligated by FCRA to do any "validation" or "reinvestigation" but CRA is, right?
Nope, that's the right case, you missed the whole point though, consumers have an implicit right of action against furnishers of information. Validation is strictly a FDCPA concept and not applicable to the FCRA. To say that the OC has no obligations is just what they want you to believe, that is the greatest lie ever told. Please read the FTC's supporting brief on the case, so you'll understand what it was infamous for: http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/briefs/nelsont.pdf Here's the case: http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/mar/0015946.shtml Above you state contradictory information about that case first that Chase provided inaccurate information and then that they provided accurate information. See this thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=39474 The Nelson case isn't the only case with the same findings it is just the most popular and well known case on the responsibilities of the furnisher of information and the recourse of consumers for inaccurate and incomplete information. The Watkins letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/watkins.htm And a thread for good measure: http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6086&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Please don't miss the enormity of a concurrent or two-pronged disputing mechanism. While under the FDCPA, CA's must provide validation, you are right to say that under the FCRA verification is not required to be provided to the consumer. Don't confuse the language though, between verification and validation or you'll do yourself and everyone that may read you a huge disservice. While they are not required to respond directly to consumers, that surely does NOT mean that they do not have responsibilities. To contact them and ask for verification as part of a trail is very valuable, you likely wouldn't win a case against the furnisher if you never asked. Quite like validation, you don't want them to respond -- the value is in the asking. Validation is not verification and it is not a commonly used word to describe any process or requirements of the FCRA nor in describing the same for CRA's specifically. I understand why you are using the word validation, but you can't make a letter addressed to a CA fit an OC unless you change it to the word verification. It's reinvestigation that the CRAs are required to do and investigation that furnishers are required to do. Sassy
That's cute, LOL But not true, the furnisher is required to investigate the CRA is required to reinvestigate. The CRA has a much bigger role once notified of a dispute. Well it is true that they don't have to validate, no one has to validate under the FCRA, the word isn't in it. Sassy
Sassy, let slow down and summarize (hey, I'm still learning)... He is not responding to a CA letter. He is drafting a letter to validate an account with the OC, because he saw the account reported incorrectly in his CR. Besides, he has not disputed with the CRA yet. According to FCRA § 623 (b) after receiving a dispute notice the furnishers of information (in this case - OC) must investigate, review and report the results in 30 day period. Nothing says that the OC must present any evidence to him (the consumer). The Watkins letter is about the same thing and I do agree that furnishers of information have responsibilities. This is why I said "[color=0066FF]the only OC violations you can look for at this time are if they don't investigate or report (§ 623 (b)(1)), or don't do it in 30 days (§ 623 (b)(2))[/color]". Exactly, FCRA deals with the CRA about the reporting. This is why I said "[color=0066FF]when you dispute it with the CRA, THEN CRA is required to validate it with the OC[/color]". § 623 (a)(1) obligates the CRA to reinvestigate and § 623 (a)(6) obligates the CRA to provide written notice to the consumer, so this would be the evidence he is looking for. I am aware that FCRA uses the word "verified" (§ 611 (a)(1)(C), but neither FCRA nor FDCPA define the word "validation". However, FDCPA uses the word "validation" when talking about "[color=0066FF]validity of a debt[/color]". I used it (1) because this is the title of his post, and (2) because this is what he requires in his letter. My point was that since OC is not a debt collector and FDCPA deals with the debt collectors, not with the OCs, he cannot request a validation from the OC. You are right that request for verification of the debt by the OC will look good in court, but the law doesn't obligate the OC to even respond to the consumer about the verification. Am I still missing something? P.S. I said "[color=0066FF]You know that the OC is not obligated by FCRA to do any "validation" or "reinvestigation" but CRA is, right?[/color]" ... You said "[color=0066FF]But not true, the furnisher is required to investigate the CRA is required to reinvestigate[/color]" ... Well, you are saying the same thing, so how come it's not true ... P.P.S. Wow, you got me thinking a lot about it ... I like that ...
Wow, this is really becoming an interesting and informative thread. Back to permissable purpose for a moment. I believe (and I might well be wrong) that the language used in the FCRA indicates that the oc has a permissable purpose to pull an OPEN ACCOUNT IN AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT. However, if the account is closed, and by that I mean some sort of settlement has been arranged in which the consumer has paid off the debt to the mutual agreement of the debtor and the oc, that the oc has no permissable purpose, as it can no longer claim to be involved in a collection attempt. I do, however, really not have a clue to how this actually works, as I'm just going through the initial stages of all this myself, if I'm wrong, somebody, please trample all over me
Re: Re: OC Validation Letter-Please comment As I answered you above ... Not true, Kyle. If there is a debt, OC has a PP to pul a CR even if the account is closed: [color=0066FF]§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports (a)(3)(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer.[/color] An account could be closed for many reasons and could still have a balance. You should've read the whole thread ...
Re: Re: Re: OC Validation Letter-Please comment Hmm ... just thinking aloud ... I have an account which is paid off, but is still open and I have no intention to close it ($15K LOC). On the other side, I do have a closed account and I still owe about $13K. So, paying off the account doesn't mean you've closed it, 'cause you can still use it. On the other side closing the account doesn't mean you have paid it off. You got me confused there, Butch ... P.S. I'd really appreciate your opinion on my summary of the case. Sometimes it seems me and Sassy are talking about two different things and I'm getting afraid that my whole line of thinking is wrong ...
