Got a question - CA trying to collect a sum less than 100.00 for municipal fines. What's the legal argument or opinion or ideas on paying the OC (the city), then going after the CA on incorrect reporting and having them delete the tradeline? To elaborate; if the OC says that I owe 200.00, and I pay them, can the CA continue to report to the CRA that the 56.00 is a paid collection if I never paid them at all or any monies ever came their way? I am trying to figure out the best way to get this tradeline removed. Also, if municipal fines, i.e. parking tickets are not considered debt, therefore not covered under the FDCPA, the furnisher of information, i.e. the CA, would still be held subject to the rules of the FCRA, wouldn't they? What if the CA is not strictly a collection agency for municipal fines, what if they also collect for health, finance and other? Does anyone have any links or information on this? Thanks in advance.
There may be a gray area here that I am not familiar with but I tend to think that while the debt itself may or may not be covered under FDCPA I think that the actions of the collection agency would still be covered under FDCPA
That's what I might think, but if the debt isn't covered under the FDCPA, then the actions of the CA collecting the non applicable debt should be? I get lost on that one. Could you elaborate your thoughts on that for me?
I agree. Regardless of what type of debt it is (even if its not considered debt under the FDCPA), ALL furnishers of information (any person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to the agency with respect to any consumer) are liable under the FCRA.
Whether it is true or not, it seems to me that any time one owes money it is a debt. In this case the munincipality would stand in the shoes of an original creditor and of course would not fall under FDCPA. However I fail to see that any 3rd party would acquire the immunity of the original creditor under any circumstances. Just my thinking on the matter.
Well, that is what I will go after then, but it seems irksome, I believe that only government entities can go to court over the FCRA.
Yes, it appears that even third party collectors don't apply under the FDCPA. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cheswort.htm So, yes, I will be going after the FCRA portion - however - back to my original question - if I pay the OC, the municipality, does the CA have to stop reporting? thanks
Re: Re: Paying OC, arguing with CA No, unless you can somehow get them to agree to. If you cannot, I would go ahead and pay the municipality and dispute the CA tradeline later. If it does not come off in the first round, keep trying, they will get tired of verifying. What report(s) is it on?
Here is a thought. The collection agency is likely to be a small local agency and may very well not think of or be aware of the fact that they are not subject to FDCPA because of the municipal nature of the amount they are trying to collect so just might fall victim to the validation-estoppel letters and end up agreeing to remove it in return for your agreement not to sue them for violations of FDCPA and payment of the account. You never know till you try it. All they can do is tell you they aren't liable under FDCPA and you can plead ignorance and pay up which you would have had to do anyway. If they fall for it you at least win the point of getting it off your credit record. What have you got to lose?
