ok back to the PP discussion sorry to ware it out. senerio CR has no collection accts. an inquiry pops up showing from a CA no idea who they are or what they are pursing. dispute the pull with the CRA it remains SENT a letter to CA asking PP they do not respond. send 2nd letter to CA they finally respond 30 days later with this response they pulled the Inquiry because they "thought" they had a valid acct I asked what the acct was in relation to, they stated it was from 1999 that they just purchased. but realized the SOL in my state was expired. since they are claiming error, shouldnt they have looked at the acct first before the pull wouldnt this be considered negligent on their part? is the pull PP at this point or is there a violation?
Yes Fun, it is. Recently an Atty. joined the board, (theAvenger) and posted this very scenario. He quoted Kimber, which I'm in the process of trying to find. Kimber was the first case to approach this issue on point. Kimber basically says: A CA should do their SOL due diligence PRIOR to starting collection activity. GO next with your PP demand. .
FUN4U2, In the scenerio you descibe, the pull WAS PERMISSIBLE. It was in connection with the "collection of a debt." The case Butch quoted, from the attorney, is about FILING A LAWSUIT against a time barred debt. There is no case, that I am aware of, that has yet addressed the point of a collection agency having to provide TO THE CONSUMER their permissible purpose. Statute of limitations ONLY applies to lawsuits. A debt collector can attempt to collect a debt forever. This includes pulling credit reports on time-barred debts. I have a feeling we are coming close to there being cases though. The case cited yesterday by LK COMES REAL CLOSE. As a result of that case, there appears to be NO DISTINCTION between "hard" or "soft" pulls.
quote from hiding90 Statute of limitations ONLY applies to lawsuits. A debt collector can attempt to collect a debt forever. This includes pulling credit reports on time-barred debts. *************************************** wow hiding are you okay??? what are you talking about no they can NOT! a debt can NOT be collected forever if that was the case then why is there a 7 yr reporting period for debts? then and why are there state laws about debt collection and SOL? what happend to you u ? are your still hung over ? I thought you to be intelligent but I am questioning your knowledge of law by this remark. I need to do more research myself I just thought you guys would already know. I need to read the case that Butch posted before I do anything else!
hiding I think you are off base here please dont take it the wrong way I need to do more research If I am wrong I will owe you and apology But I do wonder sometimes if you are thinking clearly in this case have you read what you posted ?. most of your posts are right on, I just cant believe you make this comment for this matter. now you got me confused, wondering and looking for other answers.
A debt collector can attempt to collect a debt FOREVER. Yes I am ok. There is NO "time limit" on the attempted collection of a debt. Yes, they cannot sue you and get a judgment LEGALLY after the statute of limitations. That is the problem with the theory that a pull regarding an OLD debt is non permissible. The reporting period ONLY applies to the reporting agency! Is it NOT a debt collection law I too was of the opinion that the COLLECTION on a time-barred debt was illegal. in fact in the Consumer Law Center Manual, there is a section called "Collection of a time-barred debt is "illegal." Well, I was excited, because on the surface, this seemed to be great. but once I read the section further and the cited cases, "COLLECTION" was defined as LAWSUIT. So, as of now, unless "collection" includes filing a lawsuit, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT to the attempted collection of a debt
Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp ****************************************** Hiding, ok so let me get this straight in this case you are saying the CA can pursue the collection after the SOL ? no matter what ? and even though they cant report it beyond the 7yr reporting period. ********************************
Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp -Yes. A debt collector can attempt to collect a debt past State statute of limitations. (the validation / cease communicaiton issue is another point. The above statement is assuming the consumer has NOT sent a cease communication letter or HAS NOT requested validation WITHIN the 30 days) -I am not sure where "statute of limitations" got introduced into debt collection, but it is a huge misunderstanding. -Statute of limitations ONLY APPLIES TO COURT ACTIONS.
Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Im going to ask my attorney about this one, I think you are way wrong.. but ill find out regardless of his response I will post his reply as soon as I hear back it may not be until tommorrow.
Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp Please do... Regardless if I am right or wrong, the info is good to have "never stop learning"
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp LK I questioned the CRA about this as I was confused. the CRA lists an inquiry and usually states the PP with the name , address of the puller. The CRA told me they only have so much info in their database and for me to contact the puller directly and ask them since they couldnt give me any more info after my dispute. if the puller request deletion the CRA will remove but not because I am disputing it. wouldnt this fall under the CRA failing to maintain accurate procedures to ensure accurate reporting of info? or are they off the hook because they are not required with inquires to verify it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp i believe they can collect past SOL - but they can't sue. personally, i think they attempt to collect in hopes they get an uneducated consumer who doesn't know they can't be sued. i think CA's get sued because they threatened to sue beyond the SOL - which is violation of FDCPA which states they can't threaten legal action if they aren't going to proceed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp what would be the point to collect then. if its past the state SOL and past the 7yr reporting period how could they possibly anticipate collection an acct ? by sending a notice and violting the consumers rights? so like I said this wouldnt be legal in this case if they followed that proceedure. they could be held liable under theFCRA as well for misrepresenting the debt, unfair business practices, etc etc. I would like to see case law that specifies that a debt collector can pursue collections LEGALLY when the acct is past the SOL any one have that ??? Hiding If anyone I know you could find it..
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp don't know why - i guess hoping someone is stupid and won't tell them to f*ck off? i'm sure hiding or someone else can provide laws.
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp lol thats why they are mad the consumers are becoming aware of their legal rights . were not as stupid as they think we are. so they loose out and get sued, bad business to be in , my opinion. I waiting for butch, hiding oe someone to dig up case law Im still looking and getting a headache. just cause i havent found it yet doesnt mean that it may not exist. Thx good luck 2 ya with your accts
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp "Now if a Zombie debt collector pulls an inquiry also, that raises an interesting point. An inquiry can actually affect the consumer's score. Also, since it is past 7 years, they cannot report anything. An inquiry indicates that a collection exists to someone else looking. I would raise that issue in court if a CA with a debt past the 7 year limit pulled an inquiry. " -I THINK I FOUND THE PROBLEM -NOT CORRECT. There is NO REPORTING TIME LIMIT FOR FURNISHERS of information!! -Now I see where some can get confused about the collection of an "old debt" and inquiries in the connection to the collection of a time-barred debt. -Here is the problem though. IT IS ONLY the REPORTING AGENCY who is responsible for "7-year reporting period" NOT THE FURNISHER. -A furnihser can report a 20 year old debt to the reporting agency if they wanted to. THIS IS NOT A VIOLATION. -In turn, neither is attempting to collect on the 20 year old debt by pulling the debtors credit report.
Re: Re: Re: Re: trying to figure this one out / pp someone help me out, I am trying to recall I think I read it in the Us constitution that debts were forgiven after 7yrs, and a discussion in my class mentioned that these laws were originally made from old biblical laws. does this sound right to anyone? I see hidings point on this and that debt collectors can Not enforce collection by means of court proceedings after the SOL, so how would the CA go about legally collecting a debt if the consumer refuses? the consumer would loose rigts to challenge the debt I would think ? how would one dispute or challenge the debt ? and what if say the CA has no proof because the debt is so old ? I am confused
