I wrote to TU and asked for verification process information. Asked for names/phone number/method of verify. A week later I got a letter stating: "Thank you for your recent correspondence. To discuss specific questions with a consumer relations rep, you may contact by phone at bla bla bla. Please include file number on upper right corner on all correspondence with TU." And that was it! No information on the accounts whatsoever. Now, weren't they supposed to send me the info, or was it up to me to call them to get it? They didn't say they'd give it to me, just that if I had any questions to call? I didn't call because I'm not very good on the phone with this type of thing, and I didn't want to make a wrong move and say something possibly verifying any information they do have. Seems to me they didn't meet their obligations under the FCRA. Opinions? thanks, beth
They may have been using the file number as an excuse to delay giving you any information. If you provide the file number, they may find some other excuse.
S.O.S.A.D. Same.Old.Song.And.Dance... They don't answer your questions but cleverly reply "in time" saying we are glad to answer questions by phone blah blah blah, you call don't get ANY help demand a supervisor, get a rep saying "if you want a supervisor, I can have one call you back"...blah blah blah...(Whats that Blues Traveler song..."RunAround"). Yes they are in violation, yes they continue to run us around. If you request validation that you owe the debt, you are entitled to it...I would continue doing everything IN WRITING. Keep a paper trail and step up your forcefulness of getting the information you deserve, PROOF YOU OWE THE DEBT, or removal of the erroneous information from your report. Keep it up. Good luck. -Peace, Dave
I think her issue was not validation, but rather the contact information for supposed verification by the creditor. When they claim verification, a process which relies not on proof, but on the integrity of the creditor, you're supposed to get specific information on which person or office was considered to be representing the creditor.
Sorry RG, I misread that and was thinking of something else while I was answering. -Peace, Dave Still humming Aerosmith though..."It's the Same old song and, same old song and dance...my friend"
Rich Guy, I did supply the file number, at the top of the letter, and it didn't sound like that they were asking for that or denying my request because it wasn't included. All the correspondence I've gotten from them include that little sentence about including file number, if I remember correctly. It just really seemed to me they were dodging what I was asking for, and placing the burden on me to call them and ask for it over the phone. I didn't do it, as stated previously, because I didn't want to verify any info for them, or answer their dumb questions. I did recently get another letter from them today after threatening lawsuit, 6 weeks after my original request for verification process info letter, which did give some of the info requested, like a name and phone number, but still didn't say how they verified other than "we verify by mail, telephone, or other electronic means"". I just filed a small claims suit against them early today, and wondered if this would stand up as a violation of the FCRA. I didn't get their letter until tonight, 6 weeks after I requested it, and after I'd already filed. Thanks! beth
Did you try the contact information to see if it is real? Some have posted here that the info was so out of date it was for a intents and purposes, no good at all.
Here's my interpretation. Am I wrong? VALIDATION: Consumer contacts creditor directly. Creditor supplies physical record as proof. Governed by FDCPA. VERIFICATION: Consumer contacts CRA. CRA contacts creditor. Creditor hides behind CRA, says whatever it wants to CRA, no proof is considered necessary. CRA must supply minimal contact information, which falls far short of proof. Governed by FCRA.
Yes, it looks as if they want to get you on the phone to trap you. Failing that, they may simply lie about the phone conversation, a practice which is becoming almost universal. "Our records show..." anything they make up right after you call. I think that if you insist, they may provide you with written information. I think they would be required to do so by the FCRA, were that law properly enforced. Best wishes for your lawsuit. I know it's a major effort on your part, but I hope you continue to the bitter end. (or blissful, depending on the outcome)
Collection agencies are governed by FDCPA. Original creditors by FCRA and FCBPA. Original creditors are specifically not governed by FDCPA.
" Yes, it looks as if they want to get you on the phone to trap you. Failing that, they may simply lie about the phone conversation, a practice which is becoming almost universal. " That was exactly my fear, and why I didn't call. They are pros at this, I'm not, and thus, I'm at the disadvantage. I also wanted ALL contact with them documented, not something that can be denied later like a phone conversation. I guess now I'm just hoping this will stand up as a real violation, even though they did eventually comply, sort of, although it took them 4 weeks longer than allowed by the FCRA. This is my first lawsuit of any kind, so I'm nervous about it. I would hope to settle with them in return for deleting the account. I just don't know if this violation is enough to get them to do so. Thanks so much for the responses. beth
Experian will send you a report telling you to look on your credit report for verification information. I have received two of those already.
oopsie!! Fair Credit Billing. Sorry about the "P" hehe. You know what I meant Greg!!!!!!!! FCBA. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcb.htm
What do you know about 15USC41, and how it meshes with the other statues? http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/consumer_credit.html
Is this a pop quiz? I already have a headache!! ummm...what I know...how it meshes...let me have a cup of coffee and give it some thought.
Good point, Breeze. If the "creditor" is a collection agency, then FDCPA applies. I guess you can't demand validation from an original creditor. I was trying to distinguish "creditors" (of any kind) from the CRA's who simply report what the creditors tell them. But FDCPA is for collectors, not for all creditors.
One cup of coffee down, working on another.... Do you mean 1681 and how it relates to 1601, 1637, 1691, and 1692? Cause if you mean the entire Consumer Protection Act, and how it relates to state statutes, I am going over to William and Mary to register and get a degree out of this.
I don't know if CRA representatives lie about phone conversations more than anyone else, but the practice is almost universal in terms of who does it. I had a UPS phone rep lie about my delivery instructions. I had a storage facility accept my credit card information over the phone, charge my account, and then claim payment was never received. In each case, the only response from anyone else was, "our records show..." Records can be lies.
