Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR (jk) = just kidden. If you confuse both Butch and Jlynn somethins wrong. teehee. The 5 days deadline is for the CA to provide the consumer with those 5 items of info. outlined in 809, as well as inform you of your right to dispute all (or a portion) of the debt. Makes no difference who initiates. Als, just so yall know, reporting a TL to the CRA's has been judged to be a "communication" for the purposes of FDCPA. As many of us know, and as often happens, a CA will simply post your neg. TL on your report and then wait untill it bugs you enough to pay it. This should be asserted to be a violation. See? Hey - you gonna build me a site Vlad? We need to talk tomorrow. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR Uff ... I can breath now ... Haven't gotten to that part yet ... would you share the link? Any time, Butch ... you have my number, just call me ...
Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR ok so I am right to dispute with the CRA in a few day correct? And Butch are you saying that them posting the neg TL is a violation? and if not.. Since they received my letter on the 19th.. and there wasn't a TL for them on my EX CR.. Is the fact that it showed up yesterday (the 21th) a violation... Thanks...
Re: Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR Absolutely it's a violation. Radi8 is the one who helped me understand this. It depends upon where the situation is at the time of the entry. We know that under "normal" circumstances the CA may post a neg. TL to your report. Well OK - if they do so before your DV. However... and this is the big "BUT" part ... if you demand val. to the DF and THEN they report it, this is viewed as collection activity. Here's the Cass Opinion, discussing 809: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Federal Trade Commission December 23, 1997 Robert G. Cass Compliance Counsel Commercial Financial Services, Inc. 2448 E. 81st Street, Suite 5500 Tulsa, OK 74137-4248 Dear Mr. Cass: Mr. Medine has asked me to reply to your letter of October 28, 1997, concerning the circumstances under which a debt collector may report a "charged-off debt" to a consumer reporting agency under the enclosed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In that letter, you pose four questions, which I set out below with our answers. I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g. II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992). IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8). I hope this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney Enclosure This is precisely what LeFevre means when he says; "particularly at this stage of the collection process." He means demanding val. fundamentally changes the circumstances by which the DF may insert a negative tl. In other words, if the CA becomes aware of a demand for val., and then [prior to providing same] inserts the TL, they do so only to coerse payment. This is extortive in nature. See?
Re: Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR yeah.. the only thing I don't understand is in the TL.. it has last report 1/1999.. and it was just posted the other day.. I thought it should have last report 11/2003.. it's like that on my TU report...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR It's 803, not 603 ... but you're absolutely right about the rest ... [color=0066FF]§ 803. Definitions [15 USC 1692a] As used in this title -- (2) The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.[/color] Therefore the initial communication is already in place, therefore they had their 5 days to send the notice to the consumer, therefore the consumer ought to get $1,000 ... Well, reaging is another violation ... read FCRA 605(c)(1), FCRA 623(a)(5), FTC: HARVEY, FTC: JOHNSON ...
ok.. When a CA send you a letter saying you have 30 day to bla-bla.. If you don't sent to them in 30 days, do you revoke your option to request validation
[color=0066FF]§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. [/color] Spooky language ... the law obligates them to send you a notice with a statement, that if you do not respond, they can assume the debt is valid. Don't read it as "bla, bla", pay attention to the wording - the law does not say "if you do not respond, they can assume the debt is valid", it says they have to send you a notice with their statement of their eventual assumption. Your option to request a validation has nothing to do with their assumptions ...
thanks.. I was just saying "bla bla" cause I'm not sure of the exact wording.. and I felt you would know what I meant.... which you did.. thanks for good info.. Oh and I sorry if I should have figured this out by now.. But am I correct to dispute this account with the CRA next???
Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR Am I correct to dispute this account with the CRA next??? ======================= YESispute it as not mine.That way if the CA verifies it with the CRA and hasn't validated it with you ,you get the CA on yet another $1000 violation. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR Yes, as lbrown59 said - dispute it as "not mine", enclose a copy of your letter to the CA and the GC as a proof that you have tried to validate it with them and they have failed.
Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by IwantBlue Oh and I sorry if I should have figured this out by now.. But am I correct to dispute this account with the CRA next??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1*Yes, as lbrown59 said - dispute it as "not mine", 2*enclose a copy of your letter to the CA and the GC as a proof that you have tried to validate it with them and they have failed. ============================================================================================================================================================================================================ 1*Just say not mine nothing more. 2*It's not time to send this to the CRA yet so don't enclose it with the dispute. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
Re: Re: Re: Unknown Collection on EQ CR Agreed, nothing wrong doing it this way. IMO, if you only want the CRA to remove the TL, you will enclose the letter as a proof of CA's failure to validate. If you want to catch the CA in a violation, you will not enclose the letter, so if the CRA verifies with the CA, then you'll have the CA in a violation.
