Validation ignored

YES to both ?s.!

 

How long ago did you dispute this with the cra? It is going to fall off on it's own 11/02. If you wait another month and redispute it as obsolete, they may just go ahead and remove it since it is so close to the purge date anyway.

As far as the ca goes, if you didn't send them the validation within 30 days of receiving their initial notice, as long as they don't continue collection activity (which verifying with the cra's is), then they don't have to validate. You can send the estoppel, but include the part that verification constitutes collection activity. Here is the ftc letter on that.


Mr. John D. Krisor, Jr.
Krisor and Nusabaum
P.O. Box 6200
South Bend, Indiana 46660-6200

Dear Mr. Krisor:

This is in response to your letter of October 9, 1991 wherein you pose two questions:

(1) If a debt collector ceases collection activity, must the debt collector send documentation of the indebtedness to the debtor?

(2) Can a debt collector charge for copies of the documentation of the indebtedness?
1. Section 809(b) of the Act provides that if the consumer disputes the debt or requests identification of the original creditor in writing, the collector must cease collection efforts until he verifies the debt, or identifies the original creditor and mails a response to the consumer. If the consumer's request for verification of the debt was made in accordance with Section 809(b) of the Act, the collector need not supply the documentation but only so long as collection efforts are not resumed. Section 809(b) requires that "the collector cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt . . . and a copy of such verification . . . is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." In situations contemplated by Section 809(b), the Act imposes the obligation to furnish verification before the collector resumes collection efforts. In the event the collector decides not to pursue the collection efforts, there is no requirement to furnish the documentation of the indebtedness to the consumer. In the event that collection efforts are resumed, the requirement to furnish verification to the consumer prior to resumption of collection remains.

2. A collector may not charge (the consumer) for copies of the documentation of the indebtedness mailed in response to the collector's obligations under Section 809(b). To do so could constitute an imposition of a fee or service charge in violation of Section 808(l) of the Act.(1) The cost of obtaining documentation referred to in your letter is more appropriately a cost of doing business by the collector in the same manner as is postage and telephone charges.

I hope this information will be helpful. The views expressed herein represent an informal staff opinion. As such they are not binding on the Commission. They do, however, reflect the staff's current enforcement position.

Sincerely,

Roger J. Fitzpatrick
Attorney
Division of Credit Practices

 

Here is the link to the letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/krisor2.htm

Link to FDCPA opinion letters: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters.htm

FCRA opinion letters: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/index.htm

 

As I understand it, once an account is disputed,the ca can choose NOT to validate as long as they do not continue collection efforts. Moreover, the account does not have to be noted as disputed unless and until they receive a verification request frm the CRA.

 

I thought, but am not positive, that there is a FTC opinion letter that says something along the lines of a CA leaving a collection account on your report(s) (after you have requested validation, and they have been unable to or unwilling to do provide proof) is considered continued collection activity.

I.E. This is based on the premise that if a consumer knows there is a collection account on their report(s) they'll want to take care of it (pay it) as soon as possible for fear of future creditors who may pull their reports, or any current creditors who do monthly AR inq's, seeing the collection account and denying credit or changing their terms unfavorably.

Like I said, I'm not sure about this, but thought I heard something about it previously.

 

pcotten....

The same thing happened to me. A collection from a utility....from 1999, was posted to my credit reports as an open item, 120+ days late. Tanked my score.

I doubt if it's the same company because this one is in MI.

 

I think this is the letter you were referring to Mindcrime.

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

 

Thanks LKH. That's the one.

 

I sent CRRR letter to a c/a that owns 3 of my accts. The letter was signed and picked up DEC 21, 2001. I had not heard anything back. I know this company is not bonded, but I thought I would dispute first and if they verify these 3 accts I got em, let alone they are illegal in TX. I get my results 4/8 (online experian) so I am hoping this works if not I guess I'll be getting them on the bond issue and not verifying the information. Keeps ya'lls fingers crossed for me!!!!!!1