I mailed a Validation letter to a CA certified mail with a return receipt. I received the return receipt and the agency signed (with an illegible signature) for the item on 08/02/01. In reviewing my Experian Report today, they placed an inquiry on my report yesterday? From the board I have learned an inquiry is considered a collection action. Based on this, what is your opinion of my having a claim for violation of the FDCPA in small claims court?
I don't think an inquiry isn't necessarily a collection action, they may have done it as part of their (the CA's) investigation, which would be an authorized purpose if you asked for validation. Sounds ilke you may need a little more ammo before threatening to sue, but that shouldn't be too hard to come across.
Hal- The inquiry is permissable for them. But, placing the item on your report as a NEG tradeline AFTER your validation request is NOT permissable. That is considered a collection action. If the NEG is already there they must update the tradeline as "disputed". They don't have the option, it's in the statute. SK
I see your point. I have an additional question - As they received the dispute - and contacted the CRA a few days later - and did not change the status of the reporting to "Disputed", does this give me any grounds for possible action. One of the FTC Opinion letters says: ""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.
Also Hal, they are required to print their name on the green return card. They can stamp all the info if they have a USPS approved stamp available. If you really want to have on file the name of who signed you can file a request at the PO. They will probably try to blow you off, but they have to do it. SK
To your other question: Yes, that is a violation. And, any violation is actionable. But, most CAs report info on a monthly cycle so you would probably have to give them some more time if you want to nail them. SK
Thanks SK. I am going to have the PO get me that proof of signature. I just found it very ironic, that they would do an inquiry on my credit file, considering they had already reported the account, exactly 48 hours after receipt of a validation letter.
They wanted to get fresh info on you. Address, work, tradelines. They want to get the big picture before they act. Or, not act.... D'OH! SK
Hal: There is no â??violationâ? per se, by reporting a debt in context with content of the FTC opinion letter youâ??ve cited above. An FTC â??opinionâ? has no weight in these matters, other than for general guidance. What truly matters is case law; precedent that establishes what can and cannot be done as interpreted by the courts. So far no case specifically regarding this issue has made it to the appellate forums, albeit several may be headed that way. Until they make appeal and are heard, or when the FTC takes action and prevails by the appellate process? There is no violation by a collection agent submitting info to a CRA, even during the validation period following a consumer request. Now if there is a case Iâ??m unfamiliar with, one someone can cite? Iâ??m open to changing my views.
Anthony Hi again! I've been reading the FCRA a LOT lately. I have a question over collection inquiries that are distinctly marked collection. For example. I recently have a DTC-American Express inquiry on Equifax (itâ??s on all 3, but Equifax's DTC shows it as being collection for EVERYONE TO SEE.) Now, aside of the fact that it's not correct and AMEX has already sent a UDF for full removal... there's an opinion letter by the FTC that collection inquiries, by their very nature, are a gray area because they convey negative connotations (collection activities) without giving you the same validation abilities as would a collection trade line. Now, I know FTC opinions hold no water. BUT. I think it may be a violation of the FCRA simply by being divulged to other creditors. In the FCRA: (I think the number isâ?¦) 1681b (2)(c)(3) Information regarding inquiries. Except as provided in section 609(a)(5) [1681g], a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance that is not initiated by a consumer. So I believe a collection entry should be treated as an account review, showing up on your copy of reports but NOT on the creditorâ??s copies of the reports. Also, in 1681b(C)(2)(C) (right above the info regarding inquiries)â?¦ it states that from (2) Limits on information received under paragraph (1)(B). A person may receive pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) onlyâ?¦(c) â??other information pertaining to a consumer that does not identify the relationship or experience of a consumer with respect to a particular creditor or entityâ?. Meaning, the info sent to others without your permission canâ??t include â??relationshipâ? information. Certainly, if the promo info sends or factors in the collection inquiries, it violates the above by divulging the fact that a Collection agency is in your file. And weâ??ve all heard how collectors will blackball you with inquiries. Iâ??ve never been sure if it was the number of inquiries they put on (lowering the score) or the very fact that other creditors see that a collector has been in your file that screws you. Course, Equifax adds to the argument by not disputing inquiries at allâ?¦ in direct conflict with the definition of â??fileâ? â? as defined by 15 USC §1681(g) and OCGA §10-1-392 (a)(5.1) â??The term â??fileâ?? when used in connection with information on any consumer, means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored.â? And of course, you can then dispute anything in your fileâ?¦including inquiries. So my question to you is this: whatâ??s your opinion on inquiries and the FCRAâ?¦? Violations?
Re: Anthony Marie: Personally I find excessive CBR inquiries (more than one) verging on abuse, a skirt of the line if you will. Often its much more expeditious for a creditor or collection agent to gather relative info by running an inquiry, considering automated systems. I would not consider â??oneâ? an abuse or violation, but any more than that (within a six month period) serves no real purpose. Let me put it this wayâ?¦ If I knew a consumer had a beef (letâ??s say as a V.P. of Recovery Operations) and complained and/or threatened, based on more than one short-term inquiry; Iâ??d consider the matter a credible potential legal threat. Not because other creditors are made aware by virtue of the report item, but because any more than a single inquiry could be construed as (purposely) poisoning a file.
Re: Anthony Does 1 inquiry poison a file? I guess what I'd really like to know is if the presence of 1 collection inquiry damages a file enough for concern? Then, if there are multiple inquiries (poisoning)... does the poisoning occur... 1. because the multiple inq's lower scores? 2. because the multiple inq's are marked collection and thus lower scores? 3. because the multiple inq's are seen by potential creditors and thus blackball the consumer for future credit? I've heard that frustrated collectors will purposefully poison a file... so I've been wondering what part of the process is really the poison? Thanks again for all your input
Re: Anthony Marie: In a word, yes, but then one should define varying levels of â??concernâ? relative to their particular situation. Someone with a reasonably high score, for example, may find damage by only one collection inquiry. While another with multiple collection trade-lines would not to the same degree. In short, â??ALLâ? collection inquires should be taken seriously, as threats to a credit profile because of what the inquiry represents: some issue causing the collection activity.
