Anthony, please don't worry about my taking offense. We seem to be getting along just fine these days. I really enjoy your comments and thoughts. But I guess I'm just kinda dense because I still don't see the differences you 3 are talking about. Maybe if you could sort of clear it up a bit. The difference between the two types of letters, the dun and the validation. I thought I know a lot about validation, but you 3 seem to be bringing in something new here I haven't gotten through my thick skull yet. And I still need to know what can be done about creditors who simply refuse to communicate at all but keep on coming up validated. Makes me think maybe the CRA's are claiming validation (verification) when they actually might not be hearing a peep out of the CA. Yet the other scenario seems even more likely i.e. they do reply to the CRA claiming it's a valid debt but refuse to communicate with me That's what seems more likely to me
If the CRA has reason to believe that this information maybe wrong or if you have had a problem with a particular person at the collection agency and they are the ones verifying the debt, the onus falls on the CRA to make the appropriate verification and that may involve more than just a simple phone call to verify, they may be forced to use other means to verify. Especially, if this is your third or fourth time disputing it. I read a case on that last week, I will find it and get back to you. Cyprigirl
OK! Now you have suddenly clarified the issue at least a bit. I was under the apparently false impression that you 3 were talking strictly about collection agencies, and some of the pieces weren't fitting into the puzzle. Maybe the problem is(was) that I hadn't properly finished teaching my morning music class when I was reading the posts. I'll appreciate your upcoming post on the issue, however. Thanks in advance
Bill here are some excerpts from the case I told you about. I think this should help. 1. " Credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in consumers's credit report may be required, in certain circumstances, to verify accuracy of its initial source of information; whether agency has duty to go beyond original source depends on whether consumer has alerted agency to possibility that source may be unreliable or agency itself knows or should know that source is unreliable, and depends on cost of verifying accuracy of source versus possible harm inaccurately reported information may cause consumer. Henson v CSC Credit Servs. (1994, CA7 Ind) 29 F3d 280." So the courts will employ a balancing test. Pinner v. Schmidt is the other case about whether you had disagreements with the person that continues to verify. Check it out! 2. There was evidence from which jury could find negligent violation of 15 USCS § 1681i where, upon defendant credit reporting agency's receipt of notice of dispute over account from debtor's attorney, agency called creditor to reverify report and consulted man they knew to have had disagreements with debtor in past since, in view of individual's involvement with debtor, contacting only him was insufficient to reverify entry as agency was required to do under § 1681i(a), and if there was no other authority to verify account, agency should have deleted information altogether as is required by § 1681i(a). Pinner v Schmidt (1986, CA5 La) 805 F2d 1258. Even so, Trans Union argues that it did not violate a duty to reinvestigate because it had no duty, as a matter of law, to go beyond the Judgment Docket in conducting its reinvestigation. We disagree. A credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer's credit report is in a very different position than one who has no such notice. As we indicated earlier, a credit reporting agency may initially rely on public court documents, because to require otherwise would be burdensome and inefficient. However, such exclusive reliance may not be justified once the credit reporting agency receives notice that the consumer disputes information contained in his credit report. When a credit reporting agency receives such notice, it can target its resources in a more efficient manner and conduct a more thorough investigation. " Henson v. CSC Credit Services, Inc. Accordingly, a credit reporting agency may be required, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information, in this case the Judgment Docket. Cf. Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1022, 97 L. Ed. 2d 766, 107 S. Ct. 3267 (1987) (holding that it was unreasonable for a credit reporting agency to only contact an agent of the creditor to re-verify a delinquent account balance reported in the plaintiff's credit report where the plaintiff notified the credit reporting agency that he had a personal dispute with the agent). Whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend, in part, on whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable. The credit reporting agency's duty will also depend on the cost of verifying the accuracy of the source versus the possible harm inaccurately reported information may cause the consumer." Both case are still good law, so now you are armed with more information to combat CRAS and CAS Cyprigirl
Yes, apparently so. Really thank you for that. I still can't figure out how to attack collection agencies who refuse to communicate with me in any manner and NCO who will only call us up on Sunday morning but will not send us any written demands or notices whatever. They have absolutely refused to do so when I told them that's what they were going to have to do. I told them on multiple occasions, almost every Sunday morning that we will absolutely not discuss any matters whatsoever with them on the phone and if they wish to communicate with us, it's going to have to be by U.S. Mail. It's the same dude calls us up every time and he keeps on saying they can't do that. What he actually means is that he already knows what's going to happen if he does put anything in writing. They have been there and done that before and they didn't find the results too palatable, so they don't want to do it again.
Bbauer, I think that the thread was directed toward CA/debtor issues. I believe that Cyprgirl is the one who brought the creditor/cra/consumer issues. The dun is the first communication. Those usually do contain all the stupid demands that you and I and everyone else are so used to seeing. I already know that you realize that validation is actually there attempt of it upon request. Now what I would like to know can the first communication be considered the validation if it contains the required information of the FDCPA? § 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 "--(would this make it a validation?) (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (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; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. The legal proceedings against the CRAs on this thread may lead me to enforce my rights with them a little bit more, where as before I believed that the verification process was just a hoax.
No, it's not a hoax at all. Never has been. It is extremely valid and useful, you just don't ever want to get one actually accomplished. If you do actually get it done, you are in much deeper water than you thought with much less of a paddle to get out with. But copygirl came up with the answers I needed in her last post to me, and that makes it seem to me that you are just about as confused as I was. She straghtened the whole thing out for me pretty quickly.
Bill, I am glad I was able to help. To others who may be a little confused about the law and its vagueness at times, please keep in mind that case law is very important. Although you may be armed with the statutes and you are staking your claim against an agency on a literal violation of the Federal Statutes, it is very important to use the cases because the CA will most likely argue that the law does not expressly say this .............. or that....... and that they are well within their rights to collect this debt, but when you have proven case law with similar circumstances in addition to the literal violation, I think they will be more apt to listen to you or retreat and move on to another victim. Like I said before, if they know that you are a savvy consumer and they realize you really have the law on your side, they have little choice but to back down. Just my 2 cents! Cyprigirl
I also read in one of the cases that if that one CRA has conflicting information from the other CRAs and you continue to dispute the matter with that CRA, you may also have recourse against them, but it can be tricky because the creditor may realize that only one agency is reporting this debt and in retaliation for your constant dispute decide to report to the others. Either that or the CRA are not doing their job. Cyprigirl
Truer words would be hard to find anywhere in my personal opinion. On top of that, if the law and the cases cited even come close to covering your situation or even seems like it might come close and you use it, they will very often become frightened that it might just get hung on them and they still back down rather than take a chance you just might know what you are talking about. Just be sure you aren't trying to bamboozle a collection agency actually owned and operated by attorneys whose names appear on the collection agency stationary. If you do, you just might seriously reduce your chance of success.
Bamboozle? I havent heard that word for a long time. My grandparents use to say it to me when I got my first job in sales. They would say "Listen here, dont let those hoodwinks bamoozle you into some get rich quick scheme". It seems that we never listen to that free advice given to us. We just take it for granted sometimes. Unfortunately, in my case those hoodwinks were my ex-inlaws!
Well, at 71 years of age, I figger I may even be about old enough to be your grandpa. Unless you are older than say 55, Bamboozle, Hoosegow (a jail), Hoodwink, City Slicker, stump broke mule, Tinhorn, Yayhoot, madder than a wet hen, crazier than a coon.and many, many others were the slang of the day back then. I've never heard hoodwink used in the plural form or in the context you used it in before though. I guess it could be appropriate, but just not used that way much. .
Can someone direct me to the web address to read the Miller vs. Payco General American Credit Inc. and Henson v. CSC Credit Services Inc. cases or are they available only for reading by attorneys? Many thanks. tml
Well, Mr. Fisher, your posting of the FTC website is nice for and may be helpful to those who are not familiar with that law. However, TML was asking where specific cites of the particular case of interest to that person might be found. I admit that I am as green as a gourd and as dumb as a fencepost, and I must beg your forgiveness for being so stupid as to fail to find the particular cites and filings and/or opinions and rulings of the judiciary dealing with the case in question on the FTC website you provided. Maybe you could show us where the cites for that case are at on the FTC website?
No, I couldn't. I gave the link to the law because it was conspicuously absent from this thread. I'm not familiar with it, but is that a requirement for participating? If someone who is green, dumb and stupid, may post a message, is one who is ignorant allowed to do so under your rules? Perhaps you should be asking Cyprigirl to what she is referring. Does the walk match the talk? Are those "cites" on those sites? I'll toast that post to see any, if not most. The spinning is just beginning. http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=Henson+v.+CSC&sites=findlaw.com
No, I couldn't. I didn't think so. ********************* I gave the link to the law because it was conspicuously absent from this thread. That's nice an thoughtful of you. ********************* I'm not familiar with it, but is that a requirement for participating? There are those who seem to think it's an absolute requirement. ********************** If someone who is green, dumb and stupid, may post a message, is one who is ignorant allowed to do so under your rules? I don't make the rules. ************************* Perhaps you should be asking Cyprigirl to what she is referring. I'm quite sure she is quite capable of reading your post and giving her reply if she desires to do so. ************************** Does the walk match the talk? I have no idea ****************** Are those "cites" on those sites? I'll toast that post to see any, if not most. The spinning is just beginning. Have fun. C ya *************************
Greg: Donâ??t mind him, itâ??ll soon be over for the good of all. Iâ??m certain your professional and personal opinions are very welcome here by the majority of membership, even if only a minority object.
