Validation Vs Dispute

Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

Hmmm sounds like some of my very own advice!

-And HOW DID YOU SUE, as in what did you use to sue under?

-Its the FCRA/FDCPA right? WHAT HAVE I BEEN POSTING ABOUT ??

-If you havent read any of my links below, and only have been here since this month, do yourself a favor and read them, THEN decide if I work for a collection agency

 

Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

I think I mentiond this before, but I DO NOT POST THEORY OR OPINION (UNLESS I STATE IT IS).

I POST ALMOST VERBATIM FROM THE "Consumer Law Centers" publications (concidered the BIBLE FOR DEBT COLLECTION HARRASSMENT/CONSUMER LAW ATTORNIES)

These publications cite statute, case law, FTC Opinion, and COURT Comments.

Now to address the issue. THE SENATE stated the purpose of the validation right "is an informal method of dispute resolution that conserves tax dollars and judicial resources." -Senate Report

"Tax dollars and Judicial resources", at least in my simple mind, IS COURT!

So the purpose of the validation right is to keep people from HAVING TO GO TO COURT TO RESOLVE MATTERS OF DISPUTED DEBTS.

In fact, Congress concidered validation a SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THE ACT so much it made the it a "strict liability" statute, meaning MERE VIOLATION IS ACTIONABLE. NO NEED TO EVEN SHOW DAMAGES. THEY VIOLATE IT, THEY PAY FOR IT.

BUT, Congress COULD NOT MAKE THIS ONE SIDED, THAT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

SO, they LIMITED THE "POWER" of VALIDATION, making the consumer HAVE TO ACT WHITHIN A CERTAIN TIME IN ORDER TO TRIGGER THE PROTECTIONS OFFERED BY VALIDATION.

IF THE CONSUMER DOESNT ACT IN TIME, THEN THEY "LIMIT" THEIR RIGHT UNDER VALIDATION.

Now, if it was SO important to Congress for consumers to AVOID COURT, wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that maybe THERE IS A NEED for ANOTHER "ALLEY" IF THE PROBLEM ISNT RESOLVED THROUGH VALIDATION, or the consumer didnt act in time?

THIS IS CALLED THE FCRA. THIS IS THE "GUTS" of the consumers toolbox against furnishers of info and the reporting agencies.
(Keep in mind, the FDCPA, where the validation right is contained, ONLY APPLIES TO DEBT COLLECTORS.)

The FCRA (I dont know why I cap some words by the way ) places a HUGE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE REPORTING AGENCIES AND FURNISHERS OF INFO, NOT JUST DEBT COLLECTORS!

So, I ask, WHY would a consumer "cling" to the FDCPA-validation "like white on rice" when it is limited in its protections???

The FCRA requires a "reasonable investigation" to be completed by the reporting agency AND the furnisher of info.

The FDCAP-validation ONLY requires the debt collector to "half ass" verify they have the "right" consumer and let the consumer know how much they owe! WHY LET THEM HAVE THIS ABILITY TO "HALF ASS" when you can make them "get the whole ass'??? LOL (made myself laugh at that one!)

BUT, like most the statutes, they were written by overeducated "idiots" as my dad used to say. THE STATUES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE INTERPRETED BY CONSUMERS. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION BY THE WAY, THE COURTS HAVE STATED THAT!

SO, in order for a consumer to understand the laws, and make the courts understand that not all consumers are "tards", you have to study and study and cross reference and study some more to get a clear understanding of the law.

Are you still with me ?

SO, as an example, lets look at FCRA/FACT 623. Here is the link: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#623

The title of this section is :§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

On the face, THIS IS THE GOOD STUFF RIGHT? THIS IS WHERE I CAN SCREW THESE COLLECTION AGENCIES AND OTHERS FOR REPORTING BOGUS INFO ON MY REPORT RIGHT?

Section (a) says:

"(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(1) Prohibition.


(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate."

WOW! THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS, THESE MORONS ARE REPORTING INFO THAT IS NOT ACCURATE RIGHT?

And (2) says:

" (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who


(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and



(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.


(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer."

WELL BLOW ME DOWN! THIS IS EXACTLTY WHAT THE POOPIE HEADS ARE NOT[/] DOING! THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION BECAUSE YOU SENT THE FURNISHER OF INFO A DISPUTE RIGHT????

So now what.? SUE PERHAPS? MAYBE NOT READY FOR COURT,? SO INTENT TO SUE IN EXCHANGE FOR DELETION??

SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! SO YOU FILE SUIT, or just threaten to for their violations of FCRA 623 (a) RIGHT?? SOUNDS LOGICAL ENOUGH!

HOLD UP THERE CHIEF! I FORGOT TO TELL YOU ABOUT FCRA 623 (c). ITS THAT LITTLE KNOW, EVEN LITTLER SIZED PARAGRAPH THAT BLOWS YOUR CASE RIGHT OUT OF THE WATER!!

HERE IS THE WRENCH IN THE WORKS. THE "WHATS THE CATCH" if you will:

"(c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s].

(d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section."

Sections 616 and 617 establish the "penalty" for violations.

So, I am hoping everyone is still with me on this.

SO, great you just lost all hope cause I burst your bubble right? lol

ALLAS! ALL IS NOT LOST! WE FORGOT TO LOOK AT SECTION (b)!! (b) IS YOUR FRIEND!

Lets look shall we:

"(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall


(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;



(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];



(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and



(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.


(2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information."


THIS IS THE "POWER" THE CONSUMER HAS! Section (b), your friend, IS ACTIONABLE BY THE CONSUMER!! THE LIABILITY UNDER 616 and 617 ALL APPLY!

BUT THERE IS ONE CAVIAT. THE DISPUTE HAS TO BE "pursuant to section 611(a)(2) "

SO what is 611. It is the DISPUTE PROCESS for a consumer to dispute info on their credit report THROUGH THE REPORTING AGENCY!

So whats this all mean? If you "missed" the validation period, you need to use the FCRA.

BUT, in order to use it, you need to FOLLOW IT! This included NOT SENDING A DISPUTE TO THE FURNISHER OF INFO, BUT RATHER TO THE REPORTING AGENCY.

The changes in the FCRA, now the FACT, DO NOT EFECT THIS SECTION AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even though FUN, and others are being lead to beleive. YES, it does say "623 (a)(8) Ability of Consumer to Dispute Information Directly with Furnisher"

BUT REMEMBER, SECTION (a) IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CONSUMER! SO you HAVE THE RIGHT to send it to the furnisher DIRECTLY, BUT YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OF THEY DO NOT COMPLY!

THAT IS THE POINT OF SOOOO MANY OF MY POSTS. YES THE CONSUMER HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT A LOT OF THE TIME, THEY HAVE NO RECOURSE!!!!

I REALLY REALLY HOPE EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. IT WILL HELP "CLEAR UP" A LOT OF MISCINCEPTIONS WHICH CAN BE DETRAMENTAL TO THE CONSUMER.









I am hoping everyone can understand this.

 

Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

When it boils down to it, you are telling people that the efforts they have made are meaningless"

-Not meaningless, sometimes MISGUIDED.

"You have blatantly inferred someone's lawyer to be incompetent,"

-In the case of an attorney filing suit under FCRA 623 (a)(8), THEY WOULD BE TOTALLY INCOMPETENT! and should be disbarred!

-In addition, I think it was you who has posted advice on checking with a chosen attorney to make sure they are well versed in the law "because not many attorneys are familiar with the FCRA/FDCPA."

"that were "written to help protect consumers", are not infact to protect the consumers but to protect the CRAs, CAs and OC"

-I have posted that the same laws the are designed to protect the consumers, CAN ALSO PROTECT THE OTHERS IF THEY ARE USED RECKLESSLY AND WITH IGNORANCE.

"unless it comes down to a lawsuit in which case we wouldn't stand a chance anyway,"

-Well, I am about 20 for 20 in the lawsuit arena, AGAINST COLLECTION AGENCIES, REPORTING AGENCIES, AND CREDITORS.

"because once again they don't need to provide us with anything that shows proof the debt is owed, the only need to provide proof in a court of law,"

-YES, this is true if the consumer sends a validation request outside the validation period

-IN THAT CASE, ALL IS NOT LOST, THERE IS A WHOLE NOTHER SET OF LAWS, THE FCRA WHICH IS MUCH MUCH STRONGER IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE "FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION" AND THE REPORTING AGENCIES THAN THE "weak" VALIDATION RIGHTS OF THE FDCPA.

-I do apologize if ever I gave the impression that there is NOTHING the consumer can do!

"hell they could provde false documents which we could make no argument against because we had never seen them."

-And if my aunt had balls she'd be my unlce. LOL These collection agencies are not even smart enought to imagine such a scheme

 

Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

And I am "paraphrasing" the manuels as not to get sued!

Paraphrasing, by the way, WITHOUT adding opinio

ok..touche!

"I don't disagree with you, btw, Section 623(a) violations aren't enforceable by consumers -- however, fun never said that is what the attorney was suing under (you made that jump), and it is easy enough to link (a) violations to support an enforcement action under (b) by a consumer for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation.
"

-CITE THE CASE THAT SAYS THAT

- I can cite one that DISPROVES THIS!

Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, No. 03-1235 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT , December 4, 2003, Argued, February 11, 2004, Decided


-AND YES, FUN DID

-She QUOTED the section. leaving out the section numbers. I HAD TO SEARCH TO FIND THE QUOTES.

-AND since she decided to quote the section as being given to her by her attorney, I TOOK HER TO TASK.

-SHE NEVER REPLIED. SO lets clear this up, ASK HER WHAT THE ATTORNEY IS SUING UNDER! and we can put it to rest

-ID BET MY 2 cents ITS 623 (b) or a state law. AND FUN is confusing the issues and getting caught up in section (a) (8)!

-THAT was my opinion!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

actually no, it was from the case itself. I use Lexisone.

Anway, the point was that the court DID NOT AGREE WITH THE "trick" the defendant was trying to pull when they were trying to muddy the waters by claiming the jury was instructed on 623 (a) AND (b).

This was to point out that it is NOT a valid assertion that "somehow" section (a) can be combined with section (b) as you stated!

THIS arguement was attmepted to be used to dismiss the case, THEREFORE MAKING IT INVALID!

And Yes, FUN, PLEASE PLEASE POST IT! I AM REALLY CURIOUS NOW

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

Here is the quote from the case:

"MBNA further claims that the challenged instruction improperly incorporated a legal standard from another provision of § 1681s-2, relating to the accuracy of information that creditors provide to credit reporting agencies. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) (West 1998) (prohibiting creditors from furnishing consumer information to a credit reporting agency "if the [creditor] knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate") (amended Dec. 4, 2003). MBNA emphasizes [*16] that this provision is enforceable only by government agencies and officials, not by consumers. See 15 U.S.C.A. 1681s-2(d) (West 1998) (amended Dec. 4, 2003). Again, however, the extensive instructions by the district court made clear that Johnson's claim was based on MBNA's duty to investigate consumer disputes, not its duty to provide accurate information.Indeed, the district court instructed the jury that the damages recoverable by Johnson "may not include any damages that were caused by the inaccuracy of the information itself." J.A. 768. We therefore conclude that the instruction given by the district court did not mislead the jury or otherwise prejudice MBNA.
"

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

ok...quid pro quo...

YOU pointed out where it DOESNT SAY THAT, and clearly is DOES SAY section (a) is NOT available IN CONJUNCTION with (b), as was your assertion,

YOUR TURN. EDUCATE ME. SHOW ME THE LIGHT AND THE WAY. BOOK CHAPTER AND VERSE

Show me where (a) AND (b) are used in conjucntion

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

"and it is easy enough to link (a) violations to support an enforcement action under (b) by a consumer for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation.
"

- I can see your point.

-I read this to mean you FILE for (a) violations IN CONJUNCTION WITH (b)

-BUT, the requirements in (a) ARE NOT THE SAME as in (b). They may be similar, but that arguement can lead to trouble for the consumer.

-The Jonson case points this out. ALTHOUGHT IT DID NOT HAPPEN, MBNA WOULD HAVE A VALID CLAIM FOR DISMISSAL IF THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON (a) BECAUSE IT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY CONSUMERS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.

-THIS WOULD HAVE CREATED A HIGHER STANDARD FOR MBNA TO HAVE TO OVERCOME BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE IMPOSSED AN "ACCURACY" STANDARD, WHICH THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH.

-Their motion was denied NOT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A VALID ARGUEMENT ABOUT (a), BUT BECAUSE (a) WAS NEVER INTRODUCED. IF IT HAD BEEN, THEN THEY COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED THEIR MOTION.

-By the way, I really dig case debates

-What is your opinion on my arguement ?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

A CONSUMER CANNOT SUE FOR INACCURATE INFORMATION AS DESCRIBED IN 623 (a)

AS HARD IS THAT IS TO SWALLOW, ACCURACY IS NOT ACTIONABLE. ITS THE INVESTIGTATION WHICH IS.

SO YES, IF THE INVESTIGATION REVEALS INACCURACCY, THEN (a) IS LIKE (b). BUT THE SUIT CAN ONLY BE FOR THE INVESTIGATON ITSEL, NOT THE INACURACY

Thats why MBNA presented the failed motion!

IF THE JURY HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THE INNACCURACY INTO CONTAINED IN (a), IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A VAILID MOTION would it not?


" 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) (West 1998) (prohibiting creditors from furnishing consumer information to a credit reporting agency "if the [creditor] knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate]/b]") (amended Dec. 4, 2003). MBNA emphasizes [*16] that this provision is enforceable only by government agencies and officials, not by consumers"

O well this is old

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

Hmmm

My A.D.D. just kicked in....were we waiting in this thread for FUN to reply with the attorney info ?? LOL