How will you actually know that a ca has not validated your request? Will they just not respond at all? Or do you have to keep pressing them? If they do not validate, can you contact the cra's and send them the letters that you indeed did request validation and the ca did not validate?
Read FDCPA ... [color=0066FF]§ 809. Validation of debts (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.[/color]
Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 623 (a) (3) § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies (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. Anytime you send a dispute notice to a CA - collection agency - they are required to provide you with proof of the debt. Not just an invoice or general statement or bill - but rather copies of original documents such as contracts, etc. They should also provide you with documentation that provide them with pemission from the OC - original creditor - that they are allowed to collect this debt. They are also required - per the Section 623 law above - to "notify" the CRA - credit reporting agency - that the debt is being disputed by you - the consumer. If they cannot provide validation of the debt then they must instruct the CRA to delete it from your credit file. If they don't validate - then you prepare to sue. In most instances the CRA could care less if the CA or OC failed to validate the debt with you. The burden to validate is with the CA and/or OC. The burden to make sure that they do what the law require is on your (the consumer) shoulder. No one is going to punish the CA for violating your rights - it is your responsibility to bring suit and/or file formal complaints with the FTC - state attorney general's office, etc. Go forward and don't be "scurred!"
Where exactly did you find that obligation, especially the pemission from the OC? Not entirely accurate ... read it again - "[color=0066FF]the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice[/color]" ... They are not required to notify the CRA, but if they report to the CRA, then they must include the notice of dispute. Not entirely accurate ... When you dispute a TL with the CRA and the CRA cannot validate, then the CRA must delete it. Nothing in FDCPA obligates a debt collector to report a TL or to request deletion of a TL.
1. How do I know that J C Penny gave Jim Bob Collection Agency permission to collect from me? Did Penny sell the debt to Jim or just asked Jim to collect in return for a fee. I have a right to know. I could be wrong. 2 I assumed (yes I know) that the debt had already been reported to the CRA and I am disputing it after the fact - perhaps even 5 years later. The CA is required (my understanding of the FTC rules) to provide the CRA with notice that the consumer is disputing the debt. You can dispute the debt 30 days before they report it to the CRA or 6 years after the CA initially reported it. 3. If a CA - collection agency cannot "validate" (provide proof of the debt) then they "should" per FTC, instruct the CRA to delete the trade line. See: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/harvey.htm http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/beekman.htm http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters.htm If I am wrong I stand corrected. I've sent validation requests to certain CAs - they failed to validate. I send intent to sue letter - they send letter to CRAs and to me instructing CRA to delete trade line. Prove it or remove it. You don't remove it - I sue you and report you to the attroney general, the BBB, the FTC, CBS -NBC - ABC and CNN - cause you failed to validate and also failed to delete. Now the CA must spend money on lots of stamps, paper, and employyee time, possibly legal fees to combat my wrath - just over a $50 cable bill that I'm disputing. My primary target is the CA - especially after the CRA failed to delete based on my original disput to the CRA. I assume that the CA told the CRA -"yes, the debt is valid - do not delete it." My primary batele is then with the CA. Again, if I'm wrong I invite correction...with all due respect.
Re: Re: Validation texan, you said "They should also provide you with documentation that provide them with pemission from the OC - original creditor - that they are allowed to collect this debt". I asked you where did you see that the debt collector is obligated to provide you with such permission. I also beleive that it should be our right to know, but we cannot build a court case based on our beliefs. I have quoted this part of the FCRA, but you probably didn't pay enough attention to it. However, the FTC letter to Harvey which you refer to, says the same thing - "[color=0066FF]That section states that when a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished to a consumer reporting agency, the information in question may not then be furnished without notice that it is disputed by the consumer. That provision addresses the furnisher's obligation only when the furnisher continues to report disputed information.[/color]" So you are saying that if they report it, you cannot dispute it for 6 years??? How did you come up with this idea? As I said before - nothing obligates a debt collector to instruct the CRA to delete a TL. I think you are mixing the CA's and CRA's obligations. Here is what FCRA says: [color=0066FF]FCRA § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy (a) (5) (A) In general. [/color]If, after any reinvestigation[color=0066FF] under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, [/color]an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file[color=0066FF] or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation.[/color] It's the CRA's obligation to delete a TL if it cannot be verified. This letter says that the "[color=0066FF]amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor[/color]", it doesn't say the CA must provide you with the pemission from the OC to handle the debt. This letter is about the corporate connection between the creditor and the debt collector. Again, doesn't say the CA must provide you with the pemission from the OC to handle the debt. texan, I'm not saying it cannot work your way. I just want people to be clear what the law says about it. Of course, a CA wouldn't bother with all this stuf over a $50 debt. But, if they decide to fight you, you can't stand the court. Read this post - http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53375 and you will see what I mean ...
Re: Re: Validation quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CA is required (my understanding of the FTC rules) to provide the CRA with notice that the consumer is disputing the debt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have quoted this part of the FCRA, but you probably didn't pay enough attention to it. However, the FTC letter to Harvey which you refer to, says the same thing - "That section states that when a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished to a consumer reporting agency, the information in question may not then be furnished without notice that it is disputed by the consumer. That provision addresses the furnisher's obligation only when the furnisher continues to report disputed information." Perhaps we agree more than not here. Again, I am making my point on the assumed fact that the CA is reporting "un-validated" "un-verifiable" infomration concering the alleged debt that I allegedly owe. I am assuming that the debt is already on the CRAs report, but is not valid (from my standpoint). The CRA verified with the CA. The CA failed to validate (with me) and still failed to remove the item from CRAs' records. Most CAs, even when you dispute the debt, do not submit a document to the CRA that the item is indeed being disputed. I have yet to have 1 CA to send notice to the CRA that the debt is "disputed." And have yet to have a CA actually validate the debt. But I have had a car repo, tax lien and medical bills deleted after seeking validation from the OC and/or CA and they failed to validate. And in a few cases the CA wrote letters to me stating that they were not able to validate and would therefore ask that the CRA delete the trade line. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can dispute the debt 30 days before they report it to the CRA or 6 years after the CA initially reported it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you are saying that if they report it, you cannot dispute it for 6 years??? How did you come up with this idea? Perhaps I was not completely clear. The intent is for "example" only. In other words, whether I dispute with the CRA or CA 2 days after it appears on my report or if I wait 6 years or 6 months or 4 years, etc., I still have the "right" to dispute it and the CA - even more so than the CRA - have an obligation to validate it or remove it. The CRA is obligated to "delete" it if the CA fail to verify it after 30 days notice that the consumer is disputing. Perhaps you heard what I said but I failed to explain what I "really" meant to say. Thanks for the information. And you are correct - just because it's the "right" thing to do - does not necessarilly make it a strong argument for the courts.
