Validation

Anthony: Full Factual???

What's a full factual???

Also, since you do this for a living... I get conflicting info from the CRAs (go figure). I have been told that the report I get is the only report that exists.

If so, then why is there such a big deal about the "if you apply for jobs over 75K, insurance over 150K" etc that then a complete history is run (and stuff that's timed out is on this report).

I've been told at every turn that this type of report doesn't exist. Are you familiar with this? If so, How do I get a current copy of this complete history???

Just thinking, if my regular credit report has so many inaccuracies... I wonder what this bigger report would have on it in terms of errors (and of how those could really hurt me for jobs, insurance etc).

Thanks for the info

Oh, by the way, I'll see if I can find it again, but I read somewhere an opinion that the 7 year rule was Meant (but not written) to protect all debt (including ones antedating the timelimit). I can't remember where I read it... but the interpretation was certainly consistent with consumer protection (which means it's probably wrong...). It would make more sense for the law to enact on x date... but apply to all debts. But since the big credit card companies ghost write our laws... I tend to agree with your opinion... unfortunately, since it doesn't afford us enough protection.

Anyway, good points on this post. Do you think case law interprets this anywhere??? I haven't seen any yet.

 

Re: Anthony: Full Factual???

meant... predating the timelimit (meaning all debts regardless of old or new). It's a Friday

 

Re: You're Still Incorrect!

What case are you citing? If you are so knowledgeable, and the experts hire you then you'll surely have at least one. I will carefully read it and apologize on this forum immediately if you can provide one. Until then, stop proclaiming you are an expert.

Funny how experts fail to provide cases.

I read and spoke with someone who sued NCO for this reason. They won. Ever heard of it?

 

Re: Anthony

Saar:
Since you asked Iâ??d be happy to, although in so doing perhaps MikeB & Completeru will consider the big picture? Because I sense we may all be talking about the same thing here?

In context with Steffâ??s situation itâ??s a probable certainty that the original CBR hit either came from the creditor or collection agent, sometime around 1993/1994. For some reason, and we canâ??t be sure at this point what that reason is in relation to Steffâ??s case. The collection agent listed a last hit/activity of 3/2000. This entry alone has the potential to reset the reporting statute (by FCRA, as â??AMENDEDâ?) to extend the reporting period.

The rub comes when considering the original item entry, sometime during 1993/1994. This need not be a strict entry, meaning stemming from the collection agent. Again the original creditor could have placed the item, perhaps before assigning to the collection agent (providing case law here is superfluous, and I donâ??t feel like looking for the cite). But for the sake of conversation (no argument please) one should presume, based on the probabilities, that the item was entered during 1993/1994.

Given this is probably the case, again based on probable odds, then the hit preceding the one Steff described would appear through a full-factual (a complete report). Even if it fell off the consumer viewable report, but would remain via the full-factual. The collection agent could update the report, on whatever grounds bogus or not, thereby extending the reporting period.

The key to consider is this� MikeB is correct in spirit, yet has overlooked the amended Act which overrides (changes) the legislative meaning of §605(a)(4). The revised Act replaces language in §605(c)(1) to account for changes affecting §605(a)(4), that Mike was good enough to cite.

Here is the exact wording from the FTC footnote, in relation to the amended Act language: Should read â??in paragraphs (4) and (5).â? Prior Section 605(a)(6) was amended and redesignated as Section 605(a)(5) in November 1998. Clearly, without question, the amended Act at §605(c)(1) is meant to reference §605(a)(4). Subsection-2 of §605(c) relates to the 455-day rule, again, referencing paragraph one that affects §605(a)(4) â?? per FTC corrections!

Yes, Saar, this stuff does get confusing especially to laypeople that donâ??t deal with it on in-depth levels everyday. Hay Iâ??ll tell ya though Iâ??ve dealt with very competent lawyers whoâ??ve gotten it wrong; so go figure. Anyway, there you have itâ?¦ And by all means, please look the statute up yourself (using Acrobat Reader)? You may find the amended Act at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.pdf

If Iâ??ve overlooked something, please let me know? Iâ??d be happy to discuss these issues more, if only folks wouldnâ??t get so edgy. [;-)

 

Re: RE: Validation

Let's take this back a bit: send a validation letter.
It's the best first step. Once they receive the letter, they're required to cease until they "validate" the debt.

80% you get nothing back at all. Then you send the followup letter that states that their lack of response confirms there is no debt.

20% they send some b/s. some printout, some hand written junk. Unless they address everything in the letter, then you have at least set a standard for validation. You can proceed as though they haven't validated.

Now, just to muddy the waters, there is really no "standard" in the FCPA for what constitutes validation. I used the Kielsky info and it worked. However, Lizardking combined 2 letters into 1 and it's posted on this board. I like it better. It requires more info which can only help you.

Now, if they still try and proceed w/out even addressing your validation requests you've got them on a definite violation. It's a nobrainer 1.000 penalty to you if you sue. And I was told this by my CREDIT atty. You can sue in District court.

Basically, what you're doing is 2 things.

You're establishing a papertrail to protect yourself in case the collection agency or creditor tries to sue you.

And in most cases, due to poor recordkeeping, you normally get the collection agency to back off because they can't prove the debt. You can also send a variation of the letter to the original creditor if you want to strengthen your position. The original creditor isn't subject to the FCPA, but you could still ask for proof of the debt.

Again, sometimes (often times) they back off not because someone doesn't owe the debt, but because they can't prove they are owed the debt. You shift the burden of proof to them.

 

Re: Anthony: Full Factual???

Hay there Marie:
A full-factual is a generic term used to describe a (generally) commercially intended report. For instance, were you aiming to purchase a home the mortgage banker (or underwriter) would probably run a full-factual. This report essentially shows everything that has ever appeared on oneâ??s credit report (within reason), and is most commonly used to gauge a credit history. Now only current info from the full-factual could be used as far as credit worthiness, so not to worry.

In answer to your other concerns, read my post to Saar and see what you think. Yes I know there is lots of misinformation out there about reporting limits, yet the real deal is right there in black and white. So I suggest if this is of real concern to you, read the amended Act (FCRA) and judge for yourself?

 

Re: RE: Validation

Steff:
I agree with Marie, send a validation letter because the odds are mostly in your favor; the agent will not respond appropriately. But there are some points to bear in mindâ?¦

Foremost, the collection agent is under no obligation (whatsoever) to validate within a certain period of time. Certainly you could set-up a potential offense (as a defense) to allege bad faith in not responding timely, but thatâ??s speculative. Nonetheless, this probably wonâ??t become an issue since most collectors (agency collectors that is) arenâ??t real hip when it comes to compliance.

The key to remember here is not to maintain, in the slightest, that you owe the debt at all. Simply challenge itâ??s validity by sending the validation statement â?? in whatever form you choose.

You may also want to contact a mortgage banker and see if you couldnâ??t persuade him/her to run a full-factual? If you can (and you probably will be able to find some mortgage person to help, just look hard) compare the entries on the full-factual to those relating to your current report. If no entry regarding the subject item appears on the full-factual, either submitted by the collection agent or original creditor? Then you may have ample grounds to threaten more action than just a removal.

 

Re: RE: Validation

Let me try and "paint" a picture, and I will shut up about it. Let's look at two scenarios as follows:

Scenario No. 1

Creditor A wrote off a debt in 1993 as a "profit and loss". The creditor immediately reports this to the CRAs. According to the ammended FCRA 605 (a) (4), the record MUST come off in 7 years. This record cannot legally be reported again (assuming you don't make payments, etc.). Under no circumstances can that record be added to a credit report again after the 7 year SOL without violating the FCRA 605 (a) (4). Period.

Scenario No. 2

Creditor B wrote off a debt in 1993 as in the first example but did not BEGIN to report it to the CRA intil 2001. Can he do this? Possibly he can because of the amended FCRA including the 455 day enactment.
This amendment STIPULATES WHEN A RECORD MUST BE REPORTED AND FOR HOW LONG. IT IN NO WAY SUPERCEDES THE 7 YEAR SOL in 605 (a) (4). This creditor did not begin reporting the record until 2001, and the record could potentially remain on a credit report for 7 years. The amendment now prevents this from occuring on records after the 455 days after the enactment of the amendment.


I don't know if Anthony is a laywer or what, but I read USC regulations as well as TAC regulations as part of my job.

In closing, you cannot look at a regulation that says "refers to" and interpret that as "excludes" or "supercedes" or "instead of". The language is quite clear.

The amendment to the FCRA only clarifies in writing WHEN THE RECORD MUST BE FIRST REPORTED. IT IN NO WAY CHANGES THE SOL AFTER THE RECORD HAS BEEN FIRST REPORTED. If you can dispute that, then I give up.

 

You Say Tomato...

Mike:
You know weâ??re in agreement here, having considered your two (2) examplesâ?¦ (Ya see how these boards sometimes tend to convolute issues?) Because I didnâ??t mean to suggest that an item could be reinserted only updated, providing the initial entry was made as in your first example. Geezers, how funny, I thought we were saying pretty much the same thing as we got more into the subject. But hay, perhaps I didnâ??t articulate that clearly enough?

Of course in Steffâ??s case the collection agent may be trying to reset by alleging some payment was made, a big no no as you may agree. Nonetheless, your observations are correct as stated (above); predicated on no REAL (FACTUAL) payment or other legit activity taking place.

Anyway, glad we got this straight. [;-)

 

Re: You Say Tomato...

Now that makes sense. A collection agency lying. :_)
I had a friend actually take a collection agency to court over a debt he didn't owe at all.

They said he affirmed the assignment to the collection agency and agreed he owed the debt. They even made up a date he "did it". They didn't have the guts to lie and say he'd actually made a payment to them...

Meanwhile, he has a one foot stack of letters requesting proof of the debt, letting them know it's in error etc etc.

He actually won because, when push came to shove, the collection agency didn't have proof of the debt (nothing in writing) and the item was over 500.

Statute of frauds fixed it. period. However, I have always wondered (if the debt had been for 499) what would have happened. I suppose he still would have won since he had a stack of letters as a defense.

Had he just showed up in court and said "not mine" I think he just may have lost. Amazes me how the system works.

 

Just A Bit Off-Topic

Marie:
For whatever itâ??s worthâ?¦ Most collection agents (meaning as companies) donâ??t lie but are pretty good about doing their jobs, without taking anyone for a ride. In my estimation (speculative for sure) based on those Iâ??ve dealt with across the country, only about 30% are bad apples â?? rotted to the core!

It may interest you to know that what happens many times is that the collectors on the line, those charged with actually collecting accounts. Sometimes do what is know as ghost or computer collecting whereby they mark queues in such a way as to fool management, as though theyâ??re doing their job.

Since queues are a permanent record when the collections supervisor or manager review accounts, perhaps based on some dispute. They could misinterpret such â??ghostâ? information as factual, and respond accordingly.

But hay Iâ??m not defending misconduct, only offering balance in that not all collection agents act inappropriately with intent and design; whether that conduct be lying or making false claims.

 

Re: Just A Bit Off-Topic

Interesting. My earlier experiences were definitely w/bad apples. Now that I even have a slight clue as to what they can and can't do... the ones I dealt with were WAY out of line.

Fortunately, all my stuff is current. No collection issues whatsoever... just building credit again.

You guys have interested me, though. I would really like to read the revised version.

BUT, even on the FTC website, their last update to the law is June 1999 (I believe).

Where's a good place for me to read the very latest version on the FCRA?

Course, even after reading the revised version... I still may not interpret it right.