Re: Re: verifying = collection activity? You could always get them under the FDCPA for failing to provide notice of dispute. But yes, under the FCRA......you are out of luck. BUT, by requesting a dispute through the CRA, you are FORCING them to update / verify / delete and it is at this point that they MUST update it as disputed. If they don't, that is a violation of the FDCPA and can be sued for. But I understand your reasoning completely about manual updates although I still think a manual update is still reporting based on my definition and reasoning. I agree completely but manually updating is also activity. So I believe that a manual update is also collection activity since the very nature of reporting, according to the FTC, is to be used as a tool to EXORT....I mean coerce payment. Granted, a CRA dispute may require a little more "activity" but both are "activities" that ultimately fit my definition of reporting and both of which are designed in order to coerce the collection of payment. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS We are operating on the assumption that reporting is a means of coercing payment. The FTC states even themselves that the law is unclear but they believe it to the be the case. But, then again, if you paid, and they report it as paid collection (which most do), they are reporting but are not trying to get anything from you because you already paid. The CA could argue (as they have done with me), reporting is not a tool to coerce payment, reporting is an account of the history we have had with this particular consumer and is a tool to notify other creditors of our history with this consumer. This I guess is where the jury decides who is right.
Re: Re: Re: verifying = collection activity? Do you agree with my 02.11.2004 @ 01:25 post regarding the definition of what REPORTING is?
