Brief history: I mailed validation request to RMA 4/24. Green card shows receipt 4/28. No response. Estoppel mailed 5/25. Green card shows receipt 5/27. No response. Emailed Robin at Equifax...forwarded to Vicki. Check out this response. > > Your concerns have been forwarded to me for handling from Ms. Holland. > > I have contacted Risk Management Alternatives referencing your dispute with > the BellSouth collection reported on the file. RMA has verified that the > debt is valid. > > May I suggest to you that you contact BellSouth for more details pertaining > to this account. > > RMA is a collection agency and is only reporting the information as it has > been provided. If you are trying to obtain the actual contract or paperwork > associated with the above named account, that information can be obtained > through BellSouth, not the collection agency. > > I will notate on your file that you are currently in dispute with this > account until a resolution has been reached. I will also forward you a copy > of the credit file for your review. > > Should you have any further concerns please contact me directly at > 800-395-6440 > > > VBanks > Equifax Sr. Consumer Relations Specialist > Office of Consumer Affairs > Equifax Information Services LLC Wow! I can't believe that she expects OC to validate the debt to me and not the CA...they are only reporting the information that they have. I have not typed a response to her yet...wanted some input. I am looking specifically for the section of the FDCPA that states that they can't verify without validating. I can't believe that RMA doesn't know this. Butch...if your there. help me with reply please. Thanks.
She's full of it. Section 609 of the FDCPA states: 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. The fact that the ca verified the info with the cra constitutes continued collection activity. Violation. Here is an FTC opinion letter for you. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Division of Credit Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection March 3, 1992 Mr. John D. Krisor, Jr. Krisor and Nusabaum P.O. Box 6200 South Bend, Indiana 46660-6200 Dear Mr. Krisor: This is in response to your letter of October 9, 1991 wherein you pose two questions: (1) If a debt collector ceases collection activity, must the debt collector send documentation of the indebtedness to the debtor? (2) Can a debt collector charge for copies of the documentation of the indebtedness? 1. Section 809(b) of the Act provides that if the consumer disputes the debt or requests identification of the original creditor in writing, the collector must cease collection efforts until he verifies the debt, or identifies the original creditor and mails a response to the consumer. If the consumer's request for verification of the debt was made in accordance with Section 809(b) of the Act, the collector need not supply the documentation but only so long as collection efforts are not resumed. Section 809(b) requires that "the collector cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt . . . and a copy of such verification . . . is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." In situations contemplated by Section 809(b), the Act imposes the obligation to furnish verification before the collector resumes collection efforts. In the event the collector decides not to pursue the collection efforts, there is no requirement to furnish the documentation of the indebtedness to the consumer. In the event that collection efforts are resumed, the requirement to furnish verification to the consumer prior to resumption of collection remains. 2. A collector may not charge (the consumer) for copies of the documentation of the indebtedness mailed in response to the collector's obligations under Section 809(b). To do so could constitute an imposition of a fee or service charge in violation of Section 808(l) of the Act.(1) The cost of obtaining documentation referred to in your letter is more appropriately a cost of doing business by the collector in the same manner as is postage and telephone charges. I hope this information will be helpful. The views expressed herein represent an informal staff opinion. As such they are not binding on the Commission. They do, however, reflect the staff's current enforcement position. Sincerely, Roger J. Fitzpatrick Attorney Division of Credit Practices And here is another letter re: continued collection activity. December 23, 1997 Robert G. Cass Compliance Counsel Commercial Financial Services, Inc. 2448 E. 81st Street, Suite 5500 Tulsa, OK 74137-4248 Dear Mr. Cass: Mr. Medine has asked me to reply to your letter of October 28, 1997, concerning the circumstances under which a debt collector may report a "charged-off debt" to a consumer reporting agency under the enclosed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In that letter, you pose four questions, which I set out below with our answers. I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g. II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992). IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8). I hope this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney Enclosure March 10, 1993 Jeffrey S. Wollman Vice President and Controller Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. 1261 Broadway New York, New York 10001 Dear Mr. Wollman: This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .â? in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer. The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer. Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it. Sincerely,
Thanks for the reply....I can't sleep, so I am working on my reply. I have just included both of these letters in my reply...will post when I finish. Is Equifax in violation of anything? That is what I am researching now. Not sure.
LKH has it. If you're not in a hurry tell ya what I'd do. I'd send a copy of that letter from banks and say; "Is this true? Am I supposed to get proof from Bell South? I thought I was supposed to get that from you guys". Wait for them to write bank and concur with Banks, then FILE! Don't forget to play very dumb. buwahahahaa.
Butch....I just mailed my reply...should have waited...I had no idea you were on here this early in the morning! Unfortunately, instead of playing dumb I come across as a know it all. See my response below: Vicki, I appreciate your prompt reply. I am sure it is your desire to achieve 100% accuracy on each and every credit report. Unfortunately, this goal is not being met in my particular case...please read below. You say: > I have contacted Risk Management Alternatives referencing your dispute with > the BellSouth collection reported on the file. RMA has verified that the > debt is valid. Did you speak to them today? I guess they didn't realize they violated the law. RMA is a collection agency and is thus bound by the FDCPA. Under Section § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] it clearly states: (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. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. I notified RMA of this dispute on 4/24 and requested validation. They have failed to respond to me. Until they respond to me, they are not allowed to verify this debt with Equifax. Please read the FTC opinion (specifically question 2) on this matter below: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Federal Trade Commission December 23, 1997 Robert G. Cass Compliance Counsel Commercial Financial Services, Inc. 2448 E. 81st Street, Suite 5500 Tulsa, OK 74137-4248 Dear Mr. Cass: Mr. Medine has asked me to reply to your letter of October 28, 1997, concerning the circumstances under which a debt collector may report a "charged-off debt" to a consumer reporting agency under the enclosed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In that letter, you pose four questions, which I set out below with our answers. I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g. II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992). IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8). I hope this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney This means that when RMA verified the debt with you today Vicki, they broke the law. Verification of the debt, without validation to the consumer first, is considered continued collection activity. You say: > RMA is a collection agency and is only reporting the information as it has > been provided. If you are trying to obtain the actual contract or paperwork > associated with the above named account, that information can be obtained > through BellSouth, not the collection agency. I am surprised at this response. The FDCPA clearly states that the Debt collector is responsible for mailing the validation, not the original creditor. Please read the FTC opinion on this matter below: Jeffrey S. Wollman Vice President and Controller Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. 1261 Broadway New York, New York 10001 Dear Mr. Wollman: This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . ." in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer. The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer. Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney Division of Credit Practices This clearly means that it is RMA's responsibility to provide validation of this debt (which the have not), not Bellsouth. What role does Equifax play in all of this? You are reporting inaccurate and disputed information. I have done everything possible to receive validation of this debt and have been ignored. Please read below: According to the FCRA § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer. It goes on to say: (4) Consideration of consumer information. In conducting any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) with respect to disputed information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in the period described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information. I have provided you with a great deal of relevant information that should be considered during the reinvestigation of this erroneous tradeline. It is your responsibility to use the information to get below the surface. It is simply not enough to call a collection agency and ask if the debt is valid. This does a great injustice to all consumers who have been wronged by erroneous reporting. Please investigate this fully, as you are required to do, by law. Thank you and I look forward to hearing your response, mpbrowni
Can't sleep anyway. Hell I live here, sorta. lol This went to Banks. I was refering to writing to the CA. I think this will resolve ok.
The reply at 08:24AM: Please contact our office at 800-395-6440 Thank you. VBanks Equifax Sr. Consumer Relations Specialist Office of Consumer Affairs Equifax Information Services LLC I will let you know what she says...calling her in a little while.
Spoke to Vicki... She swears up and down that my original contact should have been with Bellsouth and the the debt collector is not responsible for sending me validation. I got a phone number from her for RMA and called them. I spoke to someone in Bellsouth collections...he said that he showed that Bellsouth mailed three months worth of bills on May 6. In actuality, I received nothing. I told him that he was responsible for providing the debt validation. He said I was incorrect. I said "Let me stop you right there...I can see this will only be settled through court." Okay Butch...I am ready to file. They are headquartered in Gwinnett County, GA, but I have never filed against a CA before. Help me out here. Thanks.
Am downloading the forms to file in Magistrate court right now....turns out I can have them notarized and mail to Gwinnett County... Oh well, we will see what happens. Thanks for the support.
You are a shoe in to win some money off of this - that vicky chick is so wrong it's not even funny. PLEASSSS let us know how this is going for you. -Sal
Re: Re: Vicki/Equifax says OC must validate You got that right...I contacted EQ customer service about an address that was reinserted after deletion. They told me to contact my creditors to find out who was reporting the incorrect address. I emailed her, and quoted the FCRA pointing out that it specifies that they are required to prevent incorrect information from appearing on my report. Her reply was that she would delete the address, and I should contact my creditors to find out who's providing the incorrect info. I have sent her one last email asking her to explain how the FCRA section stating that a CRA must prevent incorrect information from reappearing doesn't apply to Equifax. I'm still waiting for a reply. Monte
Re: Re: Vicki/Equifax says OC must validate Hehehe, First of all MPBrowni, take a deeeep breathe. This isn't something we want to act hastily or in anger about. When Eagles get mad, they don't get even, they get smart. I still think, especially since you've now had a conversation with the OC that sending a letter and trying to get them to admit this nonsense in writing is a good idea. Right now you're looking at a Small Claims case. Geez, if you could get this BS in writing you might have a real nice Federal Case. $$$$ LKH, whatcha think? ???
Hey Butch! I am very calm I am finalizing the small claims suit against RMA as we speak. I find the whole thing somewhat hilarious. I had no idea that someone in "customer relations" at equifax had no knowledge of the FDCPA. RMA has verified this account twice without sending validation, so my only question is whether I should sue for $2000.00. What do you think? Thanks.
Hey Butch! I am very calm yea...what happened? I have a sears account about ready to go to collections. I'm assuming it will go to RMA, which is good in a way because they sound like real idiots, lol.
Hey Butch! I am very calm Bump THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""''' PS New Member Must Reads.--------------------------- http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=350770#post350770 http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=314910#post314910 http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=352826#post352826 Sample letters http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/index.php?s= WhyChats statute of limitations http://community-2.webtv.net/Y-chat/WhyChatsCredit/ http://community-2.webtv.net/Y-chat/WhyChatsCredit/ statute of limitations http://www.edebtnetwork.com/content/collection_laws.asp """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
