When trying to get violations on OC/CA not marking "in dispute". . .

Did the validate/verify letter specifically say you disputed the debt?

One does not necessarily imply the other.

In the absense of specific statutory language, that would have to be decided by a judge, should you sue under FDCPA. They might get off if they included the notation on their next tape, say a month or 2.

On the other hand, if you had sent your validation/dispute letter, confirmed receipt, and then disputed with the CRA, resulting in their "verify" to the CRA occurring after you had already notified them you disputed, you might have a stronger case, particularly if your dispute/validation letter was sent "timely", in which case they should not even be engaging in continued collection (verifying or posting a TL that they had not validated) until they had sent validation.

They would have no right to assume the debt was valid, tell others about the debt in order to collect, and if they did tell others, they would be required under FDCPA to also tell them it was disputed.

 

another question about disputes..

How long does the CA have to mark the TL in dispute?
I specifically disputed the the debt in my validation request, dated 9/24, and the green card returned to me is dated 9/29.
I pulled my reports today via myfico and no changes at all to the TL (or to any other parts of the reports, but interestingly enough, my score dropped on all three reports...).
I remember reading somewhere on the posts that if the TL is not marked in dispute I am entitled to damages. I thought I bookmarked it, but now can't find it anywhere. Any info on this, anyone?

Just for background info, this was a collection that I had paid (mistakenly-i was going on vaca and just went through a pile of bills writing checks), then tried to have verified through the CRAs (before I found this wonderful website), which all came back as verified/paid within a remarkably short period of time, and as a result my fico went from 727 to now 761 because of this fiasco.
I do not believe the debt is mine, PLUS it is recorded differently on all three reports, none of which actually show the correct amount that I paid the CA.
I am about to request another round of verification with the CRA's, as well.

Also, I do intend to go all the way to court with this. I hate bullies, and these CA's and CRA use bully tactics (plus, one of my business partners is a lawyer, so I get his assistance for free, makes lawsuits easier). I want to bring as many charges as legally possible against these lowlife businesses. It still amazes me what they are allowed to get away with in their daily course of business.
Thanks for any advise in advance...

PS. I have an inquiry on my Experian report by Experian. I think it was from the request for verification i did in May. Are they allowed to to list this? I thought it had to be for a request for credit only???

 

BTW, Here is a copy of the validation letter...


Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
7 Skyline Drive
P.O.Box 1017
Hawthorne New York 10532


September 24. 2006




Cavalry Account #xxxxxxx

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you as part of my ongoing effort to ensure that my credit record is complete and accurately recorded.

Although the above-mentioned account has been paid, I am disputing the alleged debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Be advised that I am NOT requesting a verification that you have my mailing address; nor am I requesting confirmation that this account has been paid in full ( I have attached notice from you confirming that the account was paid in full).

I am requesting a VALIDATION, competent evidence that there existed or exists some contractual obligation to pay you, including, but not limited to, written documentation that contains my signature outlining terms and an itemized account of the alleged debt.

I require compliance with the terms and conditions of this letter within 30 days, or all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file, never to be reinserted, and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.

In the event of noncompliance, I reserve the right to file charges and/or complaints with appropriate State & Federal authorities, the BBB and State Bar associations for violations of the FDCPA, FCRA, and Federal and State statutes on fraudulent extortion .

I also hereby reserve my right to take private civil action against you to recover damages.

Further correspondence should be sent in writing to the address below.
-------------------------------------


It is a sort of compilation/best of the letters I found here, tailored to suit my particular situation....

 

Your letter as written looks like it was pulled from the Internet. Focus it on your goal, removing all extraneous information. If it is paid, FDCPA may not require that they validate. But FCRA still requires that they report accurately. The problem is that by paying, they will now claim that you have acknowledged it is yours. On what basis do you shift the burden of proof back on them, or make them liable for FDCPA violations?

Can you get anything from the OC to indicate it was not your account? Does the OC's information include identification such as an address or SSN that is not yours? Did the CA use fraud and deception to collect a debt you did not owe, claiming it was your account, or claiming your SSN was associated with it, when the OC's own information did not?

This is, after all, Cavalry. Take a look at what tactics they have used to collect, via ripoffreport.com, or bbb.org. Also see if they have any regulatory actions against them by FTC or state AGs.

 

Thanks for responding. I guess the letter looks like it comes from the internet because for the most part, it does. The next I send will be more succinct.
The TL in question is from ATT wireless, and I have never had an ATT wireless account, so I'm not sure how I would go about getting something from a company that large that in esence says I never had an account there.
I don't remember the original CA letter, just that I paid it and it said ATT wireless on it.
When I first tried to verify back in may, I spoke to a rep at one of the CRA, and she told me that sometimes the various phone companies bill under each others names, because they are often bought up by each other. Of course, looking back on this now I realize how ridiculous it sounds. At the time (and before I found this website and discovered how incompetent the CRAs can be), the rep seemed helpful and wanting to solve the matter. Now I realize she just wanted me off the phone.

WOW!!! I just went over to ripoff.com and searched cavalry..they are pulling a scam with ATT wireless!!!!!!!!
In one post it says that the AG of Texas received 32 complaints against Cavalry re:ATT/cingular in Sept 06 alone!
I will definitely follow this through to completion. I hate that they can get away with actions like this and never get called to court for it.

Luckily I have enough free time to follow this through (and through sheer luck, money as well), and one of my business partners is a lawyer that should be able to hook me up with someone who specializes in this area.
This has truly pissed me off.
I wonder if there are grounds for a class action lawsuit. Forget the money, I just want them out of business....

 

Have you simply called ATT Wireless (probably Cingular now) and asked them whether they show a past account in your name, or under your SSN?

If not, and if you don't believe you ever had an account with a company bought by ATT Wireless, then it was probably not your account.

If they do show an account under your SSN, you might be able to conclude whether it was id theft.

 

What was the reason for paying them, as opposed to disputing or requesting validation?

Did you pay under duress, based on the likelyhood of even an erroneous collection account screwing up another transaction, such as a mortgage, or affecting obtaining a job or promotion?

Did they fail to notify of your legal rights to dispute and request validation?
Did they make illegal threats?
Did they tell you they did not have to validate, or in any way imply you did not have the rights to dispute or validate under FDCPA?
Did they misrepresent the account as yours, including by identifying the account by your SSN, DOB, or address, if any of that information was not in the original creditor's records associated with the account?
Did they engage in any other form of deception to collect a debt you did not owe?

 

"When I first tried to verify back in may, I spoke to a rep at one of the CRA, and she told me that sometimes the various phone companies bill under each others names, because they are often bought up by each other. "

This could be true in the case where one phone company bought another. They might then bill under, or sell a bad debt under, either the phone company that was bought out, or the one that bought it.

There have also, however, been JDBs who have bought portfolios of bad debt, and just mailed out collection letters based on partial name matches alone, or made some lame attempt at locating the debtor and placing the account on his reports. At the prices for which they buy old debt, they have no incentive to use care in locating and dunning the right party, other than the possibility of being sued. They don't even have to worry about that unless and until you dispute, and most consumers wouldn't know where to begin to get an erroneous collection account off their reports.

The phone companies, and particularly the wireless companies, have also been lax in preventing fraudulent accounts opened thru identity theft. They are dealing with selling a high margin intangible product which they can shut off at any time, so why should they be careful? And if they get stiffed for a few months of fraudulent charges, they just sell off the account before any id theft victim is even aware what happened. The risk on a few bad accounts is worth it.

 

I have not, but after finally googling Cavalry Portfolio, I am more convinced than ever that this is a scam that they run.
I cannot tell you how many stories I have come across from people who have been harrassed by Cavalry for ATT/Sprint accounts that they never had ( and this just in the last 15 minutes).
I will however contact ATT first thing and do just that.
I've also found the website naca.net, which is a consumers advocacy site which has this handy search for lawyers based on their experience in credit reporting, debt collections, and, of more immediate interest to me, class action lawsuits in these two areas.
I know it's a long shot, because, being acquainted with more lawyers than I would ever wish to be, I know that there are often more reasons not to pursue a lawsuit than there are to push for one. After reading everyones complaints, however, and taking into account that the agencies we pay via taxes to protect us are not, I think that at the very least I should consult with a few of them to see if a class action is viable.

 

Even if you pursue legal action, do not delay in filing any appropriate complaints with both your state AG, and FTC.

Although each such complaint may not get their direct action, the cumulative weight of a series of complaints for the same illegal activity can result in action. In some cases, such as CAMCO, it has resulted in shutting them down. In others, such as NCO, it has resulted in large fines. Some state AGs have blocked all collection activity by some CAs in their states.

Normally, small value claims are hardly worth the cost of attorneys fees, and the credit reporting systems give CAs with erroneous claims the power to do damage beyond the amount of the alleged debt. If all litigation decisions were made on a pure economic basis, the CAs that cross the line would have little to fear. But courts can reward not only damages, but attorney's fees for successful lawsuits for violations of FDCPA and FCRA.

 

wow, ontrack, you're typing waaaaay faster than I am.
Again, thanks for all your help and insight.
The reason I just paid is because I was going on vacation and just had a stack of bills in front of me, and I just wrote out a bunch of checks. The amount was so small that I didn't even really pay attention to it at the time (and knowing me, I was probably talking on the phone at the time).
My only communications with Cavalry that I can recall was I believe one or two collection notices, which at first I didn't pay much attention to, because I knew I never had an ATT account. I didn't read any small print, or even notice the extent of the information that they had about me in the letter.
It wasn't until my fico dropped from 727 to 680 that I even checked my credit reports to find out what had happened.
Thats when I did my first verification with the CRAs (completely incorrectly, as I later learned from this website). All three came back to my great frustration as paid collection. Ick.
So then I found this site and drafted my lengthy validation letter above. Since then, I have recieved the green card back, but nothing else has happened.
The accounts are not even marked as "in dispute" on my CR.

I know what you mean by the phone companies buying each other, but to my knowledge, no one has ever taken over Verizon, which is the only company I have ever had here in NY.

 

I am filing complaints with the NY AG, the FTC, and the BBB.

Any others out there I should consider?

 

Actually, it just occured to me that I am filing complaints based on the assumption that they are not going to repond to my validation request, which the green card indicates they received 9/24.
I'll tell you, from learning of others experience with them, if they do respond to it I am going run out a buy a lottery ticket, because winning that has better odds than getting a response from Cavalry, it seems.

 

The problem is that under FDCPA, if you pay the bill, it is not clear that they still have any obligation to provide validation.

That is why I was asking about whether you could pin your complaints on an illegal or deceptive act.

If for example, they failed to notify you of your right to dispute and request validation, or overshadowed their notification with separate verbal threats to the contrary, you could pin your complaint or suit on that.

You might have a stronger claim under FCRA for misreporting, but they might still get off claiming that you didn't dispute anything. In effect, you have to force an investigation beyond just "He paid. How could we know it wasn't his bill.", to the underlying records and identifying information, under FACTA, or sue for their failure to do so.

See how they respond to your validation request, if they even do.

 

:You might have a stronger claim under FCRA for misreporting, but they might still get off claiming that you didn't dispute anything."

I disputed in the validation request, is that not enough? The TL is still on my credit report, and it is still having the effect of lowering my credit rating.
I am now asking that they prove that they have a legal right to continue inflicting this damage or remove it promptly.
I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere, probably here, that paying a collection attempt does not automatically validate it. I will try to find it.

And trust me, I will force an investigation beyond "She paid" (yes, i am woman, and boy can I roar...)
I agree with you completely that the FDCPA is not the appropriate route and that FCRA likely applies.

I will not hold them liable for reporting that I paid a collection attempt (I did, with no argument) however, their continued reporting on my credit report after they are unable or unwilling to validate has to be in violation of something. I may end up getting a lawyer to deal with this as well (assuming they don't respond to the validation letter). I will read through FCRA and FACTA again when I get the chance, and try to find the appropriate section regardless.

The whole class action thing that I am ranting about is a separate issue altogether. Just the sheer number of people who have had collection attempts by this company for accounts that they never had points to fraud, or extortion or whatever a lawyer will call it. I'll pursue this separately and in a different manner completely.

 

"I disputed in the validation request, is that not enough? The TL is still on my credit report, and it is still having the effect of lowering my credit rating."

Then you have notified them that you are disputing, invoking the FDCPA requirement that the CA notify any party that they inform of the "debt" that you are disputing it. If you dispute thru the CRA, and they "verify" without indicating it is disputed, they violate. Your earlier text only referred to validation, so I wasn't sure.

"I will not hold them liable for reporting that I paid a collection attempt (I did, with no argument) however, their continued reporting on my credit report after they are unable or unwilling to validate has to be in violation of something."

You hold them liable for whatever you can. That is your leverage for negotiating/forcing removal of a debt that is not yours. As a consumer, you don't have the legal clout the regulators would have if they chose to use it, so you use whatever you can.

 

Part of the problem is that the laws were written with the assumption that most "errors" would not be intentional, and that therefore the reporting party should just have to correct it when it was brought to their attention. Although there are provisions for consumers to sue for actual and statutory damages, proving monetary damages from credit reporting may be difficult, even though they are real, and the amounts involved are typically not enough to get a lot of attorneys interested, compared to, say, a good car crash. The system was originally set up so that the OCs, CAs, and CRAs, could all divert any blame or liability away from themselves even for errors they made, and to a large extent they still can, even with progressive tightening of federal laws in response to excesses.

The serious fraud was assumed to be handled by FTC or state AGs, but as we have seen, this may take years, during which many consumers may sustain ongoing damages, which the settlements seldom fully compensate for.

As you are beginning to realize from your own experience, and from reports from others, the penalties that consumers can apply are apparently not enough to deter what would be considered outright fraud in any other industry. It is worth it, however, to look at those companies, and cases, that have clearly crossed the line resulting in regulatory action, to see why they were singled out, and whether this company's activities are similar.

 

How it is supposed to work, based on FDCPA, and FCRA:

A CA is assigned, or buys, a "debt", and notifies the alleged debtor of the debt, demanding payment while notifying them of their right to dispute. They may have already posted the TL for this account on the alleged debtor's credit report, even though they have not verified its accuracy with the OC, but there is nothing wrong with that, since the consumer hasn't disputed anything. (Tell that to your mortgage broker.)

The alleged debtor, if they think it is not their debt, or the amount is wrong, can dispute and request validation. If they do so within 30 days, the CA is not supposed to continue collection. (See, Congress was being fair. They are all attorneys.)

The CA requests validation from the OC, and sends it to the debtor. The validation may show the amount was not correct, in which case the CA now dunns for the correct amount, which the debtor now pays, or they are a deadbeat.

If the CA doesn't want to waste their valuable time with validation, they can stop collecting, or even sell the debt to some other CA, instead of validating. They don't have to remove the negative notation from the credit report, however, since the consumer hasn't brought it to their attention. It is as if it is not counted as their error, since it MIGHT be the CRA's error, so they are not even liable until there is a consumer dispute sent thru the CRA.(We have to be fair to the poor CA, and we have to be fair to the poor CRA, even if it leaves trash all over the credit files.)

 

Now let's look at how it can work if you want to run your CA to maximize profits, and see what part of the debt collection industry has become:

What is right or wrong is irrelevant. "Compliance" simply means you have a plausible defense when you get caught, to minimize your exposure. All that counts is the bottom line, which depends on whether you get caught, and how much you pay if you do. It's just a matter of numbers.

First, buy debt cheap. There is a lot of old, out of statute "debt" available for pennys on the dollar. It may be cheap for a number of reasons:

1) Being out of statute, the option to sue is not available (although that doesn't stop some CAs).

2) If it is this old, it has already been found to be difficult to collect.
(a) The debtor is broke, or just too ornery, to justify suing earlier.
(b) There may be some defect in the debt. The consumer may have disputed some aspect, and the OC just wrote it off and dumped it, rather than dealing with it.
(c) The OC may have been unable to locate the debtor. Maybe he skipped, maybe the identification information was garbled, etc.
(d) The account may have been fraudulent, and there is no such person.
(e) The account may have been fraudulent, resulting from id theft.

Note that any of the above causes may result in "debt" that can be purchased cheaply. The business of those debt collectors who operate in this part of the market is to turn that lead into gold economically. That implies "collecting" efficiently, presumably more "efficiently" that the party that sold the debt. That efficiency may be achieved in several ways:

1) Automate generation of dunning letters, use autodialers for calling, computers for tracking everything, and access to databases and credit reports to locate debtors.
2) Operate in a low income area where labor is cheap.
3) Use relatively unskilled, uneducated labor. They cost less, cause less trouble, and will do what you tell them.
4) Train your collectors on how to skirt the law, deflecting consumer attempts to dispute or request validation.
5) Encourage agressive collection, that may skirt the boundaries of law. It is effective, and as long as it is only on the phone, harder to prove in court.
6) Don't waste money on trying to identity the correct debtor. If dunning, calling, and reporting is cheap, wasted dunning, calling, and reporting is also cheap. It's the consumer's job to dispute, not your job to catch errors. With no liability for errors, why waste money. If some sucker pays you for a debt that is not his, that's their fault.
7) Don't waste money on validation. OCs typically charge the CA for providing validation, and in many cases the debts may be sold with no right to obtain access to those records. Instead, send a copy of a cheap "affidavit" from your own employee claiming she knows the debt is accurate.
8) If you get caught, claim it was a bona fide error, or that the consumer's suit is "frivolous" and they will have to pay your attorney's fees if they don't drop it, or anything you want. In the worste case, just give him a few hundred dollars, and the problem is solved. And consumer's seldom sue anyway.