I always thought that if you validate after a CA has already placed an account on your report that they have to list that account as under dispute but that is apparently not so. This is straight from the FTC opinion list on the FCRA. Section 807(8) prohibits "Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person [false] credit information . . ., including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed." 2. Post-report dispute. When a debt collector learns of a dispute after reporting the debt to a credit bureau, the dispute need not also be reported.
First of all, this is pertaining to the FDCPA not the FCRA. Secondly, you need to take the whole rule and read it. What it is saying is that the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed, IS a violation. A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof. (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or (B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt. (3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney. (4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action. (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. (6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to -- (A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or (B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title. (7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer. (8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.
Rule 623 of the FCRA states as follows(and ca's are also subject to the FCRA): (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.
Okay so if they are reporting that Customer Cannot locate consumer fall into any violations???? They have sent me a letter...they know my address AND they called me the other night...now not thinking about this I don;t have a way to record calls. ALSO since I have started my credit repair quest they have added YET another entry on my reports. Can they do that???? Now I have 2 from them. RMA and Sears all for the same account
Great catch Pic, I've been racking my brain trying to figure out where I saw that. I've been looking for it. It does appear that if the CA gets a dispute from the debtor and has already reported to the CRA, they need NOT report again, the fact that the item is being disputed. I just was not going to say anything until I could find what you just posted. But the date on the commentary is: December 13, 1988 What the hell is a matter with these people. There is a Staff opinion too on it, where the last sentence eludes to this. Something to the affect that "as long as the debt has not yet been reported, it cannot be reported without the dispute notation. I noticed that this implied 2 things; That if the debt had not yet been reported, after the CA receives a dispute, he may NOW report it as long as the "in dispute" notation is included That if the debt has already been reported the CA need not report again, the fact that the debt IS disputed So we know that via FCRA, the CRA is required to list as in dispute, but the FDCPA doesn't require the CA to do so. Or, put another way, it's the CRA's job to list it in dispute but NOT the CA, if it had been previously reported. Or - It's this provision of the FCRA that applies to both the CA AND the CRA. Which is it LKH??? I've been wondering also if we all have this right. shew, my head is spinning. lol
That's it. Keep looking for trouble. If a collection account that is already on your report, is disputed by the consumer to the ca, they must report it as in dispute. Period. If you doubt this, call the ftc and ask.
Also, read this ftc opinion letter. It is the "cass" letter. Pay close attention to the last sentence of item #2 where it says "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." 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
Thank you. I don't know where those initial quotes came from, but if they are from '88, they should be taken down from their site. To my knowledge, there has never been any question that a ca must note the acct as in dispute when contacted by a consumer. Think about how many lawsuits from this board alone, have been filed and won because of that violation, amonst others of course.
WOW - yeah. The smartest thing to do then is when you get THE FIRST dunning latter from a CA, immediately send a val. demand, like SAME DAY! LOL
I'll give you this much, Butch dude ;-), There's a letter that says instead of noting an account as disputed it's appropriate as well to just cease reporting until the documentation is provided, then can re-report. Sassy
Well I am glad that is settled in our favor. I use the dispute thing in my intent to sues so I just wanted to make sure it does not get used against me if some crap lawyer pulls it out of his piehole. The funny thing is I have never had a Ca ever report to the CRA that it is in dispute so this is like automatically a couple violations right there.
