Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

C&D does nothing to prevent communications with others, such as reporting to a CRA. Nor does it prevent them from "communicating" with you to, for example, to serve you notice that they are suing. About the only use seems to be to request that they only contact you in writing, or to break off communications on out of SOL debts where all they can do is harrass you on the phone. It may start a paper trail to document that harassment, and that they are aware of it, should further action be necessary.

 

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Reporting to a CRA IS a communication.

Also - to report a "debt" which is in dispute may create additional problems for them.

 

Why aren't Cease and Desist Letters a good idea to send to Collection Agencies? I was thinking of doing just that with my current situation, but I don't think they validated the debt properly. See my thread: CA Validated Debt?: What Next? To read more.

 

I'm flying with ya, ontrack!!!!!!!!

To say that reporting is a communication (with the consumer) as an absolute is misleading and not fair to the ones asking.

To say that reporting is a communication (with the consumer) that triggers the mini-miranda be provided in writing within 5 days or it is an FDCPA violation is also misleading and not an absolute.

It's a good argument, but that is all it is.

Sassy

 

Because a cease communication demand doesn't have anything to do with their ability to continue to collect.

If you send a cease communication and are within the SOL for enforcement, you've reduced their options to pursuing legal action against you.

Sassy

 

First, I don't recall saying anything about this as being a communication [with the consumer].

I said; it was a communication - PERIOD

As indeed it is.

Communication as defined in FDCPA, which triggers the 5 day notice requirement.

Granted, no case law on the 5 day notice requirement, but if we could establish that reporting IS a communication, all that is required then is to READ the statute.


Which, for some, may well be an insurmountable requirement.



Whether or not THIS communication is actionable, post C&D, is admittedly an open question. The language in the statute indicates that a C&D command a cessation in communication with the consumer. A different issue from my above referenced argument.




.

 

On second thought YES, Spanky, I see your question. While busily defending my position I neglected to answer you.

Whether this communication is actionable or not is open for debate, perhaps.

Let's try and catch a few more violations on these guy's before pursuing a legal remedy.



.

 

Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

 

Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

Cass: December 23, 1997

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.

.

 

Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

I wanted to reaffirm my question that was related to C&D.

If a letter was sent stating pursuant to the FDCPA this debt is past the SOL for your to legally enforce, do not further contact me in regards to this debt.

would the above statement be considered a C&D for the Ca to abide by or does the actual words C&D have to be stated.

 

Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

Of course it qualifies Fun.

You're not expected to know the technicalities of law.

WE are least sophisticated consumers.


As long as your message is clear, you're good to go.

 

Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

Same source:

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.

Everything relevant in Cass is specific to an initial communication having been received and disputed by the consumer.

I don't disagree with you, you know I don't. It's a good argument and especially so in state's that specifically require information be provided and with the available internet technology and monitoring services.

To advise others it absolutely is a violation and have them pursue it, isn't fair, I say -- albiet they should do their homework. Say why you think so and let them decide to go forward based on it.

Fact is though, they are communicating with the CRA, not a consumer. And, considering your report as an initial communication would shift the responsibility for the mini-miranda to the CRA's -- they aren't covered by the FDCPA.

However, if you can find something that shows communication is required with a consumer -- meaning, a CA attempting to collect is required to communicate and provide consumers with their mini-miranda rights -- that would make this argument a slam dunk. I think that was the intent, mandatory disclosure of dispute rights, but nothing requires any communication at all.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

I'm one of those that agrees with this theory, but in my defense, I think I try to clarify there is NOTHING so far to back me up

THe FDCPA defines the word communication as the conveying of information directly or indirectly thru any medium. I don't believe when expanding the theory that it shifts the burden of the mini miranda to the CRA in any way. 809 specifically spells out that it is the debt collector that has 5 days after the initial communication to send your dispute rights.

Here's another thought on this. The FDCPA specifically spells out who debt collectors can communicate with without our permission -
(b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

One might could argue that since Congress gave debt collectors the right to communicate with exactly two third parties specific to the debtor (their attorney and CRAs) then would it be fair to state that the debt collector is communicating "indirectly thru a medium", one in which there is reasonable expectation that the consumer would receive the communication?

 

Sullivan v. Equifax -- Reporting to a CRA is a communication...

Note: I haven't personally read the ruling, yet, I need to install Acrobat after I nuked my hard drive, but I snagged a copy of it when I came accross it.

 

I get a blank page when I try to pull it up in Acrobat

 

Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

How would I know that I'm within the SOL for enforcement? I'm new here and I don't know much..please tell me what SOL means in plain terms? If you don't want to pay the collection agency how do you get them off your back if you don't send them a Cease and Desist Letter?

 

Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

SOL = Statute of Limitations

That is the length of time for which they have time to sue you and prevail. It varies from state to state. Ex - TX is 4 years for an open ended account (credit card). So if I quit paying in 3/04, they have until 3/08 to file suit (and prevail). SOL is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to raise it.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Communication ? Butch, Hiding??

I'm flying with ya, JLynn and nodding!!!

If the communication with a CRA were considered the initial communication that triggered the 5 day requirement for the mini-miranda, the mini-miranda should then be provided in writing within 5 days of that communication.

I agree that reporting is a communication, I just can't connect the dots between a communication (no communication is required) and the initial communication with the consumer that triggers the transmission of the mini-miranda rights within 5 days, specifically required to be sent by the CA to the consumer.

The 30-days to dispute is triggered by the receipt of the mini-miranda rights by the consumer. The CA's have no way of knowing when we receive a copy of our reports or don't, or, if ever -- they've no input or control over that either. I agree they could assume the information being sent to the CRA was received by the CRA, but not the consumer.

It's a strict liability statute and with the words, within 5 days of the initial communication with the consumer, it's clear what was meant. Had they meant any communication, initial communication and with the consumer wouldn't be specified.

There are FTC letters saying information can be reported, but not without a dispute notation, if and when something is ever disputed.

I would love to agree that finding out from our reports that something has been reported for the first time is a violation. However, the flip side to that is what for consumers??? Not us that know necessarily, but the millions that don't know. A more defined dispute period that wouldn't be in our best interests. The CRA's already are required to send a summary of our rights as consumers, that though, isn't the same as what is specifically required of CA's.

Actually, I'm thinking the new FCRA amendments being implemented (FACTA) does require notification of new information having been reported (or, maybe I've not had enough coffee yet and I'm completely whacked, I'm going to go check right now). Those provisions may provide some additional dots that could be connected.

Sassy