• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Neo9 last won the day on January 12 2019

Neo9 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Neo9

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Los Angeles, CA
  1. I see. Very unusual that all of the info on this forum espouses a process which includes writing dispute letters to the data furnishers. As such, I wasn't "trying to make" anything "much more complicated", but rather, was following the instructions provided by this site itself and members who represent themselves as an authority on the subjects. I've spoken to a few attorneys who have also provided advice consistent with those instructions. Which is why I took the time to ask you those very specific questions, to which you did not respond. FCRA 623 requires you to notify a data furnisher that they are publishing inaccurate information, and I've spoken to attorneys over the years who have told me this must be done, in order to establish a private right to action. This is not accurate?
  2. Missed this reply last month. I wasn't worried but more so interested specifically in whether their attempts to collect when I called in to them would be considered a violation (in addition to the obvious violations).
  3. Let me take a step back here in case I'm on the wrong path: Which law(s) require a data furnisher to provide accurate information to the credit bureaus? What happens if they refuse to correct inaccurate information and what can be done about it? When I reference "623 dispute" I am referring to having disputed accuracy of trade line data with the CRAs, having it come back verified, and then submitting a subsequent dispute letter to the data furnisher. My question to Amerikaner, regarding his "623 Primer" sticky, was specific to the dispute letter being sent to a data furnisher after having already completed the dispute process with the CRA. My question as to whether generic dispute letters, without offering specifics about the inaccuracy, when disputing to the data furnisher under 623 satisfied the statutory guidelines for complying with the clauses governing a dispute with the furnisher. (after having disputed with the CRA).
  4. Thanks for taking the time to provide this info. It's helpful to me because I am exploring the FCRA right now. Currently, I have a data furnisher that made a complete mess of my payment history. At one particular bureau, they are misreporting balance figures, payment amounts, and payment status in a dozen separate instances. This is the reason why I was looking toward FCRA disputes and quoting 623. When you mention it's about useless for consumers, is it really because people tend to just dispute things that are totally accurate? I'm really curious about your insight on that point because it seems people do use FCRA 623 successfully when data furnishers are not reporting correctly and continue to mis-report after being notified. FCRA 611 isn't something I see discussed much at all. I will read it.
  5. Hey Amerikaner, I noticed in your 623 Primer link in your signature it seems to indicate you prefer to send general 623 disputes without any specific information into the data points being disputed. I wanted to know if I misunderstood this, as I am seeking to understand 623 better, and noticed in the statutes it indicates the consumer should "identify the specific information being disputed" and offer "basis for the dispute". Does simply informing them the trade line is inaccurate satisfy the identification of specific information being disputed?
  6. Thanks for this insight. I was always under the impression the generic response satisfied the statutory requirement under 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii). The clause seems generic stating that they need only provide a "description of the procedure used to verify..." and "business name, address, and telephone number if reasonably available." Those generic responses seem to provide a general enough description, and I've seen so many differing opinions on this subject, I'd be interested to learn more for my own credit work as to what the precedents are. Your time and consideration is genuinely appreciated.
  7. Thanks for sharing this additional insight. Are you meaning to dispute the inaccurate information under FCRA 623, but while also including ample documentation to support the claim? I'm wondering if inclusion of supporting documents under such a dispute are beneficial as they will actually be considered by the CRA or the CA/OC when investigating a dispute or because it shows good faith later down the road when pursuing a civil action or in arbitration. Thanks again for your time and consideration in sharing your insights. The comprehensive info you've put together on arbitration is incredible. I've been trying to absorb all of the material.
  8. For the OP's benefit, which alternative courses of action would you recommend he consider? It's also possible a 623 dispute is motivated in correcting inaccurate reporting across multiple bureaus. OC's and CA's are fumble fingers when it comes to making sure trade lines are reporting accurately and consistently across all credit bureaus. Violations of which can be utilized as leverage to eventually get things removed down the road. As BV80 suggested, OP should provide additional details on what they are disputing, what's being reported at which bureaus, and what their ultimate motivations are.
  9. There you go again, making yourself look even more foolish. I used to post here back in 2008-2009 under the username QM07 or something similar. I'll look it up. One of the older members here helped me defend Pro Se in a case brought against me by Citibank, and successfully had the case dismissed. I'm entirely interested in open discourse with those who disagree. Which is why I engaged other members, like Harry Seaward, and told him I respect his opinions and viewpoints on the matter and onboarded some of his recommendations. I just prefer to interact with people who's comments are based in fact and who have properly read my thread. Your comments, however, showed a complete neglect to comprehend the facts I outlined and your comments were more based on emotions and defending predatory collection agency practices. Notice how you completely failed to address any of my counterpoints? It's because you can't. You have no legs to stand on, so instead, you disregard our debate and move on to attempting to accuse me of being someone who was banned from the forum previously to relieve yourself of having to address the very valid points I've raised about your motivations as well as your lack of factual basis. This account also isn't that new. I've been following the forums again for 10 months now and have been posting various questions and topics for discussion, all of which are new observations based on the current state of affairs, and have been really worth considering (including electronic dunning letters via e-mail, which is a new trend). It's become very obvious you're more interested in convincing people to give up or give in then to defend themselves. And you're definitely not about fighting back against predators, that's for sure. It's OK. I know how people, like yourself, who's identity is invested in being a "regular" member of the forum can get when they are challenged. Can't handle it -- so you devolve the debate into something unrelated to the topic at hand. I would be interested for you to actually respond to the very important points I raised about your erroneous assumptions and false claims. Of course, you can't. You're one of those people who aren't into logical debate. You're the only only interested in being agreed with. You like to make declarations and state your opinion, and then retreat when challenged. I've seen it from you in every thread. Except most of the posters who come here for help aren't equipped or experienced enough to counteract your intimidation and discouragement. They never learned the things this forum used to teach before it was taken over by different interests. It is really interesting to see that you don't believe debt collectors should have to enforce policies and stop collecting debts after they've received disputes. And, to actually validate the fees and charges they are attempting to collect. You essentially advocate for collectors not to have to follow the FDCPA at all, except in the most extreme scenarios of abuse. Really, really sad.
  10. Yes, of course it was. I knew they would ignore it because collection agencies are vile, parasitic organizations that only follow the law if they think there will be documented evidence proving they violated. They never acknowledge faxes.
  11. I was just thinking "when will Clydesmom come in with a bunch of factually incorrect, irrelevant remarks to try and smash another thread." Right on queue. "By your own admission when you sent the certified letter it crossed with their second letter. They had no way of knowing the certified letter was en route when then mailed theirs. That gives them a bona-fide error defense." WRONG. I never claimed their second letter to be a violation. Why don't you try reading the thread one more time. This time, more carefully. More importantly, they had already received verbal dispute on the phone in addition to two successful fax transmissions during normal business hours. You're a real advocate for the collection agencies, almost like an amateur collection agency attorney, really arguing to excuse them from their legal obligations to validate. "YOU are not an unsophisticated consumer." WRONG. The law states that all matters must be evaluated using the "least sophisticated consumer" standard. This means all claims must be evaluated as if the interaction was transpiring with an unsophisticated consumer . You really shouldn't even be offering people advice on this forum if you are ignorant to that point of the law. "By your own admission you used a third party service to fax the response HOPING they would ignore it and you have no proof they received it. So they can claim it was never sent. " WRONG. First off, this point is irrelevant to the question I posed about the verbal attempts to collect on most recent phone call. Nonetheless, the company is executing a sworn affidavit attesting to the completion of the transmission, not once but twice, during normal business hours. A facsimile technician will attest to the fact that, if a completed transmission is indicated on the senders' side, it was received by the recipient -- especially during business hours. Depositions will further pose questions to prove this. Ultimately, it has no real relevance to the thread and was just part of the timeline, but serves to point out once again, you are wrong. "Then you intentionally called them to bait them into further violations." WRONG. I called them to find out why they sent me this second letter because I still hadn't received any of the requested information in response to the first one. Their response to my call is their responsibility. "When you intentionally under take actions that are meant to bait a collection agency into violating the law in the hopes that they pay you money not to protect your rights it isn't a scam it is just disgusting and should be illegal." Wow. You sound like a real debt collector/banking advocate. Maybe you should take a look at the disgusting, predatory business practices these companies have levied against the American people for decades. Or, maybe you're on someones' payroll? The laws are written this way to protect the unsophisticated consumer, but only sophisticated people are capable of enforcing them, and if its common practice for a company like the one in question, they should be punished. Who said anything about doing it to collect money? You know what they say about people who assume! "What you and ilk like you don't consider is that filing a frivolous lawsuit based on your veiled attempts at forcing a violation to simply get money not to protect your rights erodes the rights of consumers who were violated. Enough claims like yours will lead lawmakers to water down the laws in order to stop them. We have seen it from a former member who like you thought it was a game and was all over forums bragging about it. Their site no longer exists and at least 2 years before it shut down their "hero" disappeared from public commentary after he lost his case in Federal court and got slapped with the other side's fees and costs to the tune of almost $60k. Worse he set a precedent showing there are consumers like you perverting the law for profit not to protect consumer rights." >> You couldn't be more off -base or irrational. Way to waste a bunch of time building an argument around fallacious assumptions. Obviously, you don't understand the definition of "frivolous". Multiple, documented attempts to request validation of a debt, and multiple documented failures to continue attempting to collect while overshadowing a consumers' rights wouldn't be considered frivolous. I'll report back after I win. More importantly: imagine if they just followed the law, and after receiving a dispute, stopped attempting to collect on alleged debts until they validated? Imagine if they actually behaved responsibly, and made proper notations on an account, such that if a consumer called in to ask about second letter, they just followed the law and didn't try and pressure them into paying an un-validated alleged debt? What you should consider disgusting is their continued aversion toward the law and consumer rights simply because they can afford to pay out lawsuits on violations due to the fact that they make more revenue violating the law then they do getting called out for it. THAT'S WHAT'S DISGUSTING. AND SO IS YOUR SHAMEFUL ATTEMPT TO DEFEND PREDATORY PRACTICES.
  12. I believe the laws were crafted to provide statutory damages when violated. A violation is a violation. The scenarios you describe don't fall under "statutory damages". Those would be physical, emotional, or job-related damages, which the provisions provide for *in addition* to statutory damages. Of course, case law supports the claim. You're really speaking to the spirit of the law with what you say -- which really doesn't exist these days in any industry or scenario. The FDCPA and any state laws modeled after it aren't designed exclusively for the scenarios you described and handle simple failures to validate before continuing collection activity or calling past certain hours of the day. The ones you've described are the most egregious and extreme, and usually result in 5-figure settlements. Attempting to collect a debt without validating it is a violation. Plenty of collections attorneys take these cases and win. Nor is it a slap in the face to people who have endured more extreme scenarios. We're all in the same boat. Some people get it worse then others, and they have stronger cases that yield higher settlements. Some states even provide for $1,000 per violation. If they choose not to validate after receiving a dispute, and continue to collect, that's misleading and overshadowing to an unsophisticated consumer. It's my right under the law to have the debt validated before further collection activity transpires. By definition, they've violated my rights as provided by law. Your logic seems a bit flawed to suggest that I am somehow "slapping in the face" people who have been violated much harder. The spirit of the forum has changed a lot in the last 10 years. Nowadays it seems like a few older members beating up on newbies and trying to dissuade anyone who doesn't have a no-brainer slam-dunk case to give up or give-in. I hear from some old members all the good progress is made back-channeling and not in the actual forum these days because of it. I imagine someone bought the website from the original owner a while back and use it for other purposes now based on what I'm seeing. I just read another thread on method of verification where you were quite rude and mean to some guy simply because he was overly-verbose and excessive in his writings to the credit bureaus in requesting the method of verification for an account, a person clearly under stress and needing guidance, not to be made to feel shame or inadequate. Really sad to see.
  13. You're referring to the initial dunning letter or the second letter? I believe the initial letter did contain the standard disclosure. I'll have to dig it up.
  14. It's unfair to continue to confuse me by making repeated statements on the phone that I owe them money, and pressuring me to set up payment arrangements, when they haven't validated or proven they are authorized to collect on the alleged debt. They confused me by sending a second collection letter, which overshadows my rights to validation, and when I called them on the phone to clarify what this was all about, the aggressive phone rep kept trying to pressure me into paying the debt and continually made unequivocal statements that I have a credit card and have a balance being owed and needed to resolve the matter. Further overshadowing my rights. They even verbally acknowledged that I had disputed the debt, and still made attempts to collect.