Neo9

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Neo9

  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
  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 afte
  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 be
  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
  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 incr
  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 motivati
  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 ar
  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 t
  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
  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 nee
  15. Your points are valid and understood. I agree. Your cautionary tale was also helpful. It just felt more like a slap-back void any details. It seems like the guy in that particular case was in fact harassing then, and making multiple phone calls leaving clearly baited messages, in attempt to trick the CA. If the FDCPA allows for fee-shifting then it sounds like he/she got what they deserved. I was more interested in determining whether collection attempts on outbound calls to the CA were relevant under statutes. I understand the way I framed my mode of thought makes it obvious where
  16. A dispute letter was sent in response to their first dunning letter. I am not calling and leaving voice messages requesting a call back. They sent me a second letter, after I had already disputed the alleged debt, so I called them to inquire as to why they sent said letter. Really interesting to see the people on this forum would deem that a "scam".
  17. Without knowing the details of their case I don't see how that's relevant or constructive. I can't imagine the courts would determine that making a phone call in response to receiving a letter would be grounds for what you just described. Would you care to share the details of the aforementioned case? I tried using the search tool for "$1 award" but nothing resulted.
  18. How does one quantify damages from receiving a letter in the mail from a CA without the CA having validated? I am genuinely curious to know how that aspect of FDCPA claims are handled. Technically, I called them to find out why they wrote me this letter. We discussed on the phone the fact that I had previously disputed their allegations. The phone rep wasn't interested in doing much but reading their scripts and further attempting to collect. My understanding from a quick reading of Nolo is that these violations are statutory damages. Violation of the statute itself is sufficient
  19. Interested to get thoughts on the following scenario I am experimenting with: I receive dunning letter from collection agency. I use a third-party company faxing service to send DV letter via fax knowing agency will ignore it. I do this twice over the course of the first three weeks of the 30-day response period to allow them to call repeatedly and engage me on the phone a number of times. I'm difficult for them to handle on the phone so they actually stop calling me. I sent certified letter disputing validity of debt on week three. CA sends me a second letter attempting to c
  20. Hi All, I'm noticing these days that collection agencies refuse any type of meaningful disclosure without obtaining sensitive personal information from you if you miss their call and call them back. The pattern I see now is dozens of calls, no voice messages ever left. If you call back and identify yourself by full name, they indicate they require your birthdate or SSN in order to provide any meaningful disclosure as to who they are calling from, on behalf of, and why. I don't remember CAs doing this in the past but understand their logic in doing so. It creates quite the co
  21. @BV80 I'll try to post statutes from the California law tomorrow when time permits. There is one in particular which actually requires any specific cancellation terms or conditions to be clearly and prominently displayed during the point of sale, among other key tenets of the transaction. So, without further research, on the surface I think there's an argument to be made that any such requirements can't just be buried inside 7 pages of legal jargon and fine print. We'll see, I could be wrong.
  22. @BV80 Thanks for sharing more information on the topic, it's appreciated as you've raised some more interesting points. After a quick look, I have been unable to locate a court ruling on the issue. It will require further research. >> Will do the same and report back anything of value. Here’s my take. The first line of 1692g of the FDCPA states “Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt...” Courts have ruled that an initial communication must be directly with a consumer. That’s why an entry on o
  23. ROSCA ... most states, including CA, also have varying laws governing recur bill transactions. I'll dig a little deeper and share what I find.