Jump to content

SOL, C&D, verification????


ceowens
 Share

Recommended Posts

let's say that a debt is out of the SOL. And, I send the CA a C&D. NOw, if they violate the C&D they are in trouble, correct? So, is continuing to verify to the CRA considered a collection attempt? What I am getting at is this.....

Can I send this CA a C&D for the crappy little $85 medical collection, then dispute as not mine and get a delete??? Or can they verify all they want??? Even out of the SOL, and with a C&D in place????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to explain it in English this time..... :wink:

It seems that I read somewhere that it is a violation for a CA to continue collections activity after you have ceased them and notified them that a debt is time barred.. And, one of the FTC opinion letters mentions that updating / verifying to the CRA is considered a collection attempt since they have no real leverage except to maliciously damage your credit in hopes for payment. So, if you cease a CA on a time barred debt, then dispute to CRA, it should be deleted because the CA cannot legally verify. Or, am I dreaming?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah....again, I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Unless you use another line of thought on here (I think from JSnow) that an out of SOL debt is 'legally uncollectable'.

If it were that easy to C&D someone to get it off your report, none of us would be here. Unless I'm just misunderstanding.

I'm pretty sure the only reason it'd be banned from being reported is of course if you send DV and they THEN place the account on your report or if the SOL for reporting is up. Do the 1/2 punch anyway....the least you'd do is rack up violations on them for ammo.

Why not go after these creepies like you did with Arrow? Get some emails going. I just sent my second round....got one delete today, looking for another! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the subjects I created a discussion on and we could not determine for sure since there is no actual case law to back it up. Any of us can create a good argument on this, but, again, there is no proof. I will try and explain so as to put some light on this.

The law reads that a negative TL can remain on a CR for up to 7 yrs (unless a State says less than 7). That is written in clear form and can not be argued. Now, FDCPA 807(2)(A) says that the character, amount, or legal status cannot be falsely represented. Therefore, if a debt is timebarred, they have no legal recourse to the debt. In some States, it is a violation to even attempt collection of a timebarred debt, California being one of them. Next, you look at the FTC letters regarding FDCPA 809 where they say it is a violation to continue collection activity on a disputed debt until debt is proven valid, and that continued reporting to the CRA is considered continued activity. As we will all agree, if it is considered as in the letters regarding validation, it should also be recognized when a debt is timebarred. Not one of us will argue that. BUT, since this has never been brought before the courts, it cannot be considered true. It is one of my pet peeves and should be brought before the courts. From others who have tried the SOL letter to the CRA, it has gone about 50/50. Myself, it did not work. My biggest complaint is that, in my opinion, the FCRA and FDCPA were written to work in unison, but don't, and this is one particular area where they contradict each other.

To include, a CA or OC can, for eternity, send a dunning letter regarding an unpaid debt past the SOL. The only stipulations are that the letters cannot threaten or demand payment, they can only request. They cannot overshadow any laws where the least sophisticated person would tend to believe they were at risk. One could assume that if the letters arrived weekly it would constitute harassment whereas one a month would be acceptable. Not sure exactly where you would draw the line on this. Therefore, if a consumer sent a C&D to a CA and informed them the debt is timebarred and to go away, the CA should be smart, save postage, and go away. Not always. Some will counter with their one allowed letter under FDCPA 805 threatening to sue unless paid, but, they are few. Most will just go away without responding, and then some will send the letter saying they have ceased activity. Each will handle the C&D differently from the other. This is why you must assure you sent it CMRR to protect yourself from the few who still violate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the subjects I created a discussion on and we could not determine for sure since there is no actual case law to back it up. Any of us can create a good argument on this, but, again, there is no proof. I will try and explain so as to put some light on this.

The law reads that a negative TL can remain on a CR for up to 7 yrs (unless a State says less than 7). That is written in clear form and can not be argued. Now, FDCPA 807(2)(A) says that the character, amount, or legal status cannot be falsely represented. Therefore, if a debt is timebarred, they have no legal recourse to the debt. In some States, it is a violation to even attempt collection of a timebarred debt, California being one of them. Next, you look at the FTC letters regarding FDCPA 809 where they say it is a violation to continue collection activity on a disputed debt until debt is proven valid, and that continued reporting to the CRA is considered continued activity. As we will all agree, if it is considered as in the letters regarding validation, it should also be recognized when a debt is timebarred. Not one of us will argue that. BUT, since this has never been brought before the courts, it cannot be considered true. It is one of my pet peeves and should be brought before the courts. From others who have tried the SOL letter to the CRA, it has gone about 50/50. Myself, it did not work. My biggest complaint is that, in my opinion, the FCRA and FDCPA were written to work in unison, but don't, and this is one particular area where they contradict each other.

To include, a CA or OC can, for eternity, send a dunning letter regarding an unpaid debt past the SOL. The only stipulations are that the letters cannot threaten or demand payment, they can only request. They cannot overshadow any laws where the least sophisticated person would tend to believe they were at risk. One could assume that if the letters arrived weekly it would constitute harassment whereas one a month would be acceptable. Not sure exactly where you would draw the line on this. Therefore, if a consumer sent a C&D to a CA and informed them the debt is timebarred and to go away, the CA should be smart, save postage, and go away. Not always. Some will counter with their one allowed letter under FDCPA 805 threatening to sue unless paid, but, they are few. Most will just go away without responding, and then some will send the letter saying they have ceased activity. Each will handle the C&D differently from the other. This is why you must assure you sent it CMRR to protect yourself from the few who still violate.

Thanks Retmar! I was beginning to believe I was completely nuts! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.