Jump to content

Demand DV and CA sends account to someone else?


legend
 Share

Recommended Posts

What happens to the DV process when the CA you DV'd sends the collection back to the OC, or on to another CA?

Example: I DV'd MRS, they sent it back to sears? Does MRS now NOT have to DV? If they dont, then do they have to REMOVE their TL?

If they keep their TL on my credit can I still DV them?

Also Sherman moved my collection to Alegis after I DV'd them, Alegis moved it to Forster & Garbus after I DV'd them, and now I DV'd Forster and Garbage. All have signed for their green cards etc. I havent seen this question posted yet. Please advise ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens to the DV process when the CA you DV'd sends the collection back to the OC, or on to another CA?

Example: I DV'd MRS, they sent it back to sears? Does MRS now NOT have to DV? If they dont, then do they have to REMOVE their TL?

If they keep their TL on my credit can I still DV them?

Also Sherman moved my collection to Alegis after I DV'd them, Alegis moved it to Forster & Garbus after I DV'd them, and now I DV'd Forster and Garbage. All have signed for their green cards etc. I havent seen this question posted yet. Please advise ^_^

There is no obligation under the FDCPA that they must validate. But they are required to stop all collection activity if they choose to abandon the collection. There is also no obligation for them to remove the tradeline once they choose to abandon.

Once they return it to the OC, you can dispute the tradeline with the CRA. The only way it can come back verified is if the CA continues collection activity without validating...and you bust them for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens to the DV process when the CA you DV'd sends the collection back to the OC, or on to another CA?

Example: I DV'd MRS, they sent it back to sears? Does MRS now NOT have to DV? If they dont, then do they have to REMOVE their TL?

If they keep their TL on my credit can I still DV them?

Also Sherman moved my collection to Alegis after I DV'd them, Alegis moved it to Forster & Garbus after I DV'd them, and now I DV'd Forster and Garbage. All have signed for their green cards etc. I havent seen this question posted yet. Please advise ^_^

There is no obligation under the FDCPA that they must validate. But they are required to stop all collection activity if they choose to abandon the collection. There is also no obligation for them to remove the tradeline once they choose to abandon.

Once they return it to the OC, you can dispute the tradeline with the CRA. The only way it can come back verified is if the CA continues collection activity without validating Huh? the CRA would try to verify with CA even after the CA sent it back to the OC? you lost me here? ...and you bust them for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK lets take it through step-by-step in a "perfect world" scenario:

The OC sends it to the CA for collection

The CA puts a tradeline on your report

The CA contacts you

You send the DV to the CA

The CA lists tradeline as disputed (violation if they didn't)

The CA decides not to bother validating and returns it to the OC thereby abandoning collection.

Now at this point, the CA has abandonded the collection. They aren't doing anything with it and they have not validated nor do they intend to.

If you send a dispute to the CRA as "not mine" at this point. The CRA is going to contact the CA to verify the tradeline the CA added to your report. Since the CA has not validated, they can't verify to the CRA without triggering an FDCPA violation for continuing collections (FTC letter "Cass"). So the CRA has to delete the tradeline.

Of course, if it comes back verified, someone broke the law. Either the CRA didn't actually do an investigation; or, the CA verified the tradeline without providing validation. One of them pays up $1000.

EDIT: This could also be an FCRA violation since the CA has returned the account to the OC and no longer has a legal right to collect on it, therefore the tradeline could be deemed false reporting if it remains on the report. I don't have any case-law to support this assertion, but it's a logical extension of the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Methuss I am just getting to this post. Thank you for the in depth step by step, it helped me understand much more clear the chain of events that SHOULD traspire.

I am curious as to the last item myself, it doesnt seem appropriate for a CA who abandones a collection to be able to continue reporting, only because I have a collection currently that has been sold to 4 different agencies after DV, and now I have 4 CA + OC reporting the same account. It actually added a page and a half to my report!

Im surprised theres no case law for this one. Thanx :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the CA is a collection Attorney collecting for the CA? If you send DV letter to the CA attorney, they then validate it with the CA. (There is no tradeline with the CA attorney) If they cannot validate it what then gets removed? The CA tradeline? Do you then DV the CA also?

Validation must be obtained by the CA from the OC and sent to the consumer by the CA. Lawyers collecting on debts are defined as CAs under the law. They get no exemption.

If a collection agency passes off an account to a lawyer that is not employed by the CA, then the lawyer is another CA that must be DVd seperately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The account that I have been working on I disputed the CA attorney and they then disputed my Midland CA account. So there is no need to DV Midland? I have disputed Midland " not mine" so that is all that needs to be done at this point? Now that will come off then it will go back to the OC, then they will go again with another collector. If it goes back to the OC do you ever DV them to get it off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attorney disputing with Midland is BS. Midland is just another CA, not the OC, so whatever they get from Midland is not validation anyways.

You are correct about it going back to the OC only to be handed off to another CA and the process starts all over again. Unfortunately, that's the way it works. Until...SoL

There is some legal cases around (I have not found a "published" one yet) about time-barred debt being transferred to subsequent CAs. Apparently, if it is timebarred, OCs or CAs are not supposed to hand it off to anyone else for collection because it would be misrepresenting the legal status of the debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one account Methuss has been in 5 or 6 CA's hands. Why would such companies purchase a non collectable account? No one has pursued this account and they keep sending it back to the OC. So I disputed as not mine, sent them the certified letter, gave them the 10 days. Now I will watch it go to another CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one account Methuss has been in 5 or 6 CA's hands. Why would such companies purchase a non collectable account? No one has pursued this account and they keep sending it back to the OC. So I disputed as not mine, sent them the certified letter, gave them the 10 days. Now I will watch it go to another CA.

If the SoL has not expired, then that's the way it is. The OC is assigning, not selling, the account. Therefore what they are doing is perfectly legal so long as it is not time-barred.

It sucks, but Congress has deemed this to be the appropriate balance between creditor's rights and consumer's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a waste of time to DV an OC.

Partially true. You cannot use the FDCPA to force an OC to turn over validation. But under simple contract law, they have an obligation to respond to documentation demands. Just don't quote the FDCPA since it doesn't apply to them**. If they refuse 3 documentation demands, then you can show a court of law that they have been asked to provide proof, have a moral and legal obligation to do so, and have failed to do so. This can be used to defeat any suit they present or to move for evidence they try to submit to be quashed (This is where doctrine of estoppel comes in).

**An OC forfeits their exclusion from the FDCPA when they allow a CA to claim they are directly employed by the OC, or if the OC uses any forms, letters, or verbal communication that leads the consumer to believe that a 3rd party collector is involved when it is really the OC. This is called the "other name" exception. A good example is the OC sending a letter from "Card Services" and not stating the name of the OC. In this case the OC becomes a debt collector under the FDCPA. If they use the name "Card Services of MBNA" then they retain their exemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a waste of time to DV an OC.

Partially true. You cannot use the FDCPA to force an OC to turn over validation. But under simple contract law, they have an obligation to respond to documentation demands. Just don't quote the FDCPA since it doesn't apply to them**. If they refuse 3 documentation demands, then you can show a court of law that they have been asked to provide proof, have a moral and legal obligation to do so, and have failed to do so. This can be used to defeat any suit they present or to move for evidence they try to submit to be quashed (This is where doctrine of estoppel comes in).

**An OC forfeits their exclusion from the FDCPA when they allow a CA to claim they are directly employed by the OC, or if the OC uses any forms, letters, or verbal communication that leads the consumer to believe that a 3rd party collector is involved when it is really the OC. This is called the "other name" exception. A good example is the OC sending a letter from "Card Services" and not stating the name of the OC. In this case the OC becomes a debt collector under the FDCPA. If they use the name "Card Services of MBNA" then they retain their exemption.

I'll amend my statement. It's a waste of time to DV an OC under the FDCPA umbrella if they are exempt from the FDCPA.

I didn't consider contract law and FDCPA exemptions. However, an OC exempt from the FDCPA can continue collection activity despite receiving a DV. Where one may be able to hook them is if they receive a DV (or dispute) letter, and they don't report the account to the CRA's as disputed. I'd DV them CMRRR and then pull my reports. If the account isn't in dispute status, I'll nail 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey shellmis64! Methuss; I had sent dispute letters to an OC and I did not mention FDCPA. I asked them for strict proof of written agreement, documentation of my signature and account general ledgers demonstrating how the money in my credit account was originated. I know the OC doesn't have to validate (unless in court), and this OC totally ignores my letters and responds with request for me to call them. I am assuming they do not have all the documentation that I have requested. I have sent them two request letters, should I send one more? These were sent CMRR by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I may have the OC then, Vrandon? The OC that I DV'd, they have not sent any documentation back to me, nor have they listed the account being disputed with all three of the CRA's. It has been four months since I first DV'd them. So,, should I sit back and wait to see if they file suit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I may have the OC then, Vrandon? The OC that I DV'd, they have not sent any documentation back to me, nor have they listed the account being disputed with all three of the CRA's. It has been four months since I first DV'd them. So,, should I sit back and wait to see if they file suit?

If they haven't listed the account as in dispute, then they have violated FCRA §623:

(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.

I would send an ITS letter giving them 7 days to send in writing what you requested 4 months ago, and send you $1,000 for each credit report the account is listed. If someone calls you, hang up on them without saying a word. They will have your letter; make them stick to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they haven't listed the account as in dispute, then they have violated FCRA §623:

(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.

I would send an ITS letter giving them 7 days to send in writing what you requested 4 months ago, and send you $1,000 for each credit report the account is listed. If someone calls you, hang up on them without saying a word. They will have your letter; make them stick to it.

on a joint liability account, if i (as in personally) have disputed with the OC, and they have reported to the CRA on DHs CR, do they still need to list it as "in dispute"? he hasnt disputed with them, but they know the account is disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to rain on your parade, but this will get you nowhere fast:

(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.

Completeness and accuracy is what we're after, BUT, what you failed to read thoroughly is this: "... to any consumer reporting agency" .

An OC is NOT a 'consumer reporting agency', they are furnishers of the information. Disputing with the OC is NOT the same as disputing with the CRA's and it doesn't mean the OC has to mark the account as 'in dispute', that part of the statute ONLY refers to the CREDIT BUREAUS.

I think you're getting yourself confused between the 2 laws and you simply cannot mix and match them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how I got the status quite learned? Any body tell us how your status changes? I don't mind. I am not really quite but I am learning. So back to this thread. Basically the only way that you can really get the OC off your CRA is the SOL but you can try to dispute it as not mine, then if it come back then dispute the amount if it fails as not mine? But my question is when it goes back to the OC they keep passing it to another CA why do they not just sue themselves if they have the means and the info on you? specially if it's been through so many hands.

Really, we are just asking for the information that they have on us. I have learned now through experiance and since I have been on this board Never pay the CA, never, never! I have paid two and still paying and I am trying to do the right thing by paying these debts but they are screwing me over, reporting it.. adding new TL's its driving me insane! So now I am going to fight back and get this done right. My rights! I deserve it! Ahmen!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(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.

LadynRed, to me that says furnisher of information, the OC IS the furnisher, so therefore doesnt that put the responsibility upon them, if they receive a dispute to also report to the CRA that the account is disputed?

schellmis63, it appears you become "Quite Learned" when you post 100 times.

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.