Jump to content

Is this legal??!!


pgorman30
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe someone can help me out here. I have been fighting and fighting and I final got a collection account from The Bureaus deleted! Yay! I get a new copy of my credit report and there is a new CA on there, with the same account number and same balance, Summit Collections. If The Bureaus couldn't validate the debt how can they transfer it to some one else? I haven't receieved anything from these people as of yet and they have supposedly been reporting for 2.5 months. The kicker is that are NOT licensed or bonded to do buisness in CT (both are needed). Is this allowable...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that the CRAs only report what has been given to them. What has happened is the original CA has re-sold the debt and now its with the new agency. Your going to have to DV the new agency. Sorry, but it starts all over again.

I dont remember reading anything about re-selling uncollectible or time-barred debt but you might search around for something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there anything i can call them on since they haven't sent me anything and have reporting for 2 months? i got no statement of original creditor or Mini-Miranda, or anything at all. I was really shocked when i saw this entry, i have never heard of these guys!! I want to send them a very firm letter basically telling them to get lost and get off my CR :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not having heard of them really means nothing. Is this a time-barred debt? You can point out to them that reporting to a CRA is considered a collection activity by the FTC and that they are in violation of the FDCPA by not contacting you and notifying you of your rights (mini-miranda) within the required time frame before beginning collection activity.

I think you should start with a DV letter that includes a limited C&D to only contact you by mail. Check their licensing situation and include that if it applies. If you need help with your letter, let me know.

oops sorry-you already said they are not licensed so get that into the letter too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, the OC on this is Citi, and it is something i am disputing with them as 'not mine'. The SOL in CT is 6 years and ran earlier this year, Jan actually, so yes, it is time-barred. I can put together a DV with limited C&D, but i was wondering if failure to contact a 'customer' would qualify as an FDCPA violation... I just don't understand why they haven't sent me anything, how do they expect to get paid if they never inform me that they have this debt that supposedly belongs to me???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its possible they just havent gotten around to it yet. Keep in mind, that even though it is time-barred, its still legal for them to attempt collection. SOL just means they cant sue you for not paying. Unless they have re-aged the debt (and they probably have) then it will fall off after 7 years anyway.

Make sure you demand a complete original accounting from the OC in your DV letter. That will establish the true DOLA. If they cannot produce this information they cannot validate and must remove the entry. If you want to get busy with them, include ITS comments and threaten to report them to the ACA, FTC, BBB, State AG, etc for their violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J_Snow,

I think i could use a little help with the remainder of this letter. I'm having a hard time deciding exactly what to tell them to do. I know i want to request validation, because i know they can't provide it, and i also want to tell them to please piss off, since they aren't licensed in CT anyway, and most importantly i want them to delete this reference. This what i have so far:

Summit Collections

P.O. Box 703107

Dallas, TX 75370

Date: 20 Jul 2004

RE: Request for Validation

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

I have recently obtained a copy of my credit report and was very surprised to see an entry from your company. The reason that this entry surprised me is that I have never heard of you, or more importantly, from you. According to the information posted on my credit report you have been reporting since May 2004. Now it is my understanding that under FDCPA, all Collection Agencies are required to inform consumers of their rights under this statute and allow 30 days for the consumer to dispute any information that may be inaccurate. Failing to supply me with an initial communication stating original creditor, balance owed, interest applied, and a statement of my rights under FDCPA is, in itself, a violation of sec 809 (a). You may consider this letter a dispute and a demand for validation. I am requesting a copy of a signed contractual vehicle, bearing my signature, a complete payment history dating back to the original creditor, and an explanation of how you came into possession of this alleged debt.

Thats what i've got... care to make any suggestions on how it should continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than likely, the previous CA gave up on any efforts to collect from you. They then placed the account in their "sell" box, if they purchased it, or returned to OC, if assigned, then it went on it's merry way to the next one. They have a legal right to report without first notifying the consumer, unless State law says different, such as California does.

Your letter is sufficient to get things started, but, if you have any copies of past correspondence from you to the other CA, including other DV's or C&D's, be sure to enclose copies of this. Your intent is to make them aware you have been disputing this account for a period of time without ever receiving proof of liability. This does not inlcude any communication with the CRA's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It most certainly is collection activity if they report to the CRAs before providing validation. They take it upon themselves to alert any potential creditor that "this collection is valid, don't issue this guy credit" before providing you with proper validation?

I'd call them out on that any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Doc's answered your question for me. Therefore, will just add some comments.

As was stated, reporting to a CRA is considered collection activity. When a consumer responds for validation, the CA must cease all activity until such time as debt is proven. This means that if the debt is reported, they must add the notation "Disputed" to the TL. If they have not reported yet, they can not report it until the debt is proven.

Technically, the same applies to continued verifying of a timebarred debt with a CRA if disputed by consumer. BUT, no matter what we think, we can find no case law or anything to prove our theory. It is an issue that needs to be argued in a court.

As to reporting without notifying the consumer, the CA has a right to report without notifying the consumer, unless State Law says different, such as California. The reporting of a collection is another tool used by the CA to cause the consumer to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT, no matter what we think, we can find no case law or anything to prove our theory. It is an issue that needs to be argued in a court.

Retmar, you continue to give excellent advice (you described the process perfectly), but I must humbly direct you to the FTC opinon:

II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?

FTC: As you know, Section 1692g(B) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. 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. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e[8] to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.

IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(B): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e[8], when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?"

FTC: Yes. 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. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e[8].

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can report it as a collection before notifying you. They can't do it during DV.

However, the FDCPA states they must give you the 'mini miranda' within 5 days of intial contact. Wouldn't the initial contact be reporting the collection to the CRA's? Didn't get a letter from them after they reported it? Ooops - violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc, your reference is sound, but, if you read it closely, you will find it relates only to FDCPA 809(B) while I was referring to FDCPA 807(2)(A) in that paragraph. Until such time as a court addresses the argument that continued verifying of a timebarred debt with a CRA is illegal, we cannot cause the TL to be deleted as there is no proof. Remember, the FCRA says a collection account can be reported for 7 yrs, or as State allows. The reference you quoted is one of the main reasons I created that thread a few months ago regarding this issue. Therefore, until such time as a court addresses this in itself, we are in limbo.

I will add that I honestly believe that many of the sections are misunderstood as to their actual intent. An example is FDCPA 809(B). Most CA's assume that if they do not receive the DV within 30 days, they do not have to honor one sent after, but, when you add ©, there is clear intention the consumer never forfeits their rights to dispute. I want to believe the same for FDCPA 807(2)(A) that a CA is forbidden to verify a timebarred debt with a CRA., no matter the FCRA. Another way to look at it is that the two were designed to work in unison, but, we can all agree they don't as so many times, we find a conflict of sorts in a particular situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See your point perfectly, retmar.

But, if it's illegal for the CA to collect on a time-barred debt, it's illegal because they cannot engage in "collection activities" on such a debt - this would (in theory) include reporting and verifying to the CRA's (as indicated in the FTC opinion that implies reporting to the CRA's when they are forbidden to is a violation of the FDCPA).

So, given I agree with you 100% that there needs to be a successful argument that specifically addresses this exact scenario in order for it to be easy as 1-2-3 to get a deletion, there should be no reason why we should have to wait. Why not, for the time being, put my 'scenario' into action and shoot for a deletion based on tying together the laws and opinions already out there?

IMO, 'time-barred' is just one more example of a time they are not to move forward on a collection. I would use my previous argument all day long - half of them don't even know the laws to begin with (which is why half of them break them so blatantly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though the law says a CA cannot misrepresent the legal status of a debt, it does not say they must stop ALL communication. They still have a right to send an occasional letter to you. From there, the consumer would have to pursue in court for harassment, if they want to stop all communication and the CA refuses to honor a C&D. Otherwise, a C&D will send them packing. Where we still have the problem is that the SOL letter we were promoting in the past to cause a timebarred TL to be deleted actually created mixed results. Some were lucky, while others, myself included, were not. Mine were updated as being reported correctly. CRA would not honor the claim in any fashion, so automatically sent a dispute to the CA. Fortunately, through other avenues, mine have been deleted with the CA and OC getting spanked hard by the Government.

Remember, a debt never disappears. A CA may send you a Dunning Letter for eternity in hopes you will cede and pay them. This includes any and all accrued fees and interest, if allowed. In short, they may send a statement monthly. But, what they cannot do is threaten you. This is where another argument lies. What is considered an "attempt"? What I mean is California says it is a violation to "even attempt" to collect on a timebarred debt. Therefore, is a monthly statement an attempt? I would say yes. But, some would say it isn't because there is no reference to "Legal Status" as a "normal" collection letter says. Would this also be considered if the letter contains the verbiage "This letter is from - - - ".

Like you, I also say continued collection activity is continued collection activity, no matter the circumstances or the relationship to which section. It is what it is. And, until the courts address this particular argument and decide, this will always lead to one's own interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if we could just get this into court, Recovering Attorney.

I just want to add that I went into the "Is There A Lawyer - - " section and bumped my thread from February of this year about reporting of timebarred debts. Please read and comment.

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.