This CA thinks I'm a LAWYER!

[mnorwood]

I sent a DV to Credit Protection a few months ago, they (surprise) never responded. I finally got around to sending a violation letter on Nov 5. I quoted much FDCPA in this letter.

I received a letter from them today (from Vickie K Grant, Exec. asst., no less) Stating:

Dear mnorwood,

We are in receipt of your correspondance regarding your CLIENTS account. We have been unable to find any accounts to correspond with the information you provided in your letter. Please provide our office with the full account #, your CLIENTS ssn, or a copy of our original notice for identification.

Sincerely Vicki K Grant, exec asst

This is unbelievable! First of all the account # was in the letter, they already have my ssn since they are reporting on my credit report, and I never received any "original" notice from them!

I will be filing AG, and FTC complaints tonight!

[Leadhead]

Unfortunately, a CA simply not responding to a DV does not constitute any FDCPA violations, unless they continue collection activities after being DV'd.

[mnorwood]

They are still reporting, without notice of dispute.

[CRDTNogood]

The reporting of a dispute is only when you've disputed with the CRA too. Remember the FCRA and what you need to do, before the private right of action. Unless you're in California...

[nolo]

mnorwood,

CRDTnogood is in error and you are correct.

Here is how the FDCPA reads, see item number 8

§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

(2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

( any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to --

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

( become subject to any practice prohibited by this title.

(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.

8 Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

(9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval.

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.

(12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value.

(13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process.

(14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization.

(15) The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer.

(16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by section 603(f) of this Act.

[luckyduck]

(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.

You don't have to dispute with the CRA before the CA is required to mark it as disputed. If the CA received your dispute, they have to mark it as disputed.

However, the CA is not required to delete it if it's in dispute. If you have not gotten validation, and dispute with the CRA, the CA cannot verify it, and therefore it must be deleted.

[luckyduck]

here's something kinda funny. I've got about 8 CAs in dispute. Only one has marked as disputed. Between the FDCPA and the FCRA I could probably get all my debt paid off just by going after that one little mistake. However, right now I'm disputing with CRAs, and I'll wait until after they verify the debts to even start to take any action. Rack up the violations boys. He He. I do not believe it is possible for a CA to go through an entire debt validation/cra dispute without violating. I just don't think they can do it.

[nolo]

here's something kinda funny. I've got about 8 CAs in dispute. Only one has marked as disputed. Between the FDCPA and the FCRA I could probably get all my debt paid off just by going after that one little mistake. However, right now I'm disputing with CRAs, and I'll wait until after they verify the debts to even start to take any action. Rack up the violations boys. He He. I do not believe it is possible for a CA to go through an entire debt validation/cra dispute without violating. I just don't think they can do it.

Oh, they CAN do it. The problem is, without being able to count on consumer ignorance and fear, they can't rake in the big bucks. There isn't enough money in collecting within the law. That would require skill, competence, and at least a double digit IQ. Most collectors are simply not equiped for it.

[luckyduck]

That would require skill, competence, and at least a double digit IQ. Most collectors are simply not equiped for it

I think that was my point. Of course they CAN stay within the laws. However, it seems they CANNOT force themselves, or instill the proper restraints on themselves to do so.

[mnorwood]

I also thought that this section applied:

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

( If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

Isn't there an FTC opinion letter that listing on a credit report is "continued collection activity" ? Am I correct?

[mnorwood]

(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.

lucky, please tell me what section you quoted this from I have been looking for this and just can't seem to put my eye on it, thanks!

[luckyduck]

FCRA 623 (a)(3)

It is not something that you can sue for, but is a law they must abide by. State and Federal authorities are the only ones who can enforce or pursue this one.

In accordance with both the FDCPA and the FCRA they must report the account as disputed if it has already been reported. Nowhere does it say that they have to delete an account because it is disputed.

If they reported the account after they received your notice, and before validating, that's a big no no. If they reported before you disputed, all they have to do is mark it as disputed until they validate. In that case, if you dispute with the CRAs and they verify the account before validating for you it's a big no no.

Also, I have a collector who couldn't find the account under my name or the account number. It was their account, but they had transferred it while my dispute letter was in transit. I thought I got off lucky cause they couldn't find it only to later realize (from my reports) that someone else had taken over the account, and i had to start over again. Just something to watch for.

[luckyduck]

Isn't there an FTC opinion letter that listing on a credit report is "continued collection activity" ? Am I correct?

Listing the account and verifying the account are both collection activities. Leaving an account that is already listed is not as far as I know a collection activity.

Focus on failure to mark as disputed as required by the FDCPA and FCRA. Dispute with the CRAs and wait for them to verify, and add that to your list as continued collection activity. You could jump on it now, but my personal preference is to allow them to rack up a few to show blatant disregard and wipe out any chance of them pulling "small clerical error".

If you have the copy of the letter you sent with the acct # and the letter they sent you, then send those copies to the CRAs. That might be enough right there to get them deleted.

[mnorwood]

Here is a link to the letter I was talking about

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

Thanks guys, I feel I have a better understanding now.

[luckyduck]

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.

If they already reported it, then received the dispute, they must mark it as disputed. It does not say they have to remove it.

we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g( 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).

The key lies in whether it had already been reported before they received the dispute. If it had already been reported, the only obligation they have is to mark it as disputed.

However, as I've said before, if they did not report it until after they received the dispute, then they have continued collection activity.

It seems to me as of now, the most they are required to do is mark it as disputed, which you state they have not done. They are in violation of both FDCPA and FCRA.

If you dispute with the CRA, and they verify, they will have committed another violation.

Depending on the size of the debt, you might want to slap them with an ITS. for failing to mark as disputed. If nothing else, they may mark it correctly at least.

[mnorwood]

Yeah thats the same thing I got from the letter

It was already being reported before I did dv, thats how I found out about them, but they have never reported as disputed.

I have disputed this account with the CRA, just did it again for CHOD, so if I get back as verified again, I will have that much more ammo.

I did complain to AG on 11-5, so I am going to give them about another week to see what happens, then I just might send and ITS. Anybody have a good one? This will be my first ITS!!!I'm pretty excited.

[luckyduck]

Wait a minute. They reported, and that's how you found out about the collector. they never contacted you??

They never sent you your mini miranda. Ooh shame on them. That's a violation too.

[gdouglaslee]

I sent a DV to Credit Protection a few months ago, they (surprise) never responded. I finally got around to sending a violation letter on Nov 5. I quoted much FDCPA in this letter.

I received a letter from them today (from Vickie K Grant, Exec. asst., no less)

I will be filing AG, and FTC complaints tonight!

You should be suing them, then file a complaint with the AG and FTC.

When a consumer disputes a debt in a timely manner (within the 30 days). The CA must provide validation or cease collection. If you don't have validation within 90 days, you need to sue.

The biggest mistake people make is sending a DV and not following through with a lawsuit. If you're not going to file a lawsuit, then don't send a DV, since it won't make any difference.

Too many people send DVs then don't follow through. The TL languishes in dispute on the CRs for 5, 6, 7, 8 months a year, who knows, then the CA sues them, usually right before the SOL expires. So what good does it do to DV?

There's nothing in the FDCPA that says you have to beg for validation. Either they have it or they don't. If they haven't responded to your DV in 90 days, don't give them 8 more months to get validation, file suit, get the debt voided and the TL removed and collect your money.

[mnorwood]

UPDATE>>>>>>>> Just received my CHOD results........... this came back as verified from EX,TU, and EQ.

[goodmank]

Sue away

[luckyduck]

And let me guess, They never marked it as disputed. Here you go:

Dear dipsh*t:

On, xx/xx/2004, i noticed that you had left a derogatory mark on my three credit reports. On XX/XX/2004, I wrote you a letter disputing this alleged account. This is not my account, and I never heard of your company until it appeared on my credit reports.

On XX/XX/2004, you received said dispute letter. On XX/XX/2004, you sent me a letter stating that you had no such account information on file. I then disputed the accounts with the credit reporting agencies. Upon receipt of the dispute form from all three credit reporting agencies, namely, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Unioin, you verified that these accounts were being reported accurately on my reports and verified that these accounts belonged to me.

Since informing me, in response to my letter, that no such file exists in your office, you accrued several violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The following are the violations you have accrued, and those which I am prepared to take legal action against you for:

1. Violation of FDCPA 807( 8) failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed

2. Three Violations of FCRA 623((1)(A) failing to conduct an investigation upon notice of dispute with three credit bureaus.

3. Three violations of FCRA 623((1)( failing to review all relevant information provided by three credit reporting agencies in relation to my disputes

4. Three violations of FCRA 623((1)© failing to report results of investigation to the three credit reporting agencies with whom I filed a dispute

5. Three violations of FCRA 623((1)(D) failing to report results of investigation to all other credit reporting agencies that you furnished the information to upon each of the three disputes.

6. Three violations of FCRA 623((1)(E) failing to modify, delete, or block item of information from three credit reports within 30 days when this information was not verified by an investigation prompted by the disputes.

7. Prior to such aforementioned letter, you failed to provide me with notice as required under FDCPA of my rights to dispute this debt, within five days of indirectly communicating with me via listing information on my credit reports.

You are now in my debt. At a fair and lawful calculation of $1000 per violation accrued and outlined, you owe me $17,000. As a matter of convenience, I am willing to make you a one time settlement offer in the amount of $(you name your price, I'd go with $10K).

Of course, it will be wise for you to consider the actual damages caused by your failure to inform me of my rights to dispute this alleged debt. Additionally, you may wish to consider the additional legal fees, consumption of staff resources, punitive damages, and the possibility of additional claims such as harassment, defamation of character, and various other applicable state and federal statutory violations. You may literally be saving yourself tens of thousands of dollars by simply accepting this settlement offer within a reasonably short time period.

I reserve my right to file suit at any time, as lawfully permissible. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make your decisions within a short time period. As my patience is wearing thin, I am unable to guarantee any amount of time for which this offer will stand. Therefore, I also inform you that I may reject your acceptance of this offer at any time and follow through with legal process through the court systems.

Please guide yourself accordingly.

Sincerely and forever yours,

Cranky Debtor.

Now, that last part is going to depend on your state. If your state requires that you give a 30 days notice of ITS, and you plan to file in state court, then you need to give them 30 days.

If anyone else wants to chime in here, feel free.

[gdouglaslee]

Now, that last part is going to depend on your state. If your state requires that you give a 30 days notice of ITS, and you plan to file in state court, then you need to give them 30 days.

If anyone else wants to chime in here, feel free.

I used to have a list of those states but can't find it now. There's also the issue that many small claims courts require an ITS while the higher courts don't.

[mnorwood]

Thanks for the letter. I changed it around some and sent out on 01/05/2005. I gave them 15 days, so we'll see. I have been talking to a lawyer, in case I need to go that route. Thanks for everyones input!

edited to add: just checked post office website, they received on 01/07, so they got until the 22 nd (maybe a happy birthday check will be in the mail, since the 23rd is my b-day!) I am oddly so excited about this.