DV'd and Texas Law?

[Diamond in the Rough]

I have dv'd about 12 CAs and have the green cards. All CA's signed for them about 10 days ago. I have been monitoring cr with privacy guard and there is no mention on these CA trade lines that say the item is being disputed by consumer. State law says:

§ 392.202. CORRECTION OF THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR'S OR

CREDIT BUREAU'S FILES. (a) An individual who disputes the

accuracy of an item that is in a third-party debt collector's or

credit bureau's file on the individual and that relates to a debt

being collected by the third-party debt collector may notify in

writing the third-party debt collector of the inaccuracy. The

third-party debt collector shall make a written record of the

dispute. If the third-party debt collector does not report

information related to the dispute to a credit bureau, the

third-party debt collector shall cease collection efforts until an

investigation of the dispute described by Subsections (-(e)

determines the accurate amount of the debt, if any. If the

third-party debt collector reports information related to the

dispute to a credit bureau, the reporting third-party debt

collector shall initiate an investigation of the dispute described

by Subsections (-(e) and shall cease collection efforts until the

investigation determines the accurate amount of the debt, if any.

This section does not affect the application of Chapter 20,

Business & Commerce Code, to a third-party debt collector subject

to that chapter.

( Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of

inaccuracy is received, a third-party debt collector who initiates

an investigation shall send a written statement to the individual:

(1) denying the inaccuracy;

(2) admitting the inaccuracy; or

(3) stating that the third-party debt collector has

not had sufficient time to complete an investigation of the

inaccuracy.

© If the third-party debt collector admits that the item

is inaccurate under Subsection (, the third-party debt collector

shall:

(1) not later than the fifth business day after the

date of the admission, correct the item in the relevant file; and

(2) immediately cease collection efforts related to

the portion of the debt that was found to be inaccurate and on

correction of the item send, to each person who has previously

received a report from the third-party debt collector containing

the inaccurate information, notice of the inaccuracy and a copy of

an accurate report.

(d) If the third-party debt collector states that there has

not been sufficient time to complete an investigation, the

third-party debt collector shall immediately:

(1) change the item in the relevant file as requested

by the individual;

(2) send to each person who previously received the

report containing the information a notice that is equivalent to a

notice under Subsection © and a copy of the changed report; and

(3) cease collection efforts.

(e) On completion by the third-party debt collector of the

investigation, the third-party debt collector shall inform the

individual of the determination of whether the item is accurate or

inaccurate. If the third-party debt collector determines that the

information was accurate, the third-party debt collector may again

report that information and resume collection efforts.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended

by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 851, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

The Civil remedies are as follows:

§ 392.403. CIVIL REMEDIES. (a) A person may sue for:

(1) injunctive relief to prevent or restrain a

violation of this chapter; and

(2) actual damages sustained as a result of a

violation of this chapter.

( A person who successfully maintains an action under

Subsection (a) is entitled to attorney's fees reasonably related to

the amount of work performed and costs.

© On a finding by a court that an action under this section

was brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court

shall award the defendant attorney's fees reasonably related to the

work performed and costs.

(d) If the attorney general reasonably believes that a

person is violating or is about to violate this chapter, the

attorney general may bring an action in the name of this state

against the person to restrain or enjoin the person from violating

this chapter.

(e) A person who successfully maintains an action under this

section for violation of Section 392.101, 392.202, or 392.301(a)(3)

is entitled to not less than $100 for each violation of this

chapter.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

§ 392.404. REMEDIES UNDER OTHER LAW. (a) A violation

of this chapter is a deceptive trade practice under Subchapter E,

Chapter 17, Business & Commerce Code, and is actionable under that

subchapter.

( This chapter does not affect or alter a remedy at law or

in equity otherwise available to a debtor, creditor, governmental

entity, or other legal entity.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

I have a friendly disagreement with jlynn a mod on aoc forum. Jlynn states that I may be taking this law "somewhat" out of context and she points out to me that it does start with "( Not later than the 30th day" . She states that I have to give CA's thiry days before I can consider any violations. My rebuttal:

Jlynn, let me reword the law to read : "Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of inaccuracy is received, If the third-party debt collector determines that the information was accurate, the third-party debt collector may again report that information and resume collection efforts. "

Herein is my disagreement with jlynn. : The mere words "may again" imply that at some point in time, which in this case would be when dispute is recieved, the CA had to stop reporting TL to CRA. AND "resume collection efforts" MIGHT be implying that the "may again report", constitutes collection activity. Can someone tell me if I am way off base. Hope one of the Legal Eagles here can respond.

[luckyduck]

(d) If the third-party debt collector states that there has

not been sufficient time to complete an investigation, the

third-party debt collector shall immediately:

(1) change the item in the relevant file as requested

by the individual;

(2) send to each person who previously received the

report containing the information a notice that is equivalent to a

notice under Subsection © and a copy of the changed report; and

(3) cease collection efforts.

(e) On completion by the third-party debt collector of the

investigation, the third-party debt collector shall inform the

individual of the determination of whether the item is accurate or

inaccurate. If the third-party debt collector determines that the

information was accurate, the third-party debt collector may again

report that information and resume collection efforts.

You are right in one regard, wrong in another. You must give them 30 days to respond, before you have any complaints. If they can't verify within 30 days, then once they determine they can't verify they have to remove the info and stop collecting, whether that's 30 days or less than 30 days. Then, once they are able to verify, regardless of how long that takes, they can begin collecting and reporting again. Does that help clear it up

[Josh Mcgrath]

Diamond in the rough, I have never, ever had a CA follow the texas FDCPA laws regarding the "no later than the 30 days..". I am currently about to sue Attention LLC for 3 or more violations. Texas FDCPA is one of them.

[Diamond in the Rough]

You Lucky Duck you! I can see the light! Thanks for pointing that part out to me. If you take it at face value, whoever wrote this Law should have used slightly different wording as it appears to contradict itself in that "has not been suffiient time...........shall immediately remove the item" indicating that the CA did not have to change the item until time was up and the "may again" , indicating that at some point in time it was barred. Josh, good luck to you and let us know how it went.

[luckyduck]

"has not been suffiient time...........shall immediately remove the item"

is not really bad wording. Possibly confusing, but not bad. They shall "immediately" remove the item once they determine 30 days has not been sufficient time to do the investigation. So, if they determine it at day 1, then they need to remove it at day 1. If they don't determine it until day 30, the law gives them that long to make the determination. So, time is guided by facts (which you don't have, only the CA does), but regardless of the facts cannot exceed 30 days. You have to assume that if they haven't responded by day 29, that they still haven't made the determination. On day 31, you can kick some booty if you didn't get response by day 30.

[Josh Mcgrath]

"has not been suffiient time...........shall immediately remove the item"

On day 31, you can kick some booty if you didn't get response by day 30.

Exactly! And as above...never, ever has a CA abided by this law that I have DV'd.

OT: But anyone know if it is a 1k buck per violation on the Texas FDCPA?

[c m chase]

I should have moved to Texas for a year or so. Damn.

[luckyduck]

I moved to IN (no consumer protection) from TX. Arrrggghhh!!! If I'd have known then......

JM - don't know about per violation, but definitely worth doing some research on.