Should I send dv letter to OC?

[mzjazzyazz]

DH has 2 repo balances that the SOL has expired on. Both credit unions continue to verify to the CRA's. I am trying to figure out the way to go about having these removed. What's next?

[workinninetofive]

Do you have the sample forms cd or the book? there is an oc letter in it.

[mzjazzyazz]

No, I don't.

[gprncss]

I don't have the book or CD either sorry, but wanted to remind you that you cannot DV the OC, only CAs.

Also keep in mind that just because the SOL has passed does not mean they cannot keep reporting it, will stay on CR for 7 years.

I know you said you have been trying to get it off, have you tried, picking something else about the account such as incorrect account number or incorrect balance or incorrect limit etc? Sometimes that tactic works.

[admin]

BUT, you can ask the credit unions to provide you with documentation that you were late, didn't pay, etc. Once you dispute with the CRAs, you can now go to the OC and ask for proof under the new FACTA regulations. If they can't provide it, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to sue.

[mzjazzyazz]

I read under the stick for Cali Law (on page 5)that is a violation to keep reporting on a debt that is past the SOL because that is considered attempting to collect. They are misrepresenting the legal status of this debt. Legally, they cant get a cent from me, so by reporting it to the CRA's they are trying to. I have read that a few people have gotten their SOL debts removed off their reports by complaing to the BBB and such. So why wouldnt I be able to do the same? I live in California, and I thought that OC's were bound to the same laws as CA.

[mzjazzyazz]

retmar said:

As you are aware, a negative item can be reported up to 7 years as cited in the FCRA, unless State Law says different. There are a couple of States who only allow negative to remain for 5 years. Therefore, what is going on is that California says it is a violation to even attempt collection on a timebarred debt. According to the FTC, reporting is considered active continued collection activity in regards to FDCPA 809(. If this is true, it should also stand for any other section. Therefore, when a CA verifies a timebarred debt with the CRA, they are continuing collection on a timebarred debt which means they are misrepresenting the legal status of a debt as described in FDCPA 807(2)(A). I'm sure you saw the post regarding this, along with the letter and how to, but, as I have noted before, this has not always worked. Some did, but, myself, it did not work. The whole idea was to hopefully get the TL deleted by convincing the CA they could be held liable. But, the biggest part of this is it has never been decided in court, so, until then, we are at the mercy of these ADUB's

[adminppdotcom]

Can anyone provide the Cal Code section for this?

[J_Snow]

http://www.dca.ca.gov/legal/dc_2.pdf

[adminppdotcom]

I read under the stick for Cali Law (on page 5)that is a violation to keep reporting on a debt that is past the SOL because that is considered attempting to collect. They are misrepresenting the legal status of this debt. Legally, they cant get a cent from me, so by reporting it to the CRA's they are trying to. I have read that a few people have gotten their SOL debts removed off their reports by complaing to the BBB and such. So why wouldnt I be able to do the same? I live in California, and I thought that OC's were bound to the same laws as CA.

In CA they are. But not ALL sections of the FDCPA:

CA CIVIL CODE: 1788.2 (a) Definitions and rules of construction set forth in this

section are applicable for the purpose of this title.

( The term "debt collection" means any act or practice in

connection with the collection of consumer debts.

© The term "debt collector" means any person who, in the

ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or

herself or others, engages in debt collection. The term includes any

person who composes and sells, or offers to compose and sell, forms,

letters, and other collection media used or intended to be used for

debt collection, but does not include an attorney or counselor at

law.

CA CIVIL CODE 1788.17.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, every

debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt

shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1692b to 1692j,

inclusive, of, and shall be subject to the remedies in Section 1692k

of, Title 15 of the United States Code. However, subsection (11) of

Section 1692e and Section 1692g shall not apply to any person

specified in paragraphs (A) and ( of subsection (6) of Section

1692a of Title 15 of the United States Code or that person's

principal. The references to federal codes in this section refer to

those codes as they read January 1, 2001.

*** This part -"However, subsection (11) of Section 1692e and Section 1692g shall not apply to any person specified in paragraphs (A) and ( of subsection (6) of Section 1692a of Title 15 of the United States Code or that person's principal. " is the FCPA VALIDATION section, and the section requiring the "this is an attempt to collect a debt blah blah" section.

So yes, most of the FDCA applies to CA original creditors, just not validation and some required notices.

Therefore, what is going on is that California says it is a violation to even attempt collection on a timebarred debt. According to the FTC, reporting is considered active continued collection activity in regards to FDCPA 809(. If this is true, it should also stand for any other section

CA Law EXEMPTS original creditors from FDCPA (809). This is where this would fail if they caught on ha ha

The broad definition of "communication" does not apply to other sections though, thats the bad part. The FTC, in the Cass letter, is saying reporting DURING the 30day validation period after the debt collector receives a TIMELY request for verification is reporting considered continued collection activity. The FTC is not saying reporting at ANYTIME is.