law Suit - suggestions and review please.

[Sultan]

Bay Area Credit Service, Inc.

Richard B. Hunter, President

50 Airport Pkwy, Suite 100

San Jose, CA 95110-3722

Phone: (408) 235-1819

Fax: (408) 235-1810

www.bayareacredit.com

http://www.bbbsilicon.org/commonreport.html?compid=215051&code=C6

I think they are JDP's and they proceed even when a debt cannot be validated.

I filed a complaint with the FTC and received a response with a complaint reference number.

I have also filed a complaint with Consumer Affairs in Cali, I'm working on a letter to the Attorney Gen, and Secretary of State.

So that's is the scoop, now the questions put simply are:

What violations to I have them on?

Should I send them an ITS letter?

Should I just file the suit and no ITS?

Should I give them a chance to delete the account which I immediately placed under dispute with EX the same day it re-appeared.

If they get real brain dead and decide to report the bogus account to TU and EQ, does this mean more willful violations?

[Xanathos]

Others will chime in with various violations before I come back to offer an in depth analysis of what I just skimmed over, but the thing that stuck out to me more than anything (to the point that I actually went back and read it) was the "we have determined your dispute to be frivolous or irrelevant" portion of the letter they sent you.

They're a CA...the "frivolous or irrelevant" declaration is available only to CRA's...they don't have the AUTHORITY to determine a dispute frivolous.

That's the first one I saw, at any rate...I'm sure it got worse from there, but I had to start speedreading.

[divemedic]

Actually, you are now incorrect. They are trying to use the frivolous defence of the new FACTA legislation. 623(a)(8)(F)

I don't think this helps them though, because I still don't think there is a private right of action to 623(a) anyway, and it certainly does not relieve them of FDCPA violations.

However, if the CA's claim your DV was untimely and the dispute frivolous under FCRA, all of the methods we use here could effectively be gutted, as CA's, furnishers and JDB's would effectively be immune from the FCRA and FDCPA. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Coupled with the new bankruptcy regulations, consumers are now at the mercy of the credit industry.

[willingtocope]

Wow, looking at their web site, it sounds like they may be a couple of guys in a garage that are really trying really hard to puff up their image. I wonder if IBM, and CISCO and SUN know that their logos appear on these guys pages.

And, not to belittle the folks that need work, but their association with the is local government is in "meaningful employment opportunities for clients in the CalWORKs Employment Services Program".

It sure looks like they could use a lesson in Collections. There's an awful lot of smoke there and very little substance.

I'd suggest you take em to court...except that I bet there's not enough there to pay whatever you would win.

Bottom line...if you've already sent them two DV type letters, then maybe just set back and see what happens from the complaints you've lodged. I don't quite understand what the "fraud alert" has to do with money in escrow, but if these airheads are somehow costing you money, I think you should find an FDCPA /FCRA attorney in the area and go after them.

[Sultan]

Actually, you are now incorrect. They are trying to use the frivolous defence of the new FACTA legislation. 623(a)(8)(F)

I don't think this helps them though, because I still don't think there is a private right of action to 623(a) anyway, and it certainly does not relieve them of FDCPA violations.

However, if the CA's claim your DV was untimely and the dispute frivolous under FCRA, all of the methods we use here could effectively be gutted, as CA's, furnishers and JDB's would effectively be immune from the FCRA and FDCPA. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Coupled with the new bankruptcy regulations, consumers are now at the mercy of the credit industry.

OK, but based on their letter its complete double talk, look they say it’s frivolous on one hand and then on the next they state that they require me to fill out their form, which is a note that looks like a 3 year old typed. That is basically what I told them in so many words in my response I also mentioned their carelessness of not sealing a confidential mailing. I intend to sue them because they purchased the debt and illegally solicited payment for it and disregarded my dispute of the debt, furthermore they reported the debt to EX, and did not list it as disputed. I intend to hold some serious liability over this companies head for damages because of the fact that so much is riding on the line for me at this time.

My EX score should actually now reflect 622, from 739. and that would have actually risen a bit higher due to removal of inquiries.

I'm thinking i'll just file the paperwork, still not sure if I should send an ITS letter and wait to see what they will do with the current dispute with EX, when they receive notice of the dispute from EX if they haven't already.

[codename_fortyseven]

Umm, yeah I am definately in agreement with Xan. Their "we deemed this request to be frivilous" was my first indication it was amateur night. Potentially, you could argue that they are trying to misrepresent themselves as a CRA by saying that. Ask yourself would the least sophisticated consumer believe that they are a credit bureau? I don't know if that would stick, but at any rate, they don't have the authority to deem anything as frivilous.

A dispute is just that, a disagreement. They can deem it irrevelevant or frivious all they want and refuse to investiage. That's fine, and they are well within their rights to do so. They just can't make any attempt to collect on the account until they DO provide validate the account. Maybe hit em with the 1-2 punch to rack up a few more FCRA violations.

They go on to say that their basis for this information is because YOU haven't given THEM sufficient information to investigate. That's funny. Debtors are suppose to disprove accounts now? How do you prove something doesn't exist? Heh, opens up all sorts of fun questions, like "are you a credit bureau"

They go on to suggest that the you provide them with information to back up your claim. Heh, send em a letter saying you have no documentation on the account, so that proves it doesn't exist.

My analysis/recommendations:

I'd hang on to that letter, photocopy it, and send a couple of copies to some friends. I think it could be valuable. Get written documentation from the OC saying that this account doesn't exist, was paid in full, etc...Go apply for something, right now. Go apply for a few credit cards and maybe even a home equity line. Get disapproved, get the rejection letter citing your delinquent payment history, and now you have verifiable damages in excess of 1k per violation. Methinks this boarders on extortion.

I would not send them an ITS just yet. Hit em with a 1-2 punch, let them verify and then you have more violations. Have you disputed with the CRA's yet? I suppose sending an ITS is better form, but this letter indicates they aren't fans of things like Federal Law. It is probably good form to send them an ITS, which is why I don't. Call me a millitant type.

I suppose if the account is deleted by EX, then you wouldn't have as much to go on. Have you disputed with all 3 bureaus or is it only showing on EX?

I am not sure if reporting an account is considered collection activity, although I know verifying one is. You have disputed with them and now with EX, so you gotta wait a bit and see what happens.

These don't seem like mental giants, so I'd watch my other two reports closely. Heh, ask them which part of the FCRA or FDCA allows a CA to deem disputes as frivilous.

I have seen various ways of naming individuals in a suit. It will certainly get their attention to say the least. I don't know much else about it.

FYI I'd edit the post a bit to remove some of the identifying info, lest they find out. CA's DO read AOC

Either way, you should have some money coming from these jokers. Giver em HELL!!

[Sultan]

Wow, looking at their web site, it sounds like they may be a couple of guys in a garage that are really trying really hard to puff up their image. I wonder if IBM, and CISCO and SUN know that their logos appear on these guys pages.

And, not to belittle the folks that need work, but their association with the is local government is in "meaningful employment opportunities for clients in the CalWORKs Employment Services Program".

It sure looks like they could use a lesson in Collections. There's an awful lot of smoke there and very little substance.

I'd suggest you take em to court...except that I bet there's not enough there to pay whatever you would win.

Bottom line...if you've already sent them two DV type letters, then maybe just set back and see what happens from the complaints you've lodged. I don't quite understand what the "fraud alert" has to do with money in escrow, but if these airheads are somehow costing you money, I think you should find an FDCPA /FCRA attorney in the area and go after them.

Well the thing is I actually had a merchant card stolen and someone used it to cause all kinds of havoc, transferring money to out of state accounts, charging goods, etc. So a while back I had some legitimate fraudulent accounts reporting on my credit reports, I have a major purchase on hold due to some of this and the havoc it caused on my reports and scores, once the alert is gone, our hope is that a new lender will be authorized to take the balance of the purchase based on current and accurate reports.

Trademark Law is a big liability; I think I will contact IBM, Sun, & CISCO. I also dug up this link about the scumbags,

http://www.scvmed.org/scc/assets/docs/779930KeyboardTransmittal-0039001.PDF

I'm thinking this ping chick is a friend, reletive or in law of Richard Hunter or someone in upper management.

[divemedic]

Read FACTA and weep, you will see what they are doing:

623(a)(8)

(F) Frivolous or Irrelevant Dispute

(i) In general. This paragraph shall not apply if the person receiving a notice of a dispute from a consumer reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, including--

(I) by reason of the failure of a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information; or

(II) the submission by a consumer of a dispute that is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by or for the consumer, either directly to the person or through a consumer reporting agency under subsection (, with respect to which the person has already performed the person's duties under this paragraph or subsection (, as applicable.

[codename_fortyseven]

Dive,

Where can I get a copy of the FACTA amendments?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is still up to the CA to validate the debts, no? They have to prove the debt exists, not the debtor proving it doesn't, right?

Otherwise, anyone could say Dive, how about that 5k you owe me? I have no paperwork on it, and your dispute is frivilous: prove it doesn't exist.

[Sultan]

FYI I'd edit the post a bit to remove some of the identifying info, lest they find out. CA's DO read AOC

Actually I don't care if everyone who works in the agency reviews the information, I intend to inform as many *good consumers* out there as I can that this agency is a JDP, and I'll be the first to inform people of any lawsuits I win against them as well as to advocate for other people who have to deal with these scummy, JDP types.

I like the idea of being turned down, I already have something better in the works which will place some substancial liability over them for this, lastly yeah its only EX, at this point, they have not gone near the other 2, and if they do, I'll throw down some money on an attorney and go for broke at that point - no joke!

[Sultan]

Read FACTA and weep, you will see what they are doing:

623(a)(8)

(F) Frivolous or Irrelevant Dispute

(i) In general. This paragraph shall not apply if the person receiving a notice of a dispute from a consumer reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, including--

(I) by reason of the failure of a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information; or

(II) the submission by a consumer of a dispute that is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by or for the consumer, either directly to the person or through a consumer reporting agency under subsection (, with respect to which the person has already performed the person's duties under this paragraph or subsection (, as applicable.

They cannot arbitrarily or indiscriminately fall back on that section for side stepping the law, I intend to place a bond and take them to high courts for a jury trial if it really comes down to that. I provided them with as much information as they gave me and included scanned *exhibit* copies of everything they sent me, included with what I sent back to them. I have no other information on the account other than to know that the OC agrees I do not have a bill in collectionis and they want out of the loop with this agency acting as their authorized agents out side of compliance.

[Xanathos]

The problem with FACTA is it applies to original creditors, not collection agencies. These guys aren't OC's...not even if they purchased the debt.

[divemedic]

47- you are right that is EXACTLY what they can now do. Picture this:

I dun you, and tell you it is not the first notice you were sent. (Remember, I don't have to prove you got the original letter, or even that I sent it. I just have to prove I had procedures in place that should have sent the letter) Your DV is not timely (that takes care of the FDCPA) and your dispute is frivolous becasue you didn't give sufficient information. (Takes care of FCRA)

Not only that, but you can't file BK unless you go into CCC and pay me anyway, so pay up deadbeat!

The furnisher does not have to investigate if you previously disputed with the CRA. Credit repair just became MUCH harder.

FCRA with FACTA can be found here:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf

[Sultan]

The problem with FACTA is it applies to original creditors, not collection agencies. These guys aren't OC's...not even if they purchased the debt.

OK that’s what I’m talking about. Thx Xan. I'll be studying because I feel a lawsuit is surely coming, the last agency that purchased a debt such as this *actually 2 accounts* received the exact same paperwork from me and sent me back a notice saying that they released the debts and they were no longer on file with their office.

That’s what these nimrods should have done, apparently some peon didn't like my tone referencing to their carelessness for not bothering to seal the envelope on a confidential mailing. So the sub-brain power person who received my second letter probably decided to make it a personal thing and thought "AH - we'll show them" very poor move on their part over such a small debt, which is not even truly owed, or can be validated. Especially when I have substancial dollars on the line.

[Xanathos]

What you're talking about is the Chaudrey defense Dive...and I'm not a big believer in it. The FDCPA is pretty clear in stating you have a time frame from the date of first contact...a CA will always claim that's the day they sent the dunning letter which "mysteriously" never made it to the consumer. A consumer can argue (usually successfully) that the date of first contact was the day they noticed something wrong with their credit reports.

The defense you're talking about has the CA relying on a piece of case history. Now granted, some judges will look at that and consider it "the way", but most will have enough marbles rolling around upstairs to think logically and realize that there should never come a time when a consumer is "screwed" over an inaccurate debt or a time that a CA loses all responsibility to follow law and ceases having culpability for actions they take.

I had a CA use that defense against me in one of my court hearings...I think it pissed Mr. Fadeley(the judge for the case) off more than my retelling of all the crap the CA had done. I think one would find that will be the typical response to a lawyer trying to walk into court and saying "well they didn't respond by our 30 day clock so now we're immune to repurcussions for anything we do"

[Sultan]

The furnisher does not have to investigate if you previously disputed with the CRA. Credit repair just became MUCH harder.

OK a few things out of context, previously disputed? what about something that was deleted, then sold, then a JDP try's to come after you for a debt which you truly do not owe, nor have any obligation with them what so ever to pay the debt. How and where, or what court of law will endorse these practices?

The section your referencing cannot be capitalized on by JDP's as a means to extort monies out of people for debts which are not owed. Because basically Dive what your saying is that DV is worthless at this point and consumers have no recourse or remedies under the acts, if its manipulated correctly by CA's.

[divemedic]

That is what I am saying. If it is played correctly, a CA can beat this.

I have already had a CA try to use the untimely defense, but I was able to beat them with the FCRA claim. Now that FACTA has passed, that may be in jeopardy.

Xan, I don't think it was Chaudry. I do remember reading a case where the court held that a CA did not have to prove the consumer got the initial dun or that it was even sent. That if the CA had reasonable procedures in place to ensure it was sent, that they could presume the consumer got it and they were covered. I looked in my files and can't find the case.

[codename_fortyseven]

Dive, you are kinda scaring me. Presumably under FACTA, anyone could say anyone else owes them money and wouldn't have to prove a thing. I don't know what a court would say about this, and I hope they would have enough mental agility to consider the old FCRA and FDCA, but then again these are lawyers and judges we are talking about. I am sure this isn't what congress intended.

I guess the FACTA amendment is extending the ability to dispute information from the CRA's to the furnishers as well. Not sure how consumers are better off with that, but those brilliant congressional types thought it up.

I don't think this exempts the furnisher from their FDCA duties, though. They still must mark the account in dispute and cease collection activities until they provide validation to the consumer.

Under the FCRA, they are still required to supply accurate info to the credit bureaus. I fail to see how they can supply accurate info, if they don't have any docs on the alleged debt.

The problem for this CA that recieved VERY bad legal advice is that the amendments apply ONLY to information furnished to the CRA's. They can still be liable for FDCA violations. They still must provide validation of the debt, as well. I think you could circumvent their response by not focusing your dispute on the information provided to the CRA, but the validity of the debt.

Think about it. They can report whatever they want to the CRA's as long as it is valid. If you dispute with the furnisher the information they are reporting to the CRA's as invalid, then they can throw up the stonewall of frivilous dispute. Consumer is screwed, right? Not the smart ones!

Here's the sidestep. Under the FDCA, they have to provide validation to the consumer. If they don't, then they can't collect on the debt. Collection activity includes verifying debts and presumably reporting negative information. Maybe they can get away with reporting negative information, at least initially with an "Bona Fide error" defense.

Ok, no prob. They report the debt, consumer hits em with the 1-2 punch of disputing the debt with the CA, requesting validation, and disputing the debt with the CRA. Now, what do you do, CA? G'head and throw up stonewall frivilous dispute defense, put the put the onus on me to provide docs and prove the debt isn't valid/doesn't exist, that's fine.

Guess what though? You can't collect on the debt either. Verify the debt and that is a collection attempt, thus a violation of the FDCA. If you don't verify the debt, then the tradeline falls off in 30 days, and you STILL can't collect the debt. Less savvy consumers may fall for this, but once you merge the FCRA, FACTA, and FDCA together I don't think you can game the system. Won't stop some from trying.

I think this opens them up again to inaccurate reporting if they can't verify the debt, maybe even willful, since they KNEW they couldn't verify the debt and reported it anyway.

Xan where does it say OC? I only saw furnishers of info in the FACTA amendment.

My suggestion is to focus on the validity of the debt. That is the thread sewing their claim together. If the debt isn't valid or they can't prove it is, they can't do anything and are reporting inaccurate information. Kind of have to go in a roundabout way to get satisfaction, but I think you can ultimately achieve it.

Thoughts?

[admin]

This is late in the game, but the FCRA link (provided at the top of this forum) is upto date with all of the FACTA amendments in it. It's easier to search than that .pdf document.

[Sultan]

Dive, you are kinda scaring me. Presumably under FACTA, anyone could say anyone else owes them money and wouldn't have to prove a thing. I don't know what a court would say about this, and I hope they would have enough mental agility to consider the old FCRA and FDCA, but then again these are lawyers and judges we are talking about. I am sure this isn't what congress intended.

I guess the FACTA amendment is extending the ability to dispute information from the CRA's to the furnishers as well. Not sure how consumers are better off with that, but those brilliant congressional types thought it up.

I don't think this exempts the furnisher from their FDCA duties, though. They still must mark the account in dispute and cease collection activities until they provide validation to the consumer.

Under the FCRA, they are still required to supply accurate info to the credit bureaus. I fail to see how they can supply accurate info, if they don't have any docs on the alleged debt.

The problem for this CA that recieved VERY bad legal advice is that the amendments apply ONLY to information furnished to the CRA's. They can still be liable for FDCA violations. They still must provide validation of the debt, as well. I think you could circumvent their response by not focusing your dispute on the information provided to the CRA, but the validity of the debt.

Think about it. They can report whatever they want to the CRA's as long as it is valid. If you dispute with the furnisher the information they are reporting to the CRA's as invalid, then they can throw up the stonewall of frivilous dispute. Consumer is screwed, right? Not the smart ones!

Here's the sidestep. Under the FDCA, they have to provide validation to the consumer. If they don't, then they can't collect on the debt. Collection activity includes verifying debts and presumably reporting negative information. Maybe they can get away with reporting negative information, at least initially with an "Bona Fide error" defense.

Ok, no prob. They report the debt, consumer hits em with the 1-2 punch of disputing the debt with the CA, requesting validation, and disputing the debt with the CRA. Now, what do you do, CA? G'head and throw up stonewall frivilous dispute defense, put the put the onus on me to provide docs and prove the debt isn't valid/doesn't exist, that's fine.

Guess what though? You can't collect on the debt either. Verify the debt and that is a collection attempt, thus a violation of the FDCA. If you don't verify the debt, then the tradeline falls off in 30 days, and you STILL can't collect the debt. Less savvy consumers may fall for this, but once you merge the FCRA, FACTA, and FDCA together I don't think you can game the system. Won't stop some from trying.

I think this opens them up again to inaccurate reporting if they can't verify the debt, maybe even willful, since they KNEW they couldn't verify the debt and reported it anyway.

Xan where does it say OC? I only saw furnishers of info in the FACTA amendment.

My suggestion is to focus on the validity of the debt. That is the thread sewing their claim together. If the debt isn't valid or they can't prove it is, they can't do anything and are reporting inaccurate information. Kind of have to go in a roundabout way to get satisfaction, but I think you can ultimately achieve it.

Thoughts?

OMG that is brilliant. Its almost a no brainer....

They assert the defense of not having sufficient information to validate the debt, then how on God's good earth could they ever intend on collecting on the debt. This seems like a very serious loophole. Obviously they need something better to consider a dispute frivolous or irrelevant than lack of information provided by the debtor, who may in all likely hood have no information what so ever other than the information the CA provided to them.

In this particular case the CA is attempting to assume the role of a reporting company and not a CA as far as anyone of reasonable intelligence should be able to discern. If I need to take them to court I intend to be armed with as much knowledge and case reference as I can gather, I am no dummy when it comes to collecting, organizing and accessing data. I hope that this helps some others who will face a similar situation, I will keep everyone at this site in the loop as to how it plays out.

Meanwhile I hope some other sharpies will answer this post. And everyone who has, has been extremely helpful. With the help of everyone else I'm framing in the basis for whats looking like a something I will prevail in - no matter how it unfolds and what move the CA makes.

[codename_fortyseven]

Sultan,

Reading the FACTA amendments, I think congress made an attempt to hold everyone liable for reporting accurate info. Some are just hiding behind certain parts, pretending other parts don't exist, and are asking to be sued. Imagine if the CRA's labeled every dispute as frivilous.

"Heck, no your honor, we didn't even look into the dispute. We just figured it was frivilous because the consumer didn't provide us with proof the debt didn't exist."

I can hear the judgement reel spinning from here...

They may technically have the ability to label a dispute as frivilous, but they would have to have SOMETHING if push came to shove. Refer back to my example about making up a debt and then extorting people for it by holding their credit reports hostage. There was some case of a dirtbag lawyer doing that. Just dunning every John smith in a county and filing suit against them. Judge wasn't impressed.

The CA isn't trying to assume the CRA role, exactly. According to FACTA this role has been thrust upon them, and they aren't executing their "grave responsabilities" to ensure the correctness of reports. Even with the CRA's they don't ask for urine samples and fingerprints when doing an investigation.

I am sure eventually they'll run into a Flying or LK or someone with enough time, knowledge, and attitude to really make these losers bleed.

Presently, this isn't your concern, though. I presume you are trying to make a major purchase like a house. FYI, should you NOT be able to buy a house, because of these losers, you could be paying cash for one months down the line...

Remember, the standard is the least sophisticated comsumer.

Wait and see what happens with the CRA dispute. If you do the 1-2 punch correctly, they won't have a leg to stand on.

[Xanathos]

The Chaundrey defense covers more than sending validation. In that particular case, the court (incorrectly) ruled that if the DV demand wasn't sent within 30 days, that the consumer waives their right to ever dispute the debt and is basically up **** creek without a paddle. We all know how ludicrous that is

This case gets used when someone disputes a debt 6 months, a year after the fact, and the CA can't provide validation. They toss that out as if the CA has no culpability or responsibility to report the truth (or to find the truth for that matter) and that the consumer has zero recourse after 30 days. In actuality, the law simply states that if a debt isn't disputed within 30 days, the CA may proceed under the ASSUMPTION that the debt is accurate. It doesn't say that the debt BECOMES accurate...

[Sultan]

Sultan,

Reading the FACTA amendments, I think congress made an attempt to hold everyone liable for reporting accurate info. Some are just hiding behind certain parts, pretending other parts don't exist, and are asking to be sued. Imagine if the CRA's labeled every dispute as frivilous.

They may technically have the ability to label a dispute as frivilous, but they would have to have SOMETHING if push came to shove. Refer back to my example about making up a debt and then extorting people for it by holding their credit reports hostage. There was some case of a dirtbag lawyer doing that. Just dunning every John smith in a county and filing suit against them. Judge wasn't impressed.

That is probably the most profound point and argument anyone could ever make with regards to this process, and obviously a point of merit with out bias or prejudice. It is almost in the simplest terms what I was looking for to include with my points and authorities in any declaration I would draft with my small claims paperwork. I'm not sure if I can show a loss here that exceeds small claims I would not mind naming them in a deep pockets suit in a higher court. I would obviously retain counsel at that point.

With all of the useful information and responses I’ve received I feel that I have a much better shot to use the proper language and verbalize the basis and framework for a suit.

The thing is I do need the goose before I can collect any golden eggs, so I think I need to wait this out and see if this CA does verify the debt. It is in all honestly a road I would rather not go down, though I am well prepared and have every intention of fighting the good fight if left no other choice.

A question specifically to everyone, should I send an ITS letter? I'm wondering because if I do not and they do verify then my next move is certain and should be swift, I’m thinking to skip the ITS and give them a little more rope, so I can bring the hammer down harder if need be.

Also note in my initial post, the copies of the letters they sent, they claim they require additional information, I sent them a second letter clearly stating that I did not owe the debt. Any one else denote the double talk and trickery, that letter they wrote almost sounded loaded. Honestly I think its more than anything good ole stupidity from a lowly trained agent.

Thank you all again for each of your responses. I about had heart failure when I logged in to EX to view the status of some inquires I had been waiting to fall off and saw the collection account. Especially bummed because I know it’s a BS JDP account and any reasonable company would have backed off after my DV letters and let it go since they obviously couldn't verify the info. Less than $120.00 and could mean the difference of being a home owner or not.......................... I'll not stand for it. Their timing and stupidity is just so screwed.

[divemedic]

The CA does not have to stop collecting if your DV was not timely. That is, they still have to validate, but they do not have to cease collection.

So not THEY have a 1-2 punch available to them.

1 Frivolous claim defends against FCRA

2 You didn't make 30 day window, so I don't have to stop collecting.

Then they mark the account in dispute and continue on collecting.

[admin]

Don't you think it would be easy to beat the frivilous claim?