CA took 2 months to notate Collection of my DISPUTE LETTER

[Champion80]

Hello Everyone,

Wanted to get an opinion on this one.

I sent a dispute letter, (the good one listed on the site), I checked the confirmation and printed in on April 2nd...Ok then gave them 30 days and pulled my reports, they did not list as disputed. So I called up just to be the curious person I am to ask why they were such idiots not to do so. Well I just talked with a CSR and was small talking her. She said the letter was not put into their system until May 25th, which is almost 2 whole months after they recieved it.

So she says now they are sending the request to the OC, which is a ORAL doctor. I just pulled my FICO and the CO has no remarks stating a dispute so I seem to have them in a complete violation. The CSR told me on her computer system it states that I sent a "valid dispute letter" , but that is just in thier computer...Looks like someone made a BOO-BOO!!

Should I file, or should I send an intent to sue with copies of my CRMR and a copy of my reports?? If I can Nix this b#$ch a$$ CO I will only have 1 left of my TU and one on EQ. I wanted to get your opinion because so far I have had great luck getting Negs off without the court option, and because I have already disputed this CA several times I need to finally do something different.

Another interesting tid bit, I called the Dr's office today too, just to see what they had. I explained to them I rememeber back in that time I worked for UPS and they had 100% benefits with no max so I know I was covered, I rememeber before he yanked my teeth out (WHICH TOOK ONLY ABOUT 1 MINUTE TO PULL ALL FOUR....NOT JOKING) they had told me my insurance wouldnt cover the sleeping, and they gave the option to just take heavy sedatives and a couple needles in my mouth. So I said I would like to stay awake anyway, well after I was done (while I was still drugged up)I remember they said I would still owe them $148!! How??? I do not know, but I do not remember signing anything. So when I called I asked them to get my agreement to pay sent to me, she told me that they had changed their system a couple of years ago and she would have "Kathy" do some research and call me back tomorrow.

[GreatGadsby]

yeah, no one gives a damn when it got put in their system! they have to mark it as disputed within 5 days. still need to prove it was willfull though.

[Champion80]

Should I send another letter of dispute then, or a different letter?

I would also think though if I approach them with everything I have now with a ITS letter I may get what I want...

I will wait for a few replies before I move forward.

[divemedic]

They do have to mark it in dispute, but you can't sue them for it. You have to dispute with the CRA after DV to get the FCRA violations.

Then, you need to do another round of DV.

Also, there is no 30 day limit in the law for a CA to respond to a DV. I know it is in the letters you find on the internet, but there is no law or case that I have ever been able to find that limits them to 30 days.

Read here for help:

http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24558

[Champion80]

Thanks Dive for that link to you past post, I knew I saw that post before and, its one of the best to understand the process.

So far I have gone as far as DV the CA, then I waited another 2 weeks after they recieved it and disputed with the CRA's. They did not mark in dispute. So I will do the re-investigation today with the CRA's. And start my second round.

Thanks again Dive.

[Methuss]

Also, there is no 30 day limit in the law for a CA to respond to a DV.

True, but the way the FCRA and FDCPA tie together means that if you use the 1-2 punch method a 30 day time limit is technically in effect upon the CA. Here's why:

*Under the FDCPA the CA is forbidden to continue any collection activity unless first respond with validation. According to the FTC (Cass letter if I remember correctly), that includes reporting or continuing to report to the CRAs. They are only allowed to report the item as being in dispute because that is permitted by law in both the FDCPA and FCRA.

*Under the FCRA, the CRA is required to remove the disputed item in 30 days if they are unable to verify the tradeline.

*Since the CA can't legally respond to the CRAs inquiry on the tradeline unless they validate first, they are technically under a 30 day time-limit to respond, or it gets removed from your report.

*Once removed, the CRA isn't allowed to reinsert it without first obtaining proof that it is in fact a correct tradeline, which means the CA can't reinsert it without validating or they violate the FCRA for reporting information that is unverified or false and the FDCPA by continuing collection activities without validation.

[Champion80]

Thanks Methus...

I will try and filter everything you said into my brain and go after this CA..Both you guys are so helpfull.

By the way I am going to get my DRE in the next couple months!! I am getting out of the WIRELESS BUSINESS!!

[GreatGadsby]

*Under the FDCPA the CA is forbidden to continue any collection activity unless first respond with validation. According to the FTC (Cass letter if I remember correctly), that includes reporting or continuing to report to the CRAs. They are only allowed to report the item as being in dispute because that is permitted by law in both the FDCPA and FCRA.

only if your DV request is in that first 30 day window though, right?

[GreatGadsby]

They do have to mark it in dispute, but you can't sue them for it. You have to dispute with the CRA after DV to get the FCRA violations.

okay also while attempting research found in section 807(8) of the FDCPA"

(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.

and if what Methuss said about it being strict liability thing is true then more violations for us !

in the civil liability section, it doesn't say anything about willfull non-compliance, only that if they don't behave, you can sue them.

[Champion80]

I would also think depending on whicy CA you are dealing with, when they recieve a letter from someone with an ITS and the grounds for the suit a resolution is probably likely from the CA. The post Dive pasted above which goes through the complete dispute process. This is where some CA will fold because they do not have the means to defend themselves in a particular state or county so they just delete the file..then probably sell it to another CA but a victory none the less. I really like that post of the DV process Dive outlined.

I will search later if there isnt a quick answer someone doesnt mind posting.....Should I file under Federal small claims?? How do I get the statuate numbers DIVE talks about in his POST he pasted above. I know they will give them to me when I am filing I guess. Any comment is appreciated.

Go Spurs....or go Pistons...Damn I do not know who to vote for. Who cares the FINALS are finally here and we do not have to have Cable..LOL

[Methuss]

*Under the FDCPA the CA is forbidden to continue any collection activity unless first respond with validation. According to the FTC (Cass letter if I remember correctly), that includes reporting or continuing to report to the CRAs. They are only allowed to report the item as being in dispute because that is permitted by law in both the FDCPA and FCRA.

only if your DV request is in that first 30 day window though, right?

Not really. If you look at the next sub-section, it reads "© The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer." So if you are disputing it as not even yours, they would be violating the FDCPA by suing you even if you sent it outside the 30 day window. Remember the CA may not misrepresent the legal status or amount of the debt. By filing suit on a debt you have disputed at any time as not yours, they are misrepresenting to the court the legal status of the debt...in dispute where they have not verified that they even have the correct person.

[gdouglaslee]

they have to mark it as disputed within 5 days. still need to prove it was willfull though.

What evidence do you have to support your contention that it must be marked disputed within 5 days?

Present your evidence from the FDCPA and from applicable case law that the OP must prove the actions are of the debt collector must be willful.

[divemedic]

Present your evidence from the FDCPA and from applicable case law that the OP must prove the actions are of the debt collector must be willful.

Huh? What are you asking?

[GreatGadsby]

my evidence on it being willfull doeesn't concern the FDCPA, it refers to the FCRA. negligent non-compliance gets you bupkis.

[gdouglaslee]

they have to mark it as disputed within 5 days. still need to prove it was willfull though.

What evidence do you have to support your contention that it must be marked disputed within 5 days?

Present your evidence from the FDCPA and from applicable case law that the OP must prove the actions are of the debt collector must be willful.

This might come as a shock to you but the Greatgloopsby has a habit of posting information that is blatantly false, misleading, unsupported, undocumented, mere conjecture, baseless and without merit, which leads new people into taking actions which are harmful. I have to wonder if it isn't a troll.

I want to see documentation from the FCRA, FDCPA, staff commentary, opinion letters or case law that says that a disputed debt must be reported within 5 days, because to my knowledge, none exists. I have already searched the FDCPA, staff commentary and opinion letters repeatedly over the last several years and have found nothing to support such a contention. I have also repeatedly searched federal (but not state) case law and, as of today, there is nothing that would support such a claim. As it stands now, only a judge can decide what is reasonable with respect to the time-line for reporting a disputed debt as disputed to a credit bureau.

Regarding the FDCPA, it is not necessary to prove the debt collector acted willfully to get judgment. The intent of the debt collector is not a consideration.

Neither knowledge nor intent necessary to establish liability, Pittman v. J.J. Mac Intyre Co., 969 F.Supp. 609 (D.Nev. 1997).

Intent is not an element of liability, Patzka v. Viterbo College, 917 F.Supp. 654 (W.D.Wis. 1996).

FDCPA is a remedial statute to be liberally construed, imposing strict liability excused only by the bona fide error defense - Harrison v. NBD Inc., 968 F.Supp. 836 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).

Strict liability statute, where degree of the defendant's culpability is

relevant only in computing damages, not in determining liability, Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2nd Cir. 1996); Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 60 (2nd Cir. 1993); Pittman v. J.J. Mac Intyre Co., 969 F.Supp. 609 (D.Nev. 1997).

To claim bona fide error, it is the debt collector not the OP who must prove through a preponderance of evidence that the error was both unintentional and that it occured in spite of reasonably adopted procedures to specifically prevent the error in question.

Regarding FCRA violations, there are none. The only actionable part is S2B and a claim only stands if you can prove you sent a dispute to a credit bureau and that the credit bureau notified the furnisher of information pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]. Furthermore, there is still no violation unless the OP specifically disputes the fact that the debt is disputed, although technically, any dispute should require an investigation sufficient enough to determine that the debt is disputed. Additonally, a simultaneous or subsequent dispute sent to a credit bureau results in the placement of a "Meets FCRA requirements" tag in the "Remarks" data field which supplants any notations present, such as "Account information disptued by consumer." The tag-line placed by a credit bureau will not show up on an on-line report, only on a report obtained from the credit bureau. That is one of the dangers of relying on on-line credit reports from resellers. Finally, there's no evidence that the debt collector did not inform the credit bureau that the account is disputed. The debt collector very well could have, but the credit bureau has not updated it's files to reflect that or the credit bureau may have erred in the reporting.

[divemedic]

Now, we have had this discussion before and I guess we will have to have it again, as you must be a slow learner.

The FDCPA reads this way:

( In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection

(a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors --

(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; or

and the FCRA reads this way:

616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n]

and:

§ 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o]

stop being such an asshole.

[gdouglaslee]

I have to conclude that you didn't read the case law I posted. If I thought it would help, I would post more recent case law from the last year to but I doubt it would.

[GreatGadsby]

This might come as a shock to you but the Greatgloopsby has a habit of posting information that is blatantly false, misleading, unsupported, undocumented, mere conjecture, baseless and without merit, which leads new people into taking actions which are harmful. I have to wonder if it isn't a troll.

oh really? I'll give you this 5 day issue as I cannot find the reference I remember myself. however, I hardly think this constitutes a pattern.

Greatgloopsby

and this is your idea of an insult?

Regarding the FDCPA, it is not necessary to prove the debt collector acted willfully to get judgment. The intent of the debt collector is not a consideration.

ya know what, you're right - partly - it's not necessary to prove intent under the FDCPA to win, however, the amount you are awarded is based on judge's opinions on how badly the defendant violated the law and how often. what good does it do to get a judgement for costs and $1.00? nowhere does it say that you automatically get $1,000. that is why intent becomes a factor. if you don't like it, then don't listen. if you want to go to court on each violation you find, one at a time, be my guest. no one should be suing anyone without a thorough knowledge of the applicable laws.