Jump to content

Should I send "proof" to CA?


TheLookingGlass
 Share

Recommended Posts

In September, I DV'd NCO.

In October, NCO sent a response stating that they where informing the CRA's to delete the TL. They also sent an invoice from the creditor showing a zero balance.

Today, December, I got my TU CR with ISO Collection Services for the same creditor and amount.

What should I do? Should I DV ISO and send a copy of the $0 balance invoice?

Are there violations here? IS there something called "Due diligence" that should be considered here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've searched the forums and only found conversations that argue if my situation is a violation. No conclusion though.

Do I dispute the new listing with ISO as I did the previous listing with NCO. Is there a way to stop the chain of disputes? I other words, is there something I can do to stop the listing from being resold or reassigned or what ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to set them up.

I would notify them that you have a receipt showing a "zero" balance and you dispute their claim otherwise.

Wait 30 days.

Then dispute the TL on the CRA.When the CA verifies the TL you sue the CA for the FDCPA violation of misrepresenting the status of the debt and the FCRA violation of deliberately and knowingly reporting false derogatory info to a CRA. You might also look into the State tort of libel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to set them up.

I would notify them that you have a receipt showing a "zero" balance and you dispute their claim otherwise.

Wait 30 days.

Then dispute the TL on the CRA.When the CA verifies the TL you sue the CA for the FDCPA violation of misrepresenting the status of the debt and the FCRA violation of deliberately and knowingly reporting false derogatory info to a CRA. You might also look into the State tort of libel.

This is a new TL and needs to be treated as such. Just because you 'say' to a CA that you have a reciept with a zero balance doesn't mean that they have to remove it. They don't have to validate it with you ever, but they cannot verify the TL to the CRA without a notation that it's in dispute. That's where most CA's goof off.

What's the purpose of waiting 30 days after sending a CA your DV? You really should track it and dispute the TL as soon as the CA has your DV.

Nonwithstanding, first step you should take in this case it to dispute it with the CRA. Since the last guy removed it, chances are pretty high that this will fall off as well and you'll be done with it/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to set them up.

I would notify them that you have a receipt showing a "zero" balance and you dispute their claim otherwise.

Wait 30 days.

Then dispute the TL on the CRA.When the CA verifies the TL you sue the CA for the FDCPA violation of misrepresenting the status of the debt and the FCRA violation of deliberately and knowingly reporting false derogatory info to a CRA. You might also look into the State tort of libel.

This is a new TL and needs to be treated as such. Just because you 'say' to a CA that you have a reciept with a zero balance doesn't mean that they have to remove it. They don't have to validate it with you ever, but they cannot verify the TL to the CRA without a notation that it's in dispute. That's where most CA's goof off.

What's the purpose of waiting 30 days after sending a CA your DV? You really should track it and dispute the TL as soon as the CA has your DV.

Nonwithstanding, first step you should take in this case it to dispute it with the CRA. Since the last guy removed it, chances are pretty high that this will fall off as well and you'll be done with it/

The purpose of waiting the 30 days is to allow them enough time to record in their files that it IS disputed so that when they fail to update with the CRA that it is disputed you can defeat their "Bonafide Error" defense.

Disputing with the CRA first is a waste of time, since the CRA will merely ask the CA "Is this what your files show?" Of course the CA will say "yes" and as far as the CRA is concerned, the debt has been verified and they can dismiss the next dispute - the one that counts because the CA is now on notice that there is a dispute.

Swede, while I admit you know your stuff, I have a bit of experience in Court myself. It is important to lay the groundwork for the suit, not just plow ahead. The elements of the suit are:

1. FCRA imposes on suppliers of info to CRA's a "maximum accuracy" duty. That duty implies not knowingly supplying incorrect information.

2. FDCPA imposes on a debt collector the absolute duty to not misrepresent the nature, character, standing or amount of a debt.

3. The CA was on notice (green card recieved) that the debt was disputed.

4. The CA knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the character of the debt to the CRA in that they failed to include that it was disputed in teir update. The CA had ample time to enter into its records that the matter is disputed byt deliberately chose not to.

5. The action in #4 violated both statutes in #1 and #2.

6. The CA cannot claim "bona fide error" since their signature on the Green Card is an acknowledgement of receipt of the dispute. They therefore had knowledge of the dispute and chose either to disregard it or to avoid acting on it. Either is a defense against "Bona Fide Error".

I stress a suit so much because it (a) raises the stakes so that a phone troll is no longer handling teh account - decisions on the account are now being made bya person with the authority to carry out any agreements made, and (B) by instituting a suit, the matter cannot be administratively ignored by the CA. If they do, the consumer gets a Judgment and $1000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of waiting the 30 days is to allow them enough time to record in their files that it IS disputed so that when they fail to update with the CRA that it is disputed you can defeat their "Bonafide Error" defense. .

No need to. As soon as they have signed for the letter, they have “knowledge”. There is no 30 day grace time that they have to “update their records”, Further, there’s nothing saying they have have to update once you DV them. That’s where the trigger comes in, your CRA dispute, they cannot report the debt without the notice that it’s dispute.

Disputing with the CRA first is a waste of time, since the CRA will merely ask the CA "Is this what your files show?" Of course the CA will say "yes" and as far as the CRA is concerned, the debt has been verified and they can dismiss the next dispute - the one that counts because the CA is now on notice that there is a dispute.

It’s definitely not a waste of time, ESPECIALLY on a paid collection that the previous CA has removed. If it was a waste of time to dispute, most of us would not be here. I and hundreds of others across these boards have gotten a lot of TL’s removed simply by disputing. I bet if you ask the OP if he’d rather dispute and be done with it, or go through months of paperwork, filing suits etc, I’m pretty sure he’d take the first option, as most of us would.

Swede, while I admit you know your stuff, I have a bit of experience in Court myself. It is important to lay the groundwork for the suit, not just plow ahead. The elements of the suit are:

What IS important is for you to remember that most people here do not want to go to court; they want to clean up their reports as painfully simple as possible. While I agree that it’s important to lay the groundwork and keep paper tail to use as a last resort, MOST cases can be resolved without going to court.

1. FCRA imposes on suppliers of info to CRA's a "maximum accuracy" duty. That duty implies not knowingly supplying incorrect information.

2. FDCPA imposes on a debt collector the absolute duty to not misrepresent the nature, character, standing or amount of a debt.

3. The CA was on notice (green card recieved) that the debt was disputed.

4. The CA knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the character of the debt to the CRA in that they failed to include that it was disputed in teir update. The CA had ample time to enter into its records that the matter is disputed byt deliberately chose not to.

5. The action in #4 violated both statutes in #1 and #2.

6. The CA cannot claim "bona fide error" since their signature on the Green Card is an acknowledgement of receipt of the dispute. They therefore had knowledge of the dispute and chose either to disregard it or to avoid acting on it. Either is a defense against "Bona Fide Error".

1. Yes but if if you don’t dispute through the CRA, you do not have a private right of action to sue. The FCRA limits enforcement to Federal and State agencies only, UNLESS a consumer disputes it through the CRA. You should look up Nelson v. Chase Manhattan in the case law section I have posted:

It can be inferred from the structure of the statute that Congress did not want furnishers of credit information exposed to suit by any and every consumer dissatisfied with the credit information furnished. Hence, Congress limited the enforcement of the duties imposed by § 1681s-2(a) to governmental bodies. But Congress did provide a filtering mechanism in § 1681s-2(B) by making the disputatious consumer notify a CRA and setting up the CRA to receive notice of the investigation by the furnisher. ............. With this filter in place and opportunity for the furnisher to save itself from liability by taking the steps required by § 1681s-2(B), Congress put no limit on private enforcement under § § 1681n & o.

2. Yes, which doesn’t mean that each CA must report only what the consumer SAYS they should report. What it does mean is that the CA cannot continue collection after they been notified of the dispute WITHOUT including the notice that it is in fact, in dispute.

3. And they don’t need to do anything with the information without the trigger – the CRA dispute.

4. My point exactly, you have to dispute it with the CRA but there’s absolutely no reason to wait 30 days and there’s every reason to start out the process with the CRA dispute.

If they do, the consumer gets a Judgment and $1000.

Well, you’re missing one important issue, the statutory damages are $100 to $1000 and it’s up to the discretion of the judge. And yes, that is PER ACTION, not per violation as you inferred to in another post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bet if you ask the OP if he’d rather dispute and be done with it, or go through months of paperwork, filing suits etc, I’m pretty sure he’d take the first option, as most of us would.

Swede is correct but in this case I'd go to court if it would ensure that the new CA would not simply sell the debt or reassign it as has been done here. I was to stop the chain of CA's that has started from NCO passing the buck to ISO.

When I dispute with ISO, how can I stop them from selling to the next CA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dispute to ISO should state that the account is $0 balance and that they are collecting on a fraudulent amount. The F word should prevent reselling of the account to others because they would be in violation of the FDCPA if they did. If they were to sell an acocunt they know or have reason to believe is fraudulent to another party with the intent that collections continue, it would violate the section of the FDCPA which prohibits the misrepresentation of the amount or legal status of the debt. They would be misrepresenting to the buyer that the debt is legitimate and has an unpaid balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Yesterday, in response to my Jan 9, 2006 dispute through the CRA, I received a letter dated Feb 13, 2006 from the CA. It includes the same invoice I mentioned in my original post for this thread. It states that the invoice shows a zero because it is a charge-off statement and that my balance is in the adjusted amount column (which btw is negative :)

The item I disputed was initially with NCO and removed back in October. Then reappeared on my report as OSI. I disputed with the CRA and NCO sent a response even though the listing is OSI.

It seems that NCO is using an alias to continue collection activity. At this point do I need to send an ITS? Any Consumer Lawyers in my area? The NADA list was no help on my last search for a laywer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.