Can you SUE the Credit Agencies

[JTsdaddy]

Can I sue the CA for lying in their verifaction process I sent a dispute, it came back as verified, I disputed with CA.. they cannot confrim at this time

SEE :: http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279880

[someonesomewhere]

The acronym CA means collection agency, and the acronym CRA means Credit Reporting Agency (aka Equifax, Experian, TransUnion).

Who is it you're wanting to sue, and for what?

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/eBooks/PoorMansClassActionLawsuit.shtml

[JTsdaddy]

CRA- for violation of FCRA reporting information as verified, that the CA cant verify with me

[Rick9972]

That is real difficult case to make vs the CRA. If they actually sent the dispute to the CA, and the CA verified the information, then they are off the hook. Now if the CA verified to the CRA and does not have the information as you stated, then you potentially have a case there.

[JTsdaddy]

So How do I prove it ... I asked for MOV.. their response was it was verified

[lovebug5]

Before anyone jumps into the lawsuit mentality, they need to have a pretty strong paper trail behind them to take to court...

What type of paperwork do you have to substantiate your claim? What type of documentation do you have from the CA which states that they cannot provide you with verification records?

[JTsdaddy]

I have a letter from all 3 CRA that your information on the account has been verified...

I have a letter from the CA, that says we cannot confrim your request without you providing the requested documents

[lovebug5]

I have a letter from all 3 CRA that your information on the account has been verified...

I have a letter from the CA, that says we cannot confrim your request without you providing the requested documents

The above two letters aren't evidence that you have any type of legal claim whatsoever. The letter from the CA does not state that they do not have any documents in their possession to verify your account which in turn means that the CRA's haven't violated anything.

Did you DV this CA? If so, was your DV timely or untimely?

If the DV was timely, did the CA provide you with the information required under the FDCPA?

If the DV was untimely, the CA isn't required to do anything. They aren't required to investigate, they aren't required to provide you with documentation and they can use your letter as a paper airplane if they want to.

[JTsdaddy]

Untimely DV.. but since they verified to the CRA. are they not required to verify with me

[JTsdaddy]

If the CA verified it to the CRA. but can verify it to me how can they verify to thr CRA

.

[lovebug5]

There's a common misconception that the CA's have to verify with you if they're verifying with the CRA's. That's simply not true.

When you send out an untimely DV, you're no longer protected by the FDCPA in the respect that the CA can ignore your letters. Why? They claim to have sent you out correspondence in which you had an opportunity to dispute their claim. If you didn't dispute it within 30-days, they can assume that your debt is valid and proceed forward with their collection activities.

Because your dispute was already verified with the CRA's and you've heard nothing back from the CA in question, I would go a step further and put them in a position where they legally have to respond to you or else they begin racking up violations. You would do that by requesting an investigation per Section 623 of the FCRA - however, you need to provide them with proof as to why you're disputing the item. As a data furnisher to your CR's, they're required to respond to your request as long as they don't deem it frivolous...

Just MHO.

[JTsdaddy]

by them actually responding to my DV stating they cant confirm my information. put them in violation..

[Rick9972]

by them actually responding to my DV stating they cant confirm my information. put them in violation..

No, not really. Lovebug is taking you down the path I started. Basically, to keep things real simple. The CA does not have to respond to your request for documentation or your request for investigation, after the 30 days is up. Their letter to you does not say they do not have documentation, it basically sayes that unless you provide them with certian information, they are not going to give it to you.

CA's are required to conduct a "reasonable" investigation and respond to disputes made by you through the CRA's. This means that if you have proof that something is being reported incorrectly, and the CA's verify it anyway. Then they have committed a violation of the FCRA and FDCPA. Or if the CRA does not forward your proof to the CA, then the CRA has violated the FCRA.

[JTsdaddy]

So I should now send An investigation letter to the OC having them provide information they have (which I know they don't) ITS NOT MINE.. and go from there

Also.. they keep sending their responses to my fathers address. now the funny thing is, this account was added to the CA in 2000, but this address they send letters out to, didn't exist until 2006.. brand new housing complex. so how could the infpormation be accurate ???

[someonesomewhere]

Even though a CA isn't required to do anything about an untimely DV, they are still bound by the FCRA to report accurately and completely. Failure to do so remains a violation.

[lovebug5]

IMO, if you know that this debt is not yours, I would request an investigation per Section 623 of the FCRA. If this CA is a data furnisher on your CR, requesting an investigation would be applicable.

You've already disputed with the CRA's and had it come back as verified. That's the first step.

The second step is writing the CA a nice little letter, explaining to them that you are requesting an investigation per the FCRA (cite the Section) - blah, blah, blah - and that they are required, by law, to provide you with investigation results within 30-days of receipt of your correspondence. Within your letter you must provide them the information being disputed, why that information is being disputed and any supporting documentation that you may have to support your request. Since you have no knowledge of this account and it is not yours, providing them documentation isn't going to happen. Copy the section of your CR's which list this account, highlight it, and explain to them that you have no knowledge of the account and would like documentation evidencing your ownership. As they have verified the account as yours with the CRA's, you are specifically requesting that they provide you with documentation supporting their verification.

As I said, they have 30-days to respond to you - unless they deem your request frivolous, which in that case they have to send out a letter to you within 5-days of your correspondence. If the CA as a data furnisher ignores your investigation request, you have them on a blatant violation of the FCRA.

[JTsdaddy]

As I said, they have 30-days to respond to you - unless they deem your request frivolous

can they Not Just say this is Frivolous and say they are not going to provide the information...

Then the next step would be to SUE ??

Also what about the address thing. I could not have opened an account in 2000 with an address that didnt exist until 2006. the house , address and complex didnt exist until 2006

[lovebug5]

can they Not Just say this is Frivolous and say they are not going to provide the information...

Of course, in theory, anyone can attempt to take the frivolous route. However, if you follow the requirements of the FCRA and send a well-written letter, them deeming your request as frivolous would be pretty hard to prove (on their part) if this should ever see a court. That's why, in letters which I send, I always include a paragraph about how I'm providing them all of the information as required per the FCRA as to prevent my request from being deemed as frivolous. This way, I've thrown it in their face that I know what I'm talking about and won't take their sh!t.

Then the next step would be to SUE ??

IMO, no. Suing isn't something that people should take lightly. If the CA failed to respond to your proper request for an investigation, my next step would be to file complaints with the BBB, AG's and FTC.

Also what about the address thing. I could not have opened an account in 2000 with an address that didnt exist until 2006. the house , address and complex didnt exist until 2006

This is a situation where you need them to provide you with some type of documentation. The above reason would be a great reason for an investigation request. If you can provide them with documentation showing that the address wasn't valid until 2006, they'd have a hard time not updating your information.

[JTsdaddy]

I would request an investigation per Section 623 of the FCRA. If this CA is a data furnisher on your CR, requesting an investigation would be applicable.

I thought you could only request an investigation from the OC not a CA

[lovebug5]

You can request an investigation with any furnisher of information to your CR. If the CA in question is reporting the account on your CR's, they are considered to be a "furnisher of information" and therefore it applies to them as well.

Here is the applicable section:

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(8) ABILITY OF CONSUMER TO DISPUTE INFORMATION DIRECTLY WITH FURNISHER-

Information on how to submit a dispute:

(D) SUBMITTING A NOTICE OF DISPUTE- A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such person at the address specified by the person for such notices that--

(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;

(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and

(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute.

Their responsibility to take you seriously, given that you provided them with all of the information quoted above:

(E) DUTY OF PERSON AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF DISPUTE- After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall--

(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;

(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and

(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to make the information provided by the person accurate.

There ya go.

[Rick9972]

There ya go.

LOL!!! Lovebug is indeed correct. However, the key factor is that if they do not investigate a direct dispute, you cannot do anything about it. The above part she quoted is part of 623s-2a. A person has no private right of action for violations of 623s-2a.(Cannot sue)

I always look at doing things that I can use against them later if it becomes necessary. I call the FCRA "The Debt Collectors Protection Act" for a reason. The only thing you have a private right of action in 623 is violations of 623s2b.

623s2b requires the investigation request to go through the CRA's.

[lovebug5]

Well, yes and no.

Depends on how you piece apart the FCRA, how technical you want to get, and how lawsuit happy you may be.

c) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY- Except as provided in section 621©(1)(, sections 616 and 617 do not apply to any violation of--

(1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder;

(2) subsection (e) of this section, except that nothing in this paragraph shall limit, expand, or otherwise affect liability under section 616 or 617, as applicable, for violations of subsection ( of this section; or

(3) subsection (e) of section 615.

Which means that yes, you can go after 'em for willful non-compliance if you follow through on a state level and check your state laws.

[flak88mm]

If the DV was untimely, the CA isn't required to do anything. They aren't required to investigate, they aren't required to provide you with documentation and they can use your letter as a paper airplane if they want to.

Where does it say this about untimely DVs? Is there something in the FDCRA or FTC that states that they are not required to validate on untimely DVs?

[someonesomewhere]

Where does it say this about untimely DVs? Is there something in the FDCRA or FTC that states that they are not required to validate on untimely DVs?

See FDCPA §809

[lovebug5]

Where does it say this about untimely DVs? Is there something in the FDCRA or FTC that states that they are not required to validate on untimely DVs?

Someonesomewhere pointed you to the applicable section of the FDCPA, which is what governs the DV process. If you look at Section 809, you'll see this:

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

( If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

© 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 basically, from what I italicized for you above, the FDCPA gives the consumer a 30-day window to respond to the initial dunning letter...And this section obligates the CA to either validate or cease collection activity provided that they're notified within that 30-day window. As you can see, this governs the DV process only within that 30-day window.