Jump to content

how long does a collector have to verify info from creditor?


leftovers
 Share

Recommended Posts

All you guys (except Matt) need to read the FDCPA.

The Act does not establish a time limit for a CA to respond to a verification request. They can take a year, 10 years, 100 years -- whatever they want.

The only time limit discussed in the Act is the 30 day period allowed the consumer to request a DV following receipt of the dunning letter. This may be the source of your confusion.

If the DV was timely, the CA is required to cease collection activity until they respond. Thus, the CA has incentive to do something and to do it quickly.

If the DV was not timely, the CA is not required to cease collection activity and thus the CA has no incentive to do anything. Responding just burns time and costs money. At best this becomes a low priority and many CAs just never respond.

Regardless if the DV is or is not timely, the CA must report the tradeline as disputed to the CRAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DG, where in the FDCPA is that stated?

I looked a couple of times but I can't seem to find it.

§ 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.

(B) 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

§ 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.

(B) 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.

That would be if the DV was timely.

I am talking about the CA reporting the debt as disputed to the CRA's with an untimely DV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be if the DV was timely.

I am talking about the CA reporting the debt as disputed to the CRA's with an untimely DV.

The trick here is that they have to treat it as a timely DV, because you have 30 days from when you received notice. What if you never received notice? How can they prove that you did?

They only way that can really hold for them is if they sent you the dunning letter using certified mail, which we know they don't do. If you never received the dunning letter you have the rights of the 30 day deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be if the DV was timely.

I am talking about the CA reporting the debt as disputed to the CRA's with an untimely DV.

Legally if disputed with CRA, within 5 business days. If you dispute directly to the date furnisher under § 605 (f), no time limit is specified.

§ 605(f) Indication of dispute by consumer. If a consumer reporting agency is notified pursuant to section 623(a)(3) [§ 1681s-2] that information regarding a consumer who was furnished to the agency is disputed by the consumer, the agency shall indicate that fact in each consumer report that includes the disputed information.

DV timely or untimely has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick here is that they have to treat it as a timely DV, because you have 30 days from when you received notice. What if you never received notice? How can they prove that you did?

They only way that can really hold for them is if they sent you the dunning letter using certified mail, which we know they don't do. If you never received the dunning letter you have the rights of the 30 day deal.

Whoa here! All the CA needs to do is prove that they send dunning letters in the normal course of business. There is no trick and if they have documentation that in the normal course of business you were sent a dunning letter on such and such a date (such as a notation in your file), and the mailman threw it away, a court will still take the view that the CA sent it.

Look folks, there are no tricks. There are some loopholes. Use the loopholes but read the law first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, all of you guys are missing the point here.

Here is what DG stated.

Regardless if the DV is or is not timely, the CA must report the tradeline as disputed to the CRAs.

My question is where in the FDCPA is this stated?

I am not asking about disputing with the CRA's.

I am not asking about a DV within 30 days of a dunning letter.

I am not asking about a FCRA section 623 Investigation.

Again I am simply asking where in the FDCPA is it stated that a CA must mark the TL as Disputed during an untimely DV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, all of you guys are missing the point here.

Here is what DG stated.

My question is where in the FDCPA is this stated?

I am not asking about disputing with the CRA's.

I am not asking about a DV within 30 days of a dunning letter.

I am not asking about a FCRA section 623 Investigation.

Again I am simply asking where in the FDCPA is it stated that a CA must mark the TL as Disputed during an untimely DV?

There is no time specification under the FDCPA or even a requirement to do so. Marking a tradeline in dispute falls under the FCRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, but CA's don't fall under the FCRA correct?

Or do they when they report to the CRA's?

Anyone that reports info to your credit report is a data furnisher including original creditors, collection agencies, and debt buyers. They all fall under the FCRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I re-read, I think Hannah is right. I don't know where I got what I said -- perhaps I've been listening to debt dodgers too long.

Anyway, it seems to be common practice for data furnishers to report the tradeline as disputed when they receive a DV. There must a a driver for this. Right?

I'm thinking perhaps a FTC opinion letter. I'll go read everything again.

OK -- here we go -- read the Cass FTC Opinion Letter

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm

Specifically: -- Note emphasis

II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(B) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.

A review of 1692e(8): (note emphasis)

§ 1692e. False or misleading representations

(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.

So, it is one of those things you have to back into.

My conclusion is that upon receipt of a DV (timely or otherwise) if the tradeline has already been reported, then the tradeline must be marked disputed.

And, if the tradeline has not been reported when a untimely DV was received, the tradeline could be reported so long as it is marked disputed.

But, if the tradeline has not been reported when a timely DV was received, the tradeline may not be reported -- to do so would violate the "continued collection activity prohibition" (see #IV at Cass).

Clear as mud! Right?

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.