Jump to content

CA Harassing


Recommended Posts

Hi all, I'm a very long time lurker and student of this forum, and this is my first post. I have learned so much in the last 8 months or so and have been able to raise my score about 200 hundred points and fill my CR with lots of positive tradelines. I am so glad this as well as other forums are available to people like us so that we can fight back against the evil CA's. Now for my latest fight in which I think I will take to the courts. I would like your opinions in a matter I am having with XXXX Collections, they are a local collection company with offices in my state of Oregon. Last year they put 2 collections on my credit report from Medical bills they say I or rather my wife or her insurance had not paid from some years ago. Please excuse my lack of dates here, I am at work and do not have the dates and such with me. Anyway I disputed the entries with the CRA's, they came back verified with the CA, and listed the entries as in dispute with furnisher. We then started receiving calls and messages on our voice mail by this CA, I sent them CMRRR a request for validation and with it a limited C&D. They wrote back stating they had verified with the CRA's and didn't need to furnish me with anything. I just left it alone until lately when they have again been calling and leaving messages attempting to collect this debt. One of the times my wife answered the phone and their rep stated "you need to pay this", she said you haven't validated it and we also have a C&D please send it in the mail, he said they didn't care about that and kept harassing her till they finally hung up on her.

Now I see on my credit report they have made an unauthorized inquiry which I don't think they have "PP" to do so. It lowered my credit score a little by them doing so and they also updated the entries and dates still without validating anything to us. I think by doing a hard pull on me they may be planning to see if I'm in better shape now financially and may be thinking of filing a judgment on me. How many think I have a case for violations of the FDCPA, as well as the FCRA or anything else with these guys.

Thank you guys in advance, smile.gif You all ROCK!!! xdancex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok let's break down the wheat form the chaff -

your "C&D" is pointless, being as how one of those "dont call me only correspond in writing" things right? Nothing in the law (Unless OR has such provisions, I doubt it) says they have to comply with such a request.

Was insurance supposed to take care of these bills? I ask becuase I think it's your report, but the collections are from a procedure SHE had. If you were responsible (ie your insurance) it's legit. if she was, there is IMO no reason they should be on your CR.

you say they pulled your report. when? Recently? Or was it from when you disputed, about a year ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BucFan
I sent them CMRRR a request for validation and with it a limited C&D. They wrote back stating they had verified with the CRA's and didn't need to furnish me with anything.

Hello, and welcome to the board. It's nice to hear that you're making strides in your Credit Repair.

A couple of things...

I'm sorry but the CA is correct. The CA does not have to send you anything at all. Only on a timely DV after you receive the dunning letter, are they required to respond to your requests.

And the "limited C&D", no such thing. All you can do is send them a C&D which means no contact with you, period. Leaving them no recourse but to sue you for the debt. So it's usually not a good idea unless you are willing to gamble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but the CA is correct. The CA does not have to send you anything at all. Only on a timely DV after you receive the dunning letter, are they required to respond to your requests.

They don't ever have to send you anything even after a timely DV.

The FDCPA doesn't require a CA to respond to you.

All they have to do is mark the account disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BucFan
They don't ever have to send you anything even after a timely DV.

The FDCPA doesn't require a CA to respond to you.

All they have to do is mark the account disputed.

The Court notes that even if Defendant had ceased with its efforts to collect the alleged debt, Defendant still would have been obligated to verify the debt. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4), a debt collector must inform a consumer that if the consumer timely notifies the debt collector in writing that the debt is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt and that such verification will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

So, now that confuses me. What about the ruling above?

I bolded the part in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BucFan
That would only be if they were to continue trying to collect on the debt.
The Court notes that even if Defendant had ceased with its efforts to collect the alleged debt, Defendant still would have been obligated to verify the debt.

Errr, I guess I'm not understanding the verbiage on the above part from the same quote. It seemed pretty straight forward to me. My apologies...

Here's the link. Actually the thread is only a couple down from here.

G-nite all.

Linky

EDIT: After digging through a butt load of PDF's I came across this appeal to the case law I quoted above. This decision was overruled.

Link

Because we hold that the district court erred in concluding

that RJM continued collection efforts in violation of the Act,

we must address the district court’s conclusion that even if

RJM had ceased collection efforts, the Act nevertheless

required it to verify the alleged debt.

[11] The relevant provision of the Act, section 1692g(B),

states, “If the consumer notifies the collector in writing within

the thirty-day period . . . that the debt . . . is disputed . . . the

debt collector shall cease collection of the debt . . . until the

debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a

judgment[.]” (emphasis added). On this subject, the plain language

of the statute is clear. When a debt is disputed, collection

efforts must stop until the debt is verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without researching further than I feel like tonight. I will cover this as best I can:

A CA must respond to a timely DV if they wish to continue attempting to collect. This seems to have held up across all circuits.

In the 9th circuit and also I believe in the 7th, a CA does not have to reply if they cease collection activity. Though this topic has not been addressed in the other circuits, on a simple issue like this, and having a somewhat reasonable ruling from 1 or two circuits would be very persauive to the other circuits if the issue came before them. So I would not feel confident of getting a differant outcome in one of the noncommitted circuits on this issue.

As to the OP's post without more information, I see nothing that would make me think there is case here. Did he DV in a timely manner, is the really the question we need answered now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You (the OP) stated that they did not contact you until you disputed with the CRA's. Did they tell you verbally or in writing at anytime that you had a right to request DV within 30 days? This could be a violation-(hard to prove) if they did not.

If in fact you did get the DV letter into their hands inside the 30 day window, (after the initial communication) their calls to you, and any dunning letters sent,along with continued reporting to the CRA's would be violations. Again proof is all important in this type of fight. You must have gotten the letter to them inside that 30 day window.

If you did not catch it in the other's posts, C&D is all or nothing unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You (the OP) stated that they did not contact you until you disputed with the CRA's. Did they tell you verbally or in writing at anytime that you had a right to request DV within 30 days? This could be a violation-(hard to prove) if they did not.

If in fact you did get the DV letter into their hands inside the 30 day window, (after the initial communication) their calls to you, and any dunning letters sent,along with continued reporting to the CRA's would be violations. Again proof is all important in this type of fight. You must have gotten the letter to them inside that 30 day window.

If you did not catch it in the other's posts, C&D is all or nothing unfortunately.

Okay I am still learning here myself, and see on this thread the words "violations" several times. For the sake of argument, if the OP did a timely DV and the CA is continuing to report, even if the account states disputed, is the CA in violation of the FCRA? Or is it only when a CA reports to a CA WITHOUT the "disputed" notation is it a violation? And if so, is each reporting constitute a violation or are all reports lumped into a single violation? i.e. 3 CRA's with 3 reports each = 9 violations of FCRA or would that be 1 violation total?

And in regards to this post, isn't the CA's reporting to the CRA's considered continued collection activity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I am still learning here myself, and see on this thread the words "violations" several times. For the sake of argument, if the OP did a timely DV and the CA is continuing to report, even if the account states disputed, is the CA in violation of the FCRA?

No they are not.

Or is it only when a CA reports to a CA WITHOUT the "disputed" notation is it a violation?

Yes

And if so, is each reporting constitute a violation or are all reports lumped into a single violation? i.e. 3 CRA's with 3 reports each = 9 violations of FCRA or would that be 1 violation total?

Not sure on that one.

And in regards to this post, isn't the CA's reporting to the CRA's considered continued collection activity?

Only if the TL was not on the CR when they received the timely DV

If the TL was already on the CR before the DV then there is no Violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if the TL was not on the CR when they received the timely DV

If the TL was already on the CR before the DV then there is no Violation.

So say a CA sends a dunning letter, you timely DV them back, they send an "account statement", which is basically a printout of some paper they have, and it contains nothing more than the name of the OC on it and some numbers related to the CA's account system. The CA then begins to report to the CRA's without reporting it as disputed and continues to do so, at times more than once a month, then you are racking up the violations left and right on the CA? correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So say a CA sends a dunning letter, you timely DV them back, they send an "account statement", which is basically a printout of some paper they have, and it contains nothing more than the name of the OC on it and some numbers related to the CA's account system. The CA then begins to report to the CRA's without reporting it as disputed and continues to do so, at times more than once a month, then you are racking up the violations left and right on the CA? correct?

There is a big dispute over this.

As I see it there is no violation because they Validated as far as the FDCPA is concerned.

Now I agree that what they sent is not proper validation but that would be up to a judge to decide. The question is how far are you willing to push it.

Will you go to court on something that is solid or questionable?

Personally I would want to have them on a clear cut Violation like reporting to the CRA's after the DV but before they sent anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with that but are you willing to spend the time and take the chance in court for judt that one thing?

Did they send you the name and address of the OC?

Did you send them another letter stating that what they sent wasn't validation?

Chances are now that they know you are going to fight they might just disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know how easily they will go away. I did send them a second DV and explained to them (quite well i might add:D) and have not received an answer yet from them on it. It is funny though how all of a sudden they are reporting more than once a month on my reports without marking them as disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets break this down a bit further......

It seems that the debate has gotten off track and started to discuss timely DV from dunning letters... again. But nowhere are these facts stated by the OP. The debate has gotten off of facts and into the realm of assumtion and debate of non issues as related to this post.

1) The OP does not state that a dunning letter was sent to him. Therefore the debate about a timely DV in relation to the dunning letter is moot. The true issue is if a dunning letter was even sent. If it was not sent within 5 days of the fist phone call they received, then the CA has violated FDCPA 1692g(a). No where do I see a reference from the OP that this letter was sent and/or received. If the letter was not sent then there is no window to respond to within 30 days. It can be argued that the first call was initial communication and if no dunning letter was sent, and the OP sent a DV within 30 days of the inital call, then the OP has complied with 1692g(B) and the continued collection activity of the CA is in violation.

2) The whole debate about timely or untimely is moot until this fact is answered.

3) As to whether or not a C&D is all or nothing, I agree you can state this point. The issue seems to be that some people believe that if you send a limited C&D that the CA can ignore the entire thing and still contact you. Again it can be debated that if it is "all or nothing" then any request for C&D would fall under "all". Again all phone conversations from the CA are a violation.

4) The hard pull by the CA is also a violation since the CA would have absolutely no right to do a hard pull within all the definitions of the FCRA. a "hard pull" by the CA would violate 604C(2), and by result 603C(3). Some would be willing to debate the authorization of a CA to do a hard pull for a CC debt stating some sort of previous relation, but the OP states this is for a medical issue and there is no relationship I can find that would cause a medical incident to have a report pulled, nor provide this right from the consumer.

There are plenty of potential issues here but without clarifying info from the OP there isnt much to discuss beyond speculation.

But to speculate... if there was no dunning letter sent, that is the initial violation in a long chain of issues. If the letter was sent, and the OP responded within the 30 day window, then the violations are lessened by one. The OP obviously received no communication from the CA other then "we dont have to give you nothing nah nah nah" and still continue to call. If the letter was sent and the OP did not respond within the 30 days window, then the C&D, limited or not, should stop all calls in compliance with the FDCPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes after they called on the phone, I had requested something from them in writing. After they sent Dunning letter I sent the C&D along with the validation request to them CMRRR well within the 30-day time frame. They then sent back letter stating they had validated it with the reporting CRA's and they didn't have to send me anything.

That’s when it sat for about a month until recently they have been calling again, leaving voice mails, and then my wife accidentally answered the phone that time and the convo was as stated in the first post to them. Now they have just within the last week, updated the account on the CR, showing new report dates, as well as pulling a hard inquiry, all while the report still says in dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes after they called on the phone, I had requested something from them in writing. After they sent Dunning letter I sent the C&D along with the validation request to them CMRRR well within the 30-day time frame. They then sent back letter stating they had validated it with the reporting CRA's and they didn't have to send me anything.

That’s when it sat for about a month until recently they have been calling again, leaving voice mails, and then my wife accidentally answered the phone that time and the convo was as stated in the first post to them. Now they have just within the last week, updated the account on the CR, showing new report dates, as well as pulling a hard inquiry, all while the report still says in dispute.

Well if you sent them a DV within the 30 day window of receiving the dunning letter, then they are required to send you the information and cease all communication until they do.

It sounds like they havent, so keep detailed records since it sounds like you have violations racking up all over the place. Record date and time of each call and then depending on your choosen method of dealing with this, either

1) Complain to the BBB, AG and perhaps FTC and get them involved in resolution.

2) Write the CA within detailed info about the violations and quote the relevent parts of the FDCPA notifying them of ITS if compliance is not had.

3) Find a lawyer through NACA.net and give them the info and see if they want the case.

4) Go file the lawsuit yourself as a pro se. But, do make sure you have accurate records and are willing to deal with court alone.

5) Do all of the above

6) Do nothing

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.