fairpractice

? link pertinent parts of statues

Recommended Posts

Just the important parts of these statues were clearly posted somewhere and I can't find them anymore despite search efforts?

Does anyone know where these are?

Statutes

FCRA how credit reporting agency can collect - did not require credit reporting agency to provide written proof of anything until the recent FACT ACT

FDCPA entitles you to validation/verification from both the credit reporting agency and the collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Color me confused...

There are stickies of both these laws at the top of this (and each) page on this board. But...

Credit Reporting Agenices don't collect. They are repositories of data only. What 'written proof' are you looking for?

The FDCPA doesn't refer to anything about CRA's. CRA-related stuff is covered in the FCRA. CRA's never validate. Upon dispute, they request 'verification', electronically, from the Data Furnisher that the info they have been provided is what the DF meant to give them. They never involve themselves in the nature of a consumers dispute, or request/get/provide validation.

As far as linking pertinent parts, the FDCPA is not lengthly. It's easy to cover the entire thing very quickly. The FCRA is longer and more involved, but there's lots of stuff you can skip by or bookmark for later (like the definitions). If you want guidance finding the 'good stuff', the index is probably all you'll need. But ask here, and we'll guide you to the heart of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know they were at the top. That's great. In specific reference to the 1-2 punch method only (DV letter to CRA followed by dispute filed with CA), I'd like to have a better overview of which parts are affected.

So far I think I understand:

FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) - governs how the credit reporting agency can collect

FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) - entitles you to validation/verification from both the credit reporting agency and the collector

What I don't have a good handle on:

  1. What are the most important parts with reference to 1-2 punch?
  2. Where is the wording with respect to any 'written' validation or validation I am entitled to by either CA or CRA?
  3. Year of Act's inception?
  4. Where does an "act" fall in the chain (federal levels > state levels > down)?
  5. Where does the FACT ACT factor in and where is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1-2 punch is a specific tactic developed by a member of this board. I'm sure there's a sticky somewhere, so I leave that to you to find. My comments were meant to address the parts you 'understand so far'.

Credit Reporting Agencies don't collect. Is that the verbage you meant to use?

The FDCPA applies to collectors only. The CRA's are not included in that law. Therefore, the FDCPA cannot apply to the CRA's. Validation is addressed in the FDCPA. I'll leave it to you to read and find the specifics there for yourself. (It's always best to go to the source for correct info)

1. Use the search function to find info on the 1-2 punch, preferably to find posts by the author himself. It's important to note that the 1-2 method uses both laws. But these are akin to crossed swords. It's important that you know and understand each one, their scope and applicability. This stuff can get complex.

2. In the FDCPA

3. Dunno, but a quick internet search should yield this

4. Both the FCRA & FDCPA are federal laws. They apply to consumers, CA's & CRA's nationally in a uniform manner. Certain states have similar laws, and other consumer-protection laws, which may offer additional protection. You should always search, read and become familar with your state's laws.

5. FACT(a) is the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. It's the last amendment of the FCRA, which has been amended many times since it was initially passed in 1970. The changes to the FCRA are highlighted in blue in the stickies above, so you can read which parts were added. FACTA provided certain things for consumers, like protection for victims of Identity Theft/Fraud, but also provided certain advantages for the financial sector. In particular, it made the FCRA less consumer-friendly and now penalizes (with loss of some rights) a consumer who hires a Credit Repair Organization, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current understanding of the 1-2 punch is this:

Premise of the 1-2 Punch!

The 1-2 punch is sending a DV (debt 'validation') letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing the item(s) with the credit bureau(s). The idea behind the 1-2 punch is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau simply has to delete the tradeline.

Action:

  1. Punch > collector
  2. Punch > bureau (a few days later)

Behind the Action:

The bureau is required to ask the collector to respond with 'verification' of debt, which; the collector can't do yet because of their own requirement in the FACT ACT to get 'validation' from OC and send it to you first.

IF: The bureau can't 'verify' the debt (FCRA) with the collector within 30/45 days, THEN; they delete.

IF: The collector violates the law by responding to the bureau 'before' they respond to you with the results of thier 'validation' (collection activity according to the FDCPA), THEN; you can claim a $1000 offset against them.

I now need to know what sections of the code are affected for these items below:

  1. What are the most important parts with reference to 1-2 punch?
  2. Where is the wording with respect to any 'written' validation or validation I am entitled to by either CA or CRA?
  3. Year of Act's inception FDCPA 1977, FCRA ??
  4. Where does an "act" fall in the chain (federal levels > state levels > down)?
  5. Where does the FACT ACT factor in and where is it?

It's these subsections and paragraphs that I would like to specifically find and mention in the 1-2 punch letters.

Any help is greatly appreciated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those answers can be found in the link that says FCRA. It's up at the top.

But here's one clue: the FCRA and FDCPA are ALL FEDERAL Acts. Any Act that mentions Congress is by default a Federal Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bureau is required to ask the collector to respond with 'verification' of debt, which; the collector can't do yet because of thier own requirement to get 'validation' from OC and send it to you first.

Not true. The collector (CA) can verify the debt with the bureau (CRA) at any time since they have been assigned the debt and have the pertinent information. They are not required to wait to verify with the CRAs for any reason.

IF: The bureau can't 'verify' the debt with the collector within 30/45 days, THEN; they delete.

True. If the CRA does not get a response from the data furnisher (CA or OC) within 30 days, they must delete. However, in some cases the information that was deleted can be re-reported by the DF.

IF: The collector violates the law by responding to the bureau 'before' they respond to you with the results of thier 'validation' (collection activity), THEN; you can claim a $1000 offset against them.

Not true. The CA can verify with the CRAs at anytime after the CRA has made the request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy that wrote the 1-2 punch is who said those things I thought. That was just my 'interpretation' though. Can you point to a good description of 1-2 punch better than what I have posted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guy that wrote the 1-2 punch is who said those things I thought. That was just my 'interpretation' though. Can you point to a good description of 1-2 punch better than what I have posted?

It's not complicated. Send a dispute letter to the CRAs and at the same time, send a DV to the CAs. That way, you are attacking from both ends. But each party (CA/CRA) will answer independently of the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not complicated. Send a dispute letter to the CRAs and at the same time, send a DV to the CAs. That way, you are attacking from both ends. But each party (CA/CRA) will answer independently of the other.
What I am concerned about is hitting the 45 day 'window'. Some say send right away while others say, 'wait for green card' from ca before sending to cra. just wondering if anyone has outlined a "most probable" senario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am concerned about is hitting the 45 day 'window'. Some say send right away while others say, 'wait for green card' from ca before sending to cra. just wondering if anyone has outlined a "most probable" senario?

The 45 day window for what? The CRAs generally have 30 days to respond. The CA can respond or not respond depending if your DV letter in timely.

The CA and CRAs are not comparing notes to see if you've sent them a letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 45 day window for what? The CRAs generally have 30 days to respond. The CA can respond or not respond depending if your DV letter in timely.

The CA and CRAs are not comparing notes to see if you've sent them a letter.

So is the best scenario then to send to ca and cra at the same time or wait for green card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter. They do not talk to each other to see if the other received a letter. How would getting the confirmation affect the process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter. They do not talk to each other to see if the other received a letter. How would getting the confirmation affect the process?
If the hope is to have the two cross then it it matters. I based my outline on this post below by Methuss:

ORIGINAL METHUS POST HERE OUTLINING THIS ONE-TWO PUNCH METHOD

Let me put a simple answer out there for you Aussie. Hopefully this answers it for you.

The 1-2 punch is sending a DV letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing with the credit bureau. The idea behind it is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau is simply has to delete the tradeline.

It works like this.

Once the collector gets your DV letter, they are forbidden to continue collection activities until they respond to the validation. Courts have time and again said that reporting to a bureau *is* collection activity since collectors use it as a tool to force payments out of consumers. Since the collector has to get verification from the original creditor and then forward the OC's response to you, this can give you a window to work with.

At the same time, the bureaus are required to ask the collector to verify the tradeline within 30 days of receipt of your dispute and if they get no response, they must delete it.

The hope is that once the DV lands in the collector's hands that their response will cross with the bureau's attempt to verify. If the collector responds to the bureau without first getting the validation from the OC and sending it to you, they broke the law by continuing collection activity and you can claim a $1000 offset against them. If they don't respond to the bureau, the bureau has to remove it and cannot put it back in unless the collector provides some proof that the tradeline is correct.

Now all this is in a perfect world where they all obey the laws. Sometimes it works; sometimes not. But when it doesn't work, it is usually because someone broke the law and opened up a $1000 claim in your favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So following that train of thought, I compiled the outline below and am now trying to very clearly define the optimal timing for each letter.

Precisely when to send each punch is the question?:

Premise of the 1-2 Punch!

The 1-2 punch is sending a DV (debt 'validation') letter to the collector and then a few days later disputing the item(s) with the credit bureau(s). The idea behind the 1-2 punch is to create a situation where the collector can't respond to the bureau's request without breaking the law and hopefully, making it so the bureau simply has to delete the tradeline.

Action:

  1. Punch > collector
  2. Punch > bureau (a few days later)

Behind the Action:

The bureau is required (by FCRA) to ask the collector to respond with 'verification' of debt, which; the collector can't do yet because of their own (FDCPA) requirement to FIRST fullfill the request for 'validation' that they must obtain from the OC and send on to you.

IF: The bureau can't 'verify' the debt with the collector within 45 days (30 days if CR was not obtained online as noted in the FACT ACT, and no follow-up is provided, which might involve not responding to requests for more info), THEN; they delete.

IF: The collector violates the law by responding to the bureau 'before' they respond to you with the results of thier 'validation' (collection activity), THEN; you can claim a $1000 offset against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.