Jump to content

Reporting disputed debt as disputed.


Recommended Posts

I have a question about this FDCPA statute:

(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.

I read this as the CA having the ultimate responsibility to report the debt as disputed. Does the CA generally have the power to update the account with the CRA's and should it do just that upon receipt of the dispute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about this FDCPA statute:

I read this as the CA having the ultimate responsibility to report the debt as disputed. Does the CA generally have the power to update the account with the CRA's and should it do just that upon receipt of the dispute?

The CA should update it within a reasonable amount of time. You should force them to update by disputing with the CRAs. That way if they verify without marking it in dispute, they are in violation of FDCPA. And you get to rack up violations under FCRA each time your CR is disclosed to a 3rd party and an adverse action is taken or if you can prove other damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess that is a "yes" that the CA has the power to update cr's. I wanted to establish this before asking my next question.

What if 2 or 3 years have passed and the debt is still being reported but not reported as disputed? Does the CA or JDB need to keep reporting the debt to the CRA's in order for the debt to be listed or can they discontinue reporting and the CRA's will keep the debt listed until the 7 years are up?

The reason I ask this is because if 2 or 3 years have passed, then the SOL for the FDCPA violation is up. But, if the CA or JDB is continuously reporting the debt and still does not report the debt as disputed then isn't the violation tolled with each updating of the report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many courts have been very strict when enforcing one year SOL on FDCPA claims. The concept of tolling has also been rejected many times.

You may have a recourse under FCRA (if you ever disputed with the CRAs) because if the undisputed status has been disclosed to a 3rd party, each update and each disclosure constitutes a separate injury for which you could seek damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, that is another issue.

(1) Does the CA, JDB, or OC need to continuously report the debt to the CRA's in order to keep it on the cr for the 7 years or, once reported, do the CRA's publish the debt as first reported for the 7 years?

(2) Ignoring the SOL issue, for the moment, if the collectors are reporting the account, but not as disputed, then each time the collectors report this is another violation, isn't it?

My understanding of the FCRA, in this same circumstance, is that the consumer has no private right of action. Even where there is private right of action by the consumer, the consumer needs to prove wilful noncompliance in order to get any money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Does the CA, JDB, or OC need to continuously report the debt to the CRA's in order to keep it on the cr for the 7 years or, once reported, do the CRA's publish the debt as first reported for the 7 years?

Once a DF reports a TL it can stay there until the running of the reporting period expires even if they don't update it ever again.

(2) Ignoring the SOL issue, for the moment, if the collectors are reporting the account, but not as disputed, then each time the collectors report this is another violation, isn't it?

Correct. Not all violations translate into a damage. Only the ones you can prove that were the proximate cause of your damages. A court will not award damages just because there was a violation, there must be an adverse action taken by someone who relied on the wrong information reported by the DF.

My understanding of the FCRA, in this same circumstance, is that the consumer has no private right of action. Even where there is private right of action by the consumer, the consumer needs to prove wilful noncompliance in order to get any money.

That is why you use the 1-2 punch. You contact the DF, give them notice of the violation. Then you contact the CRAs and dispute with them asking the DF to cure the violation. If they just verify without correcting, they will have a hard time showing it was a bona fide error and not a willful disregard of the law. You still need to prove other damages before you can get the statutory $1,000 per violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a 3in1 cr at the bottom the page shows a 24-months style accounting, and the data only goes up to 05 or 06, then isn't this the date when the report was last updated?

Otherwise, how could I ascertain the last updating of the account?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 3 in 1 can give you a general idea of what is being reported, but if you want the specifics, better get your report directly from the CRA, unless you really know what you are doing and even in those cases, a 3 in 1 has less info than a CR straight from the CRA.

You usually can make a stronger case when something is wrong if the CRA is reporting it that way, as opposed to a 3 in 1 which is basically forcing the info obtained from the CRA into a generic template that lacks some of the info reported by the CRA.

For example: EX allows CAs to report every month the status of the account. So your payment history can get a whole bunch of recent "CO's". This seems accurate, if you think oh well, the status is CO, and it hasn't changed, but the way FICO and some 3 in 1 look at it is each month you have a "CO" it means you missed a payment for over 90 days. So an innocent "CO" every month is not just repetitive and unnecessary for a collection or charged off account, but it is interpreted by everybody else as a recent seriously late payment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the 3 in 1 reports are cartoonish but they're cheap and suffice for monitoring incoming data.

My question was, and still is, if there is a style of dating the report and you can see that the year only goes up to 05 or 06 then wouldn't this be a good indicator to me (not a judge) that the creditor stopped updating the report. I just want to get a general idea for myself. I won't be taking this 3rd party credit report to court.

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.