another stupid question: removing TLs for FCRA violations

[moonwife]

Why can't a TL just be removed if you can show that the CA or JDB is violating FCRA rules with the listing? We all see plenty of scummy JDB who do all sorts of shady things, many of which are obvious...........can you/has anyone had luck just writing the CRA saying "Hey, this TL violates the rules, remove it"

or is that just stupid wishful thinking???

[jezter6]

So the CRA should remove the whole TL because some collector is calling a few minutes past the legal calling time? Or because they may have threatened you a little?

A trade line is STILL a trade line. Just because the JDB is a scumbag doesn't necessarily mean the line should not be there.

Remember - the line is not there for JUST the creditor claiming the line - it's to protect other potential creditors and warn them of negative behavior.

[Amerikaner83]

wishful thinking - sorry.

The CRA could not care less what the CA/JDB is doing, it does not directly affect them in the manner in which you're trying to get it to.

[moonwife]

So the CRA should remove the whole TL because some collector is calling a few minutes past the legal calling time? Or because they may have threatened you a little?

A trade line is STILL a trade line. Just because the JDB is a scumbag doesn't necessarily mean the line should not be there.

Remember - the line is not there for JUST the creditor claiming the line - it's to protect other potential creditors and warn them of negative behavior.

No, but it isn't completely moronic to think that if they put regulations in place and the CAs are so flagrant in their disrespect for those laws that there would be consequences for them i.e. "you need to make sure your records are accurate if you want them to be permissable on a CR". Obviously, that's not the case, but I'm not being some whiney punk here.........in the case of regulations that purport to protect the consumer, there is often consequences for the business.

I've been reading here, there are OFTEN more egregious crappy things the CAs do not just calling at 6:01 or whatever.........like falsifying debts all together. Things that are ACTUALLY serious. Whats the point of the FCRA if there is really no enforcement and no consequences when the CAs violate it? It's not idiotic to ask that.

I figured it was wishful thinking..........it still, actually, doesn't make a lot of practical sense. It kind of does make sense to say "Hey, in the interest of fairness and being accurate, you have to make a good faith effort to keep all TLs accurate"

[jezter6]

.in the case of regulations that purport to protect the consumer, there is often consequences for the business.

Yes, $1,000 per action against the violator.

However, a legitimate debt SHOULD be on the report of the debtor, no matter how sleazy the collector.

If TL deletion happened for every sleazy collector, we'd all have perfect credit reports and nobody would EVER pay those bastards.

[moonwife]

Yes, $1,000 per action against the violator.

However, a legitimate debt SHOULD be on the report of the debtor, no matter how sleazy the collector.

If TL deletion happened for every sleazy collector, we'd all have perfect credit reports and nobody would EVER pay those bastards.

One would argue that if the debt was legit, no one would need to sleaze it up.

A credit report seems kind of useless if half of it is basically a fairy tale anyways.

And, I know that, in theory, there is a 1000 per instance, but if no one enforces that..........it's kind of pointless.

[Amerikaner83]

the people that enforce that....you and I. The consumers who sue the CAs. That is who enforces it.

Or more accurately, it is us who causes the COURTS to enforce it when we sue them. BTW - it's "up to" 1K...not automatic