Portfolio Recovery Associates Response to 623 method

[PupnCub]

Just looking for a little clarification on what I should or should not do next with Portfolio Recovery Associates, (PRA).

I disputed the charge-off acct with the CRA's and it came back verified.

PRA sent a letter to me that contained information about when they purchased the debt and what not.

I then sent PRA a letter using the 623 method to dispute and aksed them for the following in the 623 letter:

To Whom It May Concern:

This certified letter is being sent pursuant to the Fair Consumer Reporting Act (FCRA) sec. 623 (a)(8) – Ability of consumer to dispute information directly with the furnisher i.e.; Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. This is not a request for “validation” but a request for an “investigation” made pursuant to the above mentioned FCRA.

In December of 2007 you purchased my account from HSBC/ORCHARD BANK, for an alleged unpaid balance of $513.89 I demand that you produce the following to back up your “verification” to the credit bureaus.

1.) Copy of the signed application where I authorized the account.

2.) Copies of the authorized charges.

3.) Copies of any authorized terms of the agreement.

4.) Proof you have that the terms of agreement were violated that resulted in the reported negative tradeline.

Your expedient response regarding your investigation is greatly appreciated and is expected within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

This was their response to me that I received today:

I am writing in response to your recent dispute.

However, since you have submitted a dispute that is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by you and we have already responded to this dispute, then as per the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USCS 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(ii), we are notifying you that such dispute is frivolous or irrelevant.

If we continue to receive subsequent correspondence from you regarding a dispute that has already been resolved, we will consider your inquiry answered. NO further replies will be forthcoming unless you provide the information we need to assist you. Our office considers this matter closed.

Sincerely

Disputes Department.

[COLOR="black"]Ok now I disputed the lates that they have listed on my CRA before and they said they can provide to me an electronic copy of my payment history. So this is why I sent them the letter using the 623 Method. Should I resubmit the dispute stating they did not properly investigate the dispute since they provided me with no proof of any payment history or anything that bears my signature? Runnin around in circles here. What should be the next step?????

Edited December 20, 2009 by PupnCub
spelling errors

[Downto0]

PRA has already told you that they considered the matter closed. The CRA's are interested in keeping PRA as a paying customer so, they will report the account as PRA wants the account to be be reported.

I would start working with a third party, such as filing a complaint with the BBB. You could also file a complaint with you local AG.

If you have PRA on enough violations, you could sue them. This would cost you filing fees and such.

Right now you seem to be in an infinite loop. I'd start another procedure.

[cinnamngrl]

PRA is a collection agency. why are you using 623?

Did you have a payment plan with PRA? Are they reporting HSBC lates? You can ask HSBC to investigate the lates.

I am a little concerned that this will muddle any violations. Have they sent any statements? Could you try a MOV with the CRAs?

[PupnCub]

Hello,

I sent PRA the 623 letter because they said they own the account and are now the creditor. I also sent HSBC a letter using the 623 method and they never responded at all. HSBC reports is as a Charge-off and PRA is adding monthly interest to the balance.

[NightOwl1969]

Ahhh....my friends at PRA. I had a protracted battle with them that ended in my filing an FDCPA suit. Yeah for me. Fill in my name and account, and my story started off just like yours.

PRA in a nutshell from my experience.

First, they don't have to, and will not, produce any of the documentation you requested. They don't have it, so they can't, and by law they are not required to. They buy a list of names, account #'s, SS #'s in bulk. No documentation. First they will report you to the CRA's. Then call/write. You send a DV. They send back a form letter stating that they purchased the account on a certain date, from a creditor, and you owe a bunch of $$. This is not FDCPA verification (which is required to come from the OC) but they will pretend it is. They will claim to be the creditor now. Federal case after federal case has decided that any company purchasing a debt ALREADY IN DEFAULT is a debt collector, not a creditor. They can call themselves whatever they want, but they are NOT the creditor for legal purposes and are thus bound by the FDCPA, not the FCRA.

So you send a second letter, requesting all the stuff you requested (which I did too.) They send the "frivolous dispute" letter, claiming they've already verified (which they haven't). In the meantime, you're disputing with the CRA's and when they report the account as 'verified', you have your first FDCPA violations (collection activities before validating debt to consumer).

Now, here is what I did. I sent a third letter, which got no response. I then filed complaints with the BBB, and the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs, who were actually very helpful. I detailed the situation, enclosed copies of all correspondence. I also put in statement that I had done all I could do, and this was my last step before filing a Federal suit. PRA responded to both the BBB and the Virginia OCA by stating "We did nothing wrong blah blah blah but in the interests of closing this matter, we will delete this account from <my> credit reports. The Virginia OCA is VERY familiar with PRA...and not in a good way, FYI.

All was resolved, until the account reappeared on my Equifax report two months later. I filed suit the next day. (I had them on several violations.)

Bottom line: PRA are the lowest of the low, scum of the first order. They violate the law as a matter of business and will only respond to the stick. Beat them with every agency you can find, and if that doesn't work, beat them with the judicial stick. DO NOT expect them to respond or be helpful in any way. You will be disappointed.

[texaninfl]

PRA is a collection agency. why are you using 623?

Technically, they're the data furnisher so wouldn't a 623 apply to them?

[Bigwoodystyl]

Technically, they're the data furnisher so wouldn't a 623 apply to them?

Yes.

[cinnamngrl]

Ok, so Can anyone comment on the response of CA to a 623?

[GH0104]

I agree with Cinnamngrl, I don't know if a "623" covers your rights, because you are not specifically stating "I dispute this debt." Do not "623" them; in fact, don't bother with fancy wording and such; it reeks of form letter from the internet.

This is all you have to send them - lay off the elaborate templates:

January 9, 2010

JDB Scum

123 Wherever Lane

Dorksville, BS 12345

Acct:

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in regards to the above reference account. I am unaware of any business relationship or debt with your company, therefore I dispute it.

Please forward paperwork on this alleged debt. Contacting me via telephone is always inconvenient, so limit your contact to written correspondence only.

Regards,

PupnCub

Send it CMRRR.

CA staff have the attention span of a gnat - you need to be sure your MESSAGE doesn't get muddled in the section quotes and caselaw citation.

Please, take advice from a VERY wordy girl: save the long-winded stuff for the courtroom.

[Bigwoodystyl]

This is all you have to send them - lay off the elaborate templates:

January 9, 2010

JDB Scum

123 Wherever Lane

Dorksville, BS 12345

Acct:

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in regards to the above reference account. I am unaware of any business relationship or debt with your company, therefore I dispute it.

Please forward paperwork on this alleged debt. Contacting me via telephone is always inconvenient, so limit your contact to written correspondence only.

Regards,

PupnCub

Send it CMRRR.

CA staff have the attention span of a gnat - you need to be sure your MESSAGE doesn't get muddled in the section quotes and caselaw citation.

Please, take advice from a VERY wordy girl: save the long-winded stuff for the courtroom.

Certainly, it is good to ask for DV in a timely fashion under the FDCPA. And, send it CMRRR. It's also better that you should not use an elaborate or long-winded DV letter. All your DV letter really needs is a reference of the proper account with the words, "I dispute this debt".

[Bigwoodystyl]

FCRA Sec. 623 applies to any DF who is reporting information about you and that includes collection agencies.

If you dispute a CA's listings with the CRA under Sec. 611, the CRA will notify the CA and the CA is then required to perform a "reinvestigation". [Note: it's considered a reinvestigation because all information is supposedly already investigated before it is reported.] In practice, we know that this reinvestigation is perfunctory and that real investigations are few and far between.

Under Sec. 623, you can also dispute a listing directly with the DF for a reinvestigation under Sec. 623 without disputing with the CRA--under Sec. 611. However, for the DF [in this case, the CA] to violate the FCRA, you will need to have first disputed under Sec. 611.

I've seen people have great successes using Sec. 623 to attack a CA who can't/won't verify their listings.

Ahhh....my friends at PRA. I had a protracted battle with them that ended in my filing an FDCPA suit. Yeah for me. Fill in my name and account, and my story started off just like yours.

PRA in a nutshell from my experience.

First, they don't have to, and will not, produce any of the documentation you requested. They don't have it, so they can't, and by law they are not required to. They buy a list of names, account #'s, SS #'s in bulk. No documentation. First they will report you to the CRA's. Then call/write. You send a DV. They send back a form letter stating that they purchased the account on a certain date, from a creditor, and you owe a bunch of $$. This is not FDCPA verification (which is required to come from the OC) but they will pretend it is. They will claim to be the creditor now. Federal case after federal case has decided that any company purchasing a debt ALREADY IN DEFAULT is a debt collector, not a creditor. They can call themselves whatever they want, but they are NOT the creditor for legal purposes and are thus bound by the FDCPA, not the FCRA.

So you send a second letter, requesting all the stuff you requested (which I did too.) They send the "frivolous dispute" letter, claiming they've already verified (which they haven't). In the meantime, you're disputing with the CRA's and when they report the account as 'verified', you have your first FDCPA violations (collection activities before validating debt to consumer).

Now, here is what I did. I sent a third letter, which got no response. I then filed complaints with the BBB, and the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs, who were actually very helpful. I detailed the situation, enclosed copies of all correspondence. I also put in statement that I had done all I could do, and this was my last step before filing a Federal suit. PRA responded to both the BBB and the Virginia OCA by stating "We did nothing wrong blah blah blah but in the interests of closing this matter, we will delete this account from <my> credit reports. The Virginia OCA is VERY familiar with PRA...and not in a good way, FYI.

All was resolved, until the account reappeared on my Equifax report two months later. I filed suit the next day. (I had them on several violations.)

Bottom line: PRA are the lowest of the low, scum of the first order. They violate the law as a matter of business and will only respond to the stick. Beat them with every agency you can find, and if that doesn't work, beat them with the judicial stick. DO NOT expect them to respond or be helpful in any way. You will be disappointed.

I think this might be a better approach for thsi particular situation. approach; however, I will point out that, in this instance, they are bound by both the FDCPA and the FCRA; they are not mutually exclusive.

[GH0104]

Certainly, it is good to ask for DV in a timely fashion under the FDCPA. And, send it CMRRR. It's also better that you should not use an elaborate or long-winded DV letter. All your DV letter really needs is a reference of the proper account with the words, "I dispute this debt".

LOL...isn't that what I just said?

Anyhow, you brought up something I definitely missed: TIMELY DV. I don't how much time has passed since the OP's first correspondence from them - DV's must be made within 30 days of initial communication.

[GH0104]

I think this might be a better approach for thsi particular situation. approach; however, I will point out that, in this instance, they are bound by both the FDCPA and the FCRA; they are not mutually exclusive.

Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a FCRA expert, but my understanding that FDCPA is what give FCRA its teeth, therefore to two are intertwined? In other words, violating FCRA is essentially violating the FDCPA.

[Bigwoodystyl]

LOL...isn't that what I just said?

Yes, it certainly is. However, you were wrong about Sec. 623. So, I could only agree with one part of your post, yet I wanted to comment specifically on both.

One part=very good [short DV letters].

One part=not very good [FCRA applies to anyone who furnishes data to CRA and that includes CA's].

Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a FCRA expert, but my understanding that FDCPA is what give FCRA its teeth, therefore to two are intertwined? In other words, violating FCRA is essentially violating the FDCPA.

No. It's my understanding that they are two separate statutes, which are ultimately both part of the "Consumer Credit Protection Act" (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) To oversimplify, the FCRA governs credit reporting and the FDCPA governs debt collection practices.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Bigwoodystyl

[PupnCub]

Well I contacted the OC (HSBC) by phone on Saturday 1/17/10 and informed them the call was being recorded that agent was named Sandy. I sent them a 623 letter as well asking for documentation of the account. I was told specifically that I as a consumer was not allowed to obtain any documentation for this account and that all requests for such account can only be requested by the Collection Agency; in this case PRA. I asked if they had the original application with my signature and they said no it was done via on line and again I can not obtain any proof of the account as they do not have it prior to the account being sold to PRA in 12/2007 (this is when I first started the dispute process). I asked if they had any statements prior to the selling of the account and they answered yes but again I was not allowed to have any proof. (pulling the rest of the hair out of my bald head). I was told to contact PRA directly, but I had already done that and they refused to send proof saying the dispute was frivolous and they considered they considered the matter closed.

So now I guess I start back at square one, there has to be some violation here that I am not seeing with refusing to prove the account when they acknowledge they have some "Paperwork". They validated it as being mine with with CRA's in July of 2009. Can I hold HSBC responsible for anything? What violations if any am I missing here?

[Bigwoodystyl]

Well I contacted the OC (HSBC) by phone on Saturday 1/17/10 and informed them the call was being recorded that agent was named Sandy. I sent them a 623 letter as well asking for documentation of the account. I was told specifically that I as a consumer was not allowed to obtain any documentation for this account and that all requests for such account can only be requested by the Collection Agency; in this case PRA. I asked if they had the original application with my signature and they said no it was done via on line and again I can not obtain any proof of the account as they do not have it prior to the account being sold to PRA in 12/2007 (this is when I first started the dispute process). I asked if they had any statements prior to the selling of the account and they answered yes but again I was not allowed to have any proof. (pulling the rest of the hair out of my bald head). I was told to contact PRA directly, but I had already done that and they refused to send proof saying the dispute was frivolous and they considered they considered the matter closed.

So now I guess I start back at square one, there has to be some violation here that I am not seeing with refusing to prove the account when they acknowledge they have some "Paperwork". They validated it as being mine with with CRA's in July of 2009. Can I hold HSBC responsible for anything? What violations if any am I missing here?

I think you should follow Night Owl's advice. I also don't think HSBC did anything wrong.

[PupnCub]

Ok that is what I did today; Filed a complaint with the VOCA and the BBB in Virginia; just for giggles I also submitted a complaint to the FTC I figured it could not hurt right. We will see what comes out of it next.

[Sword and Armor]

I noticed that PRA just pulled a hard inquiry on my TU back in November.......

[PupnCub]

Received a phone call today from the BBB in Virginia, when I talked to the agent/representative handling the complaint I was informed that the FTC has recently requested all complaints against PRA and that mine was going to be forwarded as well, however I should call PRA and speak to a Mr. Lagow to try and resolve the matter, and if he does not answer in 5 days then to promptly notify the BBB and they will help in the matter. This is the first time I ever got any type of communication such as this with any BBB. Very interesting to say the least.

[PupnCub]

Update 2/9/10

I have contacted Lemberg & Associates, LLC who have had success in court against PRA for violations and have also turned over files to the FTC. I was told by Lemberg & Associates to let PRA know that they are reviewing the information.

PRA did respond to one of my complaints that was filed with the VOCA and basically in a nut shell thier Legal Counsel said that he has closed the account. I can not post their entire response due to a disclaimer that they have put in their response.

So if the account is closed as of this date but they keep reporting it on my credit report doesn't that constitute an FDCPA violation?

I also find it weird that PRA is now acting as a Law Office and not a collection agency..hmmm kinda strange to me...dunno.

[PupnCub]

I forgot to also add, PRA still has not provided any records to me regarding the collection account.