Jump to content

JDB makes account inquiry but has no account.


Recommended Posts

I'm used to JDB's making an inquiry for collection of an account. Recently I noticed that one JDB has been making inquiries for account reviews.

Is this permissible purpose if they have never listed a tl nor was the debt they are trying to collect ever listed as a tl? What account would they actually be reveiwing?

I've never made any transactions with them. I've never promised to make a payment. They tried to sue me for the debt, but their case was dismissed.

I just don't understand why they could have pp to review a phantom tl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, come on. There have got to be some FCRA wizards out there. Taking "account review" to its natural defintion, would not a JDB need to have an account listed as a tl to do an "account review"?

Do they have permissible purpose to make an "account review" inquiry just because they do own a debt that I allegedly owe? I would think they only have pp for a "collections" inquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive been asking this for a long time now, and from my understanding they have pp.

if in fact they own the debt, they have pp.

there is a long thread stemming from the PINTOS decision where its discussed, i also have a thread i started earlier this year where its discussed.

ive always wanted to sue for FCRA but i havent yet, because everything points to them always having pp.

the killer in the statute is this line right here:

in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer

see 1681b(a)(3)(A)

so if its in connection with a credit transaction that involves you, they have pp. to my understanding lots of other things are irrelevant as long as they meet that part of the statute.

the other part of the statute that is hard to beat is this:

or review of an account

reviewing an account gives pp

FCRA is not easy IMO

to win you'd have to prove they pulled for an impermissible purpose or that they pulled under false pretenses. the two sometimes go hand in hand, but its big shoes to fill.

are you saying you dont have delinquent debt?

Edited by jackson212
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I'm probably just chasing a rabbit.

It may be that the CRA mislabeled the inquiry as "account review" rather than "collections".

It is interesting that you bring the Pintos case up. Pintos had her car towed away but it was someone else who called the tow truck. Thus, she had not made a transaction with the towing service but the collection agency did a pull anyway. The court later decided that since Pintos did not initiate the transaction that the debt collector did not have pp.

One might think it would be the same with a JDB who makes an inquiry and the debtor has never initiated a transaction with the JDB. However, the FCRA allows collection of a debt as pp. Also, the debtor made a transaction with the OC and all rights are generally passed on to the JDB when they buy the debt.

I do think that the inquiry should have been listed as "collections" rather than "account review" since there is no account to review. I can't help but think that there might be something a little slippery going on and that there might be a possible FCRA violation.

I will ask the NACA attorney to whom I am conferring with now about this very JDB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the difference between you and pintos is that you initiated the transaction...i.e. the account that is in review. if the account that is in review (allegedly) was not initiated by you, then you'd probably have grounds similar to Pintos.

i would exactly say you're chasing a dead end, but there is alot of reading material out there which will help you make a better decision. im just pointing out where i tried and failed to find lack of PP.

to get you started this is the pintos case i was talking about

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/305591-pintos-decision.html

there are one or two other threads i just dont have time right now to dig them up, but its a funny and informative thread, you'll see both sides of the spectrum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They tried to sue me for the debt, but their case was dismissed.

.

Why was the case dismissed and was it with or without prejudice. If case was dismissed for lack of standing, which in most cases would mean an inability to show ownership and if that be the case in my opinion and I'm think a valid one if you can't show ownership in court you can't show it to a CRA meaning only the OC can enjoy that privilege the jdb is out of luck. Hope that help. Be Blessed! S.A.

Edited by saint al
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the most interesting section in that whole thread. I pretty much already knew the gist of everything else:

Quote by jq26 from other thread:

Basically, the procedural posture would be that the CA or JDB pull the report, then the debtor would sue the CA, JDB, and/or the CRA based on an FCRA PP violation, then the affirmative defense would be raised by the CA, JDB, or CRA that the report was pulled as part of a collection activity. The plaintiff making the FCRA claim would then have to show that the account was not initiated by them.

The judge in my case, where the JDB sued me for the alleged debt, said in two different opinion that the JDB had not provided assignment.

This being the case, I think I would have a valid claim that the JDB does not have assignment. I asked for assignment several times, the JDB did not produce. The judge ruled twice that the JDB did not provide this assignment.

My point is, it would be costly for the JDB to get this assignment if I made the argument and I could ask for more in my settlement negotiations because it would be cheaper for the JDB to pay me a little more than pay a lot to the OC to confirm the assigment.

It would be costly for the JDB because the OC would have to come up with the transfer of the debt to the "debt clearing house" and the "debt clearing house" would have to come up with the transfer to the JDB.

This might even be impossible. The judge who dismissed the JDB's claim said that the JDB would have to come back with assignment if they wanted to prevail. The attorney looked baffled and said, "We got his debt on a sheet with hundreds of others...I can't show you the whole sheet and it would not look right if I redacted all the other debts...and I can't show the other debts to the court".

The judge said, "You know Mr. Downto0, he'll want to see his name by his account with the correct amount along with authorization from the Original Creditor".

The attorney walked away with a blank look on his face as if it was impossible to do such a thing. I can still see that puzzled look in his eyes as I think about it today.

Personally, I think if it has been years since the transfer that there is a very good chance that the OC has purged their records and the clearing house records would not be complete without the OC's records.

I'll see what the NACA attorney thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge said, "You know Mr. Downto0, he'll want to see his name by his account with the correct amount along with authorization from the Original Creditor".

LMAO......excellent mr. downto0. you're fighting the good fight. good job but this is hilarously funny. epic fail for them LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a county with a small population where I could very much expect to be in front of this same judge if I lowered the damages I am seeking so that I would be in her jurisdiction. She remembers very clearly that I did not welcome communication from this JDB and that I refused to pay the debt.

So what do you think about adding FCRA violations for Impermissible Purpose since the JDB did not provide assignment and, for that reason, their case was dismissed?

There is a theory that just because a JDB does not produce assignment it does not establish that they don't have assignment. The understanding is that the JDB just chooses to not spend the time and money to get a hard copy of the assignment because it'll take all the profit out of collecting the debt.

The problem for the JDB is that they have no direct connection to the OC. To get assignment, they would have to provide the trail where the assignment came from. I think they would need two affidavits, one from the debt clearing house and one from the OC to the clearing house. The OC could not just give one affidavit saying that it sold the debt to the JDB because they did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a county with a small population where I could very much expect to be in front of this same judge if I lowered the damages I am seeking so that I would be in her jurisdiction. She remembers very clearly that I did not welcome communication from this JDB and that I refused to pay the debt.

So what do you think about adding FCRA violations for Impermissible Purpose since the JDB did not provide assignment and, for that reason, their case was dismissed?

There is a theory that just because a JDB does not produce assignment it does not establish that they don't have assignment. The understanding is that the JDB just chooses to not spend the time and money to get a hard copy of the assignment because it'll take all the profit out of collecting the debt.

The problem for the JDB is that they have no direct connection to the OC. To get assignment, they would have to provide the trail where the assignment came from. I think they would need two affidavits, one from the debt clearing house and one from the OC to the clearing house. The OC could not just give one affidavit saying that it sold the debt to the JDB because they did not.

im from the school that if they lack assignment, they lack standing, therefore they lack PP. the problem is finding case law in my circuit or any circuit that has the same logic. ive been struggling with this notion for some time now, and i think its up to someone to establish case law on all this.

its one big fat mess to sort out and will be a tough if nearly impossible fight because its uncharted territory which i think an appeals court may have to decide (and which may take years) because the losing party most likely will appeal, IMO.

good luck if you move forward 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any cases which have dealt with a collector not providing assignment to the debtor and where that debtor later sued the collector for IP.

Since the JDB in my case did not provide assignment via court action, I think it would be a reasonable claim that the JDB does not have PP. They have pulled 3 times so far so that would be another $3,000 on top of the settlement I'm already asking for.

I'm going to start drafting up my second ITS letter because the second NACA attorney is not responding after my last Email. He had told me that he did not want to go against the JDB attorney because he thought he was a nice guy.

I told him that I did not have a claim against the JDB's attorney but that I would not hesitate to file against him if I thought that he had done something wrong. No answer. I get the feeling the JDB's attorney may somehow be culpable and this younger NACA attorney won't take my case, or even answer my Emails to tell me that he declines.

Well okay, back to my NACA list. I'll choose one from another town in another county. It doesn't matter where they are from. One can sue in any US District court and only one's attorney has to show up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any cases which have dealt with a collector not providing assignment to the debtor and where that debtor later sued the collector for IP.

Since the JDB in my case did not provide assignment via court action, I think it would be a reasonable claim that the JDB does not have PP. They have pulled 3 times so far so that would be another $3,000 on top of the settlement I'm already asking for.

I'm going to start drafting up my second ITS letter because the second NACA attorney is not responding after my last Email. He had told me that he did not want to go against the JDB attorney because he thought he was a nice guy.

I told him that I did not have a claim against the JDB's attorney but that I would not hesitate to file against him if I thought that he had done something wrong. No answer. I get the feeling the JDB's attorney may somehow be culpable and this younger NACA attorney won't take my case, or even answer my Emails to tell me that he declines.

Well okay, back to my NACA list. I'll choose one from another town in another county. It doesn't matter where they are from. One can sue in any US District court and only one's attorney has to show up.

I agree with Jackson. If they can't prove they own a debt, they should be allowed to make a hard inquiry or report a TL. Unfortunately, the CRAs don't check that stuff out.

CAs and JDBs have been know to make numerous inquiries in order to try to force payment. It's a form of harassment. In your case, a judge has already ruled in your favor. In my opinion, they have no business making one inquiry, much less more than one. Hopefully you can find some case law to back you up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jackson. If they can't prove they own a debt, they should not be allowed to make a hard inquiry or report a TL. Unfortunately, the CRAs don't check that stuff out.

CAs and JDBs have been know to make numerous inquiries in order to try to force payment. It's a form of harassment. In your case, a judge has already ruled in your favor. In my opinion, they have no business making one inquiry, much less more than one. Hopefully you can find some case law to back you up.

is this what you meant? :D

i know what you mean. im contemplating taking this to court....i have been for a very long time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jackson, I still have several NACA attorneys within the state I have yet to Email. I doubt if I will look outside the state. I might go pro se if the lot of them is reluctant to pursue my claim the way I want them to pursue my claim.

As far as the FCRA violation goes, I think I'll slip it into my next ITS along with the judge's rulings and see if I can get them to stir. If they still don't respond then it makes my claim look stronger. Case law would be better but my own case opinions carry enough weight to throw the burden of proof on the JDB. The JDB can't just say, "Well, we have this sheet here where it says that Mr. Downto0 owed the OC and we bought that debt". It wasn't burden of proof in court that day that the JDB lost their case against me and I don't think the next judge will think it is burden of proof to extinguish my claim that they don't have pp.

I believe they will have to come to court with affidavits from the OC and the clearing house. They will have to establish Chain of assignment.

Should I be contacting the CRA that listed their inquiry? The account, in question, has never been listed with any of the CRA's for the last 4 or 5 years I've been getting my yearly tl. I did pay to get monthly reports for a while but I started cutting corners and dropped the subscription.

Because the tl is not listed, I cannot do a 623 dispute directly with the CRA's, can I, or can one dispute inquiries with the CRA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if standing has already been established by the lower court, you dont have to prove they lack standing in again. use the court order as proof of lack of standing.

but then you start to go in stupid circle again, see my post about "account review" giving pp...any strong argument goes downhill from there.

it'll drive you insane, it drove me nuts

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.