Jump to content

Should all related accounts be disputed?


Downto0
 Share

Recommended Posts

The FDCPA requires that a debt collector communicates that a debt is disputed.

The FDCPA does not specifiy how far the communication process should go but if the OC and the JDB both have tl's listed for the same debt then it would follow that the JDB should communicate to the OC that the OC's tl is disputed as well.

I understand that the JDB has no authority to list the OC's tl as disputed but they do have the responsibility to communicate to the the OC that the OC's tl is disputed. Whether the OC then updates their tl, or not, is up to the OC but the JDB has fulfilled their obligation under the FDCPA to communicate that a debt is disputed.

CA's quite often do communicate to OC's that the OC's tl is disputed and the OC subsequently lists their tl's as disputed. Why shouldn't JDB's be required to do the same?

Edited by Downto0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're talking about a junk debt buyer vs. a collection agency, a JDB is not required to contact the OC about a dispute, because the OC no longer owns the debt. The JDB is not collecting for the OC.

In addition, just because the JDB's entry is disputed doesn't necessarily mean the OC's entry would be disputed. An OC's entry could be valid while a JDB's entry may not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, but the FDCPA does not separate a JDB from a CA. The FDCPA puts forth the vague statement that the debt collector will communicate that the debt is disputed.

I understand your reasoning that there is a direct connection between a CA and a OC. The JDB, on the other hand, has no communication with the OC. In fact, they probably bought the debt through some sort of debt buying house and never ever made contact with the OC in purchasing the debt.

However, the OC and the JDB continue to have two separate negative accounts on the consumer's cr. It would defeat the purpose of the FDCPA if the OC continues to leave their negative account undisputed while the JDB lists as disputed the same account they bought from the OC.

This would lead to a lower credit score as the CRA's do not use disputed accounts when assessing a credit score. Therefore, a CRA would not take into account the JDB's tl since the JDB listed it as disputed yet the CRA would assess points against the credit score for the OC's account which is basically the same account yet has not been disputed.

A simple letter to the OC from the JDB stating that they had received a dispute concerning the account they purchased from the OC would fulfill their FDCPA obligation.

Edited by Downto0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FDCPA puts forth the vague statement that the debt collector will communicate that the debt is disputed.

Yes, if you dispute the debt with the JDB, they must report it as such to CRAs, but there's nothing that states that they are responsible for reporting that fact to a company who no longer has anything to do with the debt and for whom they are not collecting.

I understand what you're saying, but unless you can find case law to support your supposition, it's not going to work. Unlike a collection agency, the JDB was not hired by the OC to collect. A JDB can show that they have no relationship with the OC and is not collecting for them.

However, the OC and the JDB continue to have two separate negative accounts on the consumer's cr. It would defeat the purpose of the FDCPA if the OC continues to leave their negative account undisputed while the JDB disputes the same account they bought from the OC.

No, it doesn't defeat the purpose of the FDCPA. The FDCPA doesn't apply to OCs. The JDB has nothing to do with what the OC is reporting. If you have a dispute about the OC's TL, that's an FCRA issue between you and the OC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would defeat the purpose of the FDCPA if a debt collector could find ways to go around the FDCPA when they could say that they don't need to communicate to the Original Creditor that the account they bought from the OC was disputed. It has nothing to do with the OC.

I got to looking at my credit report and I noticed that the OC does not update their tl after they sell it but they don't delete it from the cr either. It just lays there like a worthless penny no one wants to pick up. The JDB lists their tl (the same basic account) as disputed, and the OC does not. The OC does not list their tl as disputed because the JDB has not informed them that the account they bought from the OC is disputed. So, here you have two accounts which are disputed becase disputing one is the same as disputing the other but only one is listed as disputed.

The FDCPA very much comes into play here. Congress did not say that a JDB only had to list their own tl as disputed, they stated that the debt collector will communicate that the debt is disputed. The JDB knows that the OC is still listing the original tl. They know that their account is the same account. There is no difference except for the account numbers. In fact, the amount asked for is usually the same as listed on the original account.

Since the JDB knows that the account they bought from the OC is disputed and that the OC is still listing the same disputed account as undisputed, they are obligated to communicate to the OC the dispute. Whether the OC lists their tl as disputed, or not, does not matter as the JDB has done their part in communicating that the debt is disputed.

This is something new to me and I have no immediate cases or references. Just the FDCPA where it states, more or less, that the debt collector will communicate that the debt is disputed.

I'm just tossing this thing out there for opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got to looking at my credit report and I noticed that the OC does not update their tl after they sell it but they don't delete it from the cr either. It just lays there like a worthless penny no one wants to pick up. The JDB lists their tl (the same basic account) as disputed, and the OC does not. The OC does not list their tl as disputed because the JDB has not informed them that the account they bought from the OC is disputed. So, here you have two accounts which are disputed becase disputing one is the same as disputing the other but only one is listed as disputed.

Our CRs are a history of accounts. A sold account is part of that history. The OC doesn't have to delete it just because they no longer own it. As long as the TL is accurate, it stays. That's the law.

It would defeat the purpose of the FDCPA if a debt collector could find ways to go around the FDCPA when they could say that they don't need to communicate to the Original Creditor that the account they bought from the OC was disputed. It has nothing to do with the OC.

What it boils down to is that you have to prove that a JDB who purchases an account is required under the FDCPA to tell the OC that the account is disputed on your CR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our CRs are a history of accounts. A sold account is part of that history. The OC doesn't have to delete it just because they no longer own it. As long as the TL is accurate, it stays. That's the law.

OC's delete their tl's all the time. There is not any law which requires tl's to stay on any cr. The only thing that is required, by law, to stay on a cr are inquiries. Inquiries are mandated by the FCRA to stay on for one year after their incarnation.

The OC's don't have to delete their tl's but those tl's have to be accurate. The unfortunate thing for the consumer is that, even though the tl may be inaccurate, the data furnisher is only required to not update the tl unless they correct the error. The inaccurate tl's can remain on the consumer's report as long as the creditor does not update. Sucks.

The consumer would have to dispute to the CRA's to force the OC to either update with accurate information or the CRA's will delete. This does not do anything for the thousands of consumers who aren't involved in monitoring their cr's. Those consumer's pay higher interest and are turned down for loans at no fault of their own other than they trust the CRA institutions...the same as they trust the mail...the same as they trust the court system...etc. Point being that the common consumer does not have the time or knowledge, or have the money to pay some one who has the time or knowledge, to watch everyone.

Okay, so where was I...

What it boils down to is that you have to prove that a JDB who purchases an account is required under the FDCPA to tell the OC that the account is disputed on your CR.

That would be what I already said, the FDCPA. It is the law that the debt collector must communicate that the debt is disputed. If the Original Account is virtually the same except that the JDB has their name and account number on their tl then disputing the JDB's tl would be the same as disputing the OC's tl. It's simple math. If the JDB's tl is inaccurate then the OC's tl is inaccurate. That is what a dispute is, saying that the tl is inaccurate.

I would compare this dispute issue with the validation issue. The debt collector must send to the creditor for validation. The JDB can do this even though there is no relationship. They don't because it would be costly.

It's nearly the same with the dispute issue. The JDB does not communicate to the OC that the debt they bought from them is disputed except for the reason you have given...they don't think they have to. It wouldn't be costly, just a minor nuisance sending a one page letter.

I am suing a JDB for reporting after not returning dv. The JDB did list their tl as disputed but I just noticed that the OC's account is not listed as disputed. I think it is another violation because there is nothing stopping the JDB from communicating to the OC other than them thinking that they don't have to.

It is not burdensome or costly and it's the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OC's delete their tl's all the time. There is not any law which requires tl's to stay on any cr. The only thing that is required, by law, to stay on a cr are inquiries. Inquiries are mandated by the FCRA to stay on for one year after their incarnation.

I was not implying that there is a law that states entries must remain on the CR. I meant that the law states an accurate TL can remain. It doesn't matter whether the OC still owns the account or not.

If it's the law that a JDB must notify the original creditor that the JDB's TL has been disputed, then you should have no trouble finding specifics to support your case.

I hope you can find it and that you win your case.

Edited by BV80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have serious doubts as to whether this particular issue has even been brought up anywhere - even debtor forums. That's why I threw the topic out for discussion.

I'm simply using a common sense approach. This common sense approach tells me that if there are two negative accounts directly related on any cr and one is inaccurrate, then so is the other.

The most direct way to rectify this problem would be to dispute both. The consumer would dispute to each data furnisher. However, the FDCPA states:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or meansin connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(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.

The argument that the debt collector does not have to communicate the dispute to the OC limits the general application of (8). Some limitations would be appropriate. Telling the ACA that the debt is disputed, for example, would fall outside the range of common sense. It would serve no purpose for the debt collector to inform the asociation about the dispute. The collector, however would have to inform the next debt collector who purchased the debt that it is disputed. I do have case law for this one.

Congress apparently chose to not put limits on the application of this section because, if they had done this, the courts would follow the list of this section and not considered other pertinent violations. That's the great thing about the FDCPA, Congress knew they could not provide a comprehensive list of violations so they left it up to the consumer to bring all violations to the court so that justice could be served.

Congress also knew that OC's and JDB's both listed tl's on cr's for the same debt. They also knew that JDB's could not update the OC's tl. I believe this is why they said that the debt collector should "communicate" that the debt is disputed rather than limiting the dispute to their own tl.

It's now a given that a JDB must list their tl as disputed. There were court battles over this one too. In fact, JDB's once thought that they were not debt collectors because they were not collecting for another. A JDB will always say that they don't have to so something until the consumer takes them to court and the court rules that the do have to do that something.

My idea is that I will have to add a violation to my suit for it to become official that the JDB's must communicate to the OC's that their tl's are disputed.

It's only fair because both accounts are the same account containing the same information and the CRA's use that information to assess credit scores. It would not matter so much if the accounts were in good standing, in fact, it would be a plus for the credit score. However negative accounts are never a plus for the consumer as the CRA's will shave off points for each indivual negative account, unless they are listed as disputed.

Edited by Downto0
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.