Jump to content

Inquires by CA after not returning dv. Is this impermissible purpose?


Recommended Posts

A CA dunned me a while back and I dv'ed them. I have the green card. They continued to make calls and send occasional dunning letters. They also made a couple of inquiries on my cr.

The inquires were are over a year old and not FDCPA violations but, I got to wondering, aren't these FDCPA violations also FCRA violations? The CA was to cease "all" collection activities after receiving a dv request until they returned dv. The CA has never returned dv. Would not the CA be supplying false information to the CRA's that they had permissible purpose when they, in fact, did not have permissible purpose?

If so, the result would be that, even though the FDCPA violations are outside of the FDCPA sol, the FCRA violations of impermissible purpose would be fair game as that statute has a minimum 2 year sol from the time of discovery of the violations...up to a total of 5 years.

Do I have FCRA violations for the inquiries?

Edited by Downto0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another related question is to the type of violation this is. Is it willful or neglectful? Can the CA claim that one of their workers neglected to mark down that there was a dv request?

Or is there a bona fide error defense here where the worker lost the dv request?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also made a couple of inquiries on my cr.

I am not sure on this either, and would like a good answer. To me if they did the inquiry AFTER you DV'ed them (and I am assuming you had your current addy in there for them to respond to) then to me any inquiry would be a violation.

If they pulled more than one, to me that would be a cut and dried violation.

I had forgot about this one, but I had a JDB pull mine 4 times in about a weeks time. No response to my DV, but have not seen or heard from them since then either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the negligence angle better than the intentional or willful angle. Intentional means just that, and you have to prove they did this with the intent to cause harm. This is a stretch for somebody who doesn't even know you. Negligence is better, all you have to prove are two elements, one; that they had a duty of care, (statutory, professional, fiduciary, etc) and two, they breached that duty of care when they did X. By doing X they caused the harm, when they had a duty to know that doing X would cause that harm. It's like speeding and causing a wreck; you, as a licensed driver, have an obligation and duty to know that your conduct could cause an accident, but you did it anyway. You don't know the guy you hit, you didn't intend to hit him, but you are still responsible because of your negligent conduct.

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.