Sign in to follow this  
darrensw_98

Paid OC but CA still reporting to CRA's

Recommended Posts

Hey there,

I recently pulled my credit report and noticed there was a judgment from an old landlord along with the same amount due from a collection agency.  I contacted the landlord and was able to pay off the judgment at a reduced price.  My problem is the collection agency is still reporting I owe money to them to the CRA's.  Any advice on how to get this information removed?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely the landlord didn't tell the CA it was paid.

 

You could do these, get your 3 CR and dispute the collection as a different balance, don't say how much just that your records show a different balance. If they verify send them a MOV, and 623, and also a DV (they will get 3 in one), if they respond saying you owe money, sue them for misrepresenting a debt. They should either delete or correct it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new to this forum so forgive my ignorance.  What is a MOV and are you saying I initially dispute with the CRA's or the debt collector?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's two possible approaches to this one:

 

1) Easy one do a DV (debt validation) letter, and see if they respond, they do not have to respond at all if they don't want, and they might contact the landlord and just update the entry as paid, is the easy step. Also if they respond and state you owe x money that's a FDCPA violation and you could sue them.

 

2) Dispute the collection ith all 3 CRA, just state that the balance is not accurate, do it cmrr (certified mail return receipt). What the CRA do is just condense your dispute into a 2 digit code, and send it to the collection, they will verify since it's just clicking a bottom. All right you just got them in a FDCPA and FCRA violation, but to getting in the fully violation mode, AFTER you disputed with the CRA you send them a MOV (method of verification), 623 (demanding the docs that prove the amount as per FCRA 623 statute), and add the DV to the letter, so they get 3 in 1, they have to respond in 30 days or delete the entry. If they send you a response that you owe x money and the any doc as proof, you got them on another FDCPA violation misrepresenting the statute of a debt, and on a FCRA violation that you can sue them on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the info.   I have a similar situation where I paid the OC, but the CA is reporting it as a paid collection on their end.  Would I use the same measures to get this information removed from the credit report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No just leave them alone, you paid them and they reported as paid, so that approach will not work, the are ok with the law. The one reporting wrong you are playing that the communication between OC and CA fails.

 

The one paid call them and see if they will remove it as a goodwill thing, but do it AFTER you do your move with the one reporting wrong so if they soft pull you they will see the other collection as paid and they will get greedy and might violate more easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.  But just to be clear, they are allowed to report this as a paid debt even though I never dealt with them and paid the OC?  I was under the impression that if you paid the OC that there was no debt to be collected and the CA had to delete the item.  Thanks for all the assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are allowed. There's ways around but is legal. One is getting them into a violation, the other is calling the OC and ask to be recalled from collection, I would play idiot and see if they do their homework or not, if they don't you could point out the violation and/or sue them, and if they do it right call the OC and see if they can recall it from collection as goodwill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what you need to do.....go to the court house and ask the court clerk if your landlord filed a "Satisfaction of judgment"

 

If the landlord did not file it, most jurisdiction have rule that state if the satisfaction of judgment is not filed within a certain time period of time, the plaintiff can become liable to the defendant for as much as three timess what the original jusgment was for.

 

If the satisfaction was filed you need to get a copy and send a copy of it to the CA and tell them in a letter they need to correct their reporting of the debt or delete it or you will see them in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are allowed. There's ways around but is legal. One is getting them into a violation, the other is calling the OC and ask to be recalled from collection, I would play idiot and see if they do their homework or not, if they don't you could point out the violation and/or sue them, and if they do it right call the OC and see if they can recall it from collection as goodwill.

@kutuzov - I don't agree.  They shouldn't be reporting if they don't have a legitimate debt to be collecting on.  I would send them a very strong letter telling them the debt doesn't exist and they have no right to report on your credit report.  

 

@darrensw_98 - fight this.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A creditor who hires a collection agency is ultimately responsible for the collection agency's action.

 

Its called vicarious liability, it is a very strict secondary liability that arises under the doctrine of agency. Respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in other words, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.

 

It is not the same as contributory liability which finds it roots in the theory of enterprise liability.

 

Respondeat superior is Latin for let the Master answer. or as you may also see called the "Master-Servant rule."

To litigate and prove vicarious liability one needs to prove

  1. Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?
  2. Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform?
  3. Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?

So what I am getting at here is forget about the collection agency for now, we will deal with them in a separate issue.

Send a very strong worded letter to the Landlord and inform him that he could be held vicariously liable for the actions of the collection agency. Explain to him that they are still reporting this to you credit report. Maybe this will get him off his fat duff and he will inform the collector that you paid it.

 

The reason you need to deal with the Landlord is the collection agency, if you sue them, will claim that they were not informed and it is not their fault.

 

Ultimately this falls on the Landlord. He is like most Plaintiffs that get a judgement and then the money, they do not care any more they got there money so they run with it. But the courts require the Plaintiff to file a satisfaction of lien/judgment and if not filed in the proper time limit they court rules in most jurisdictions state that the Plaintiff can be held liable to the defendant for, in some jurisdictions, up to three times the original complaint amount.

 

You will need to show that the Landlord has been negligent in performing due diligence. He has not performed his duties to insure you no longer suffer over the law suit after you paid the judgment.

 

You will need to include the collection agency in your suit with the landlord. Why? because they will protect their interests and inform the court that the landlord did not inform them that the judgment was paid. This will give you very strong proof that the landlord was negligent. The vicarious liability for the ca reporting the debt to your credit report will then fall on the Landlord. You will then have FDCPA and FCRA complaints against the landlord that you can add to the negligence and vicarious liability complaints.

 

Did you go check with the court clerk and see if the landlord filed the satisfaction of judgment papers like I told you in an earlier post? If he did not file those papers you have another complaint you can add to the suit. This complaint can hold more weight than the vicarious liability complaint, as the Landlord could be liable for up to three times the amount in the suit he had with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to get a copy of the satisfaction of judgment.  I spoke with the CA to let them know I was sending them a copy.  They said the will report the account as a paid collection.  Is that legal for them to do since I never even dealt with them by paying off the plaintiff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to get a copy of the satisfaction of judgment.  I spoke with the CA to let them know I was sending them a copy.  They said the will report the account as a paid collection.  Is that legal for them to do since I never even dealt with them by paying off the plaintiff?

One could argue that this is incorrect as a paid collection. One could also argue that it is correct.

 

They can mark it paid collection ONCE, they cannot continue to update every month that is a paid collection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to get a copy of the satisfaction of judgment.  I spoke with the CA to let them know I was sending them a copy.  They said the will report the account as a paid collection.  Is that legal for them to do since I never even dealt with them by paying off the plaintiff?

I would send them an intent to sue letter.  They shouldn't be reporting at all.  Violations of the FCRA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would send them an intent to sue letter. They shouldn't be reporting at all. Violations of the FCRA.

I would agree with this, but convincing the court is what would have to be accomplished. The biggest issue I have run into, in my state, is most judges are not real familiar with the fcra, fdcpa ar the tcpa. So we have to educate the judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe there's a claim against the CA.  The fact that the poster paid the OC doesn't negate the fact that the account was a collection account.  Since our credit reports are a history of our credit, the CA had a right to report because they were attempting to collect adebt.  The poster simply bypassed the CA and paid the OC directly.

 

I'm honestly not sure what the CA should be reporting, but they had a right to report if they were hired to collect the account.  Just because the OC was paid doesn't mean the CA's entry must be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe there's a claim against the CA.  The fact that the poster paid the OC doesn't negate the fact that the account was a collection account.  Since our credit reports are a history of our credit, the CA had a right to report because they were attempting to collect adebt.  The poster simply bypassed the CA and paid the OC directly.

 

I'm honestly not sure what the CA should be reporting, but they had a right to report if they were hired to collect the account.  Just because the OC was paid doesn't mean the CA's entry must be removed.

Agreed. But the landlord had a duty to report the judgment settled to the ca. If he failed to do so until the OP contacted him about it that could be negligence. 

 

Let us examine negligence. The failure to do what a reasonably prudent and careful person would have done. Conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others is unreasonable risk of harm.

 

First what harm was caused to the OP? Second did the land lord fail to perform as a reasonable person would have done? Did the landlord have a duty to perform? The last two can be proved, but what was the harm? Maybe the land lord did not communicate with the ca, is there harm in doing so? I do not see a whole lot of harm here, the landlord could argue that if the judgment was paid in a reasonable amount of time he would have not had to involve a collection agency, so the OP contributed to his own harm, if there is any.

 

Can a person be found liable for negligence without intent? Yes. But if you can prove intent then it is gross negligence, Gross negligence is described as an act or omission in reckless disregard for the life or property of another.

 

While the landlord may have not acted as a prudent person would have and is probably negligent in some sort, the biggest issue to prove would be just how much did the landlord harm the OP?

 

There is a very weak case here, I just do not see a judge finding any real harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this