1692g - Collection Agency Notice Excluded Language Regarding Dispute Period, Verification

[BV80 2,688]

1 hour ago, kraftykrab said:

Another problem with this thought process....when you first take out the credit card, or open the account, there are disclosures made.  In other words, it's already been stated to you in probably every single case that the creditor may report on your credit reports.  When a debt buyer buys the account, they "step into the shoes" of that original creditor, so they are already covered and you were already informed that this account may be reported to your credit reports.  So, even if the debt buyer were classified as a financial institution for the purpose of that law, the consumer was already notified in advance and there is no requirement for any further notification.  Stepping into the OC's shoes means that the new creditor has all the same rights, is governed by the same contract and agreement, and is covered by the same disclosures as the OC was.  You cannot take one statute of law and apply it as though it's in a vacuum, there are lots of other laws that all fit together and work together, and you are not accounting for that.

You made some good points, but the FCRA's notification requirements are a bit different.  It says that if negative information is furnished to a CRA, the "financial institution" must notify the consumer no later than 30 days after the information is provided.   See 1681s-2(a)(7)(B).

For the benefit of @Notalawyermi, that requirement does not apply to collection agencies and JDBs because they are not "financial institutions".

[BV80 2,688]

@Notalawyermi

I know you want to help, but I need to address some of your statements.  Note that I'm not criticizing you.  We all learn as we go along.

 

On 2/28/2017 at 1:05 PM, Notalawyermi said:

 There are alot of places to find letters to suit your needs.

The majority of the letters found on the internet contain misinformation.  For instance, sample debt validation requests contain a statement that the consumer knows his rights under the FDCPA.   It's not necessary to make that statement.  The fact that a consumer is requesting validation shows that he has some knowledge of the FDCPA. 

Those sample validation requests might outline what the debt collector is required to do under the Act.  It's not the consumer's job to inform a debt collector of FDCPA requirements and responsibilities.   It's the responsibility of a debt collector to know the laws by which he's bound.  If a collector doesn't know the law, it's his problem.

The internet samples may also include a request to provide certain documentation.   Most of the documentation requested is not required in order to validate a debt. 

The best letter is short and simple.  Merely include the account number assigned by the collection agency and state, "I dispute the referenced account and request validation."  That's it.

 

On 2/28/2017 at 1:05 PM, Notalawyermi said:

A recent ruling called SPOKEO says you have to have damages to sue,  so look into that before even calling a consumer lawyer, they don't take a case unless its really clear cut,

can't afford to waste time on a potential loser.

In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that one must have damages to sue.

 

On 2/28/2017 at 1:05 PM, Notalawyermi said:

The violations on the FCRA are 1000 per occurrence or each error.  So if the amount is wrong, and other details, and you dispute them, and they verify the incorrect info.

In order to be awarded statutory damages under the FCRA ($1000 per violation), a consumer must prove that the furnisher willingly committed the violation(s). Verifying incorrect information does not automatically prove willfulness on the part of the furnisher of that information.  

If only negligence can be shown, then the consumer must show that he has suffered actual damages.