cjtx2

Alternative service letter with no sender/return address

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

But is it still a violation of FCRA 623(a)(3) enforceable after a 623(b) notification of dispute to the CRA?

Reeves v. Nelnet Loan Serices (Dist. Court, SD TX, 2018)

To the extent Plaintiff takes issue with the merits of Defendants' investigations and their decisions not to instruct the CRAs to mark her accounts as "disputed," that contention also fails. The plain language of FCRA § 1681s-2(b)(1)(C) merely speaks to a furnisher's obligation to report investigation results to a consumer reporting agency, not the substance of those results.

Some other courts outside the 5th Circuit have said that a furnisher must report a TL as disputed, but only if it could have an adverse effect.  Part of that might be a requirement that there be an actual, provable innacuracy.

Are you going to say what services you performed?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Reeves v. Nelnet Loan Serices (Dist. Court, SD TX, 2018)

To the extent Plaintiff takes issue with the merits of Defendants' investigations and their decisions not to instruct the CRAs to mark her accounts as "disputed," that contention also fails. The plain language of FCRA § 1681s-2(b)(1)(C) merely speaks to a furnisher's obligation to report investigation results to a consumer reporting agency, not the substance of those results.

Some other courts outside the 5th Circuit have said that a furnisher must report a TL as disputed, but only if it could have an adverse effect.  Part of that might be a requirement that there be an actual, provable innacuracy.

 

Thank you for the case reference. Does it make any difference that some CRAs report something along the lines of "consumer disputed account, furnisher investigated and found it accurate, consumer disagrees".  There are enough codes in the Metro-2 format to include this information when furnishing. They are supposed to be compliance codes. Not many judges fully understand all the nuances of compliance.

 

18 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Are you going to say what services you performed?

Unfortunately, disclosing that info would make it extremely easy for the JDB to identify me and have an unfair advantage by knowing my work product.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

Thank you for the case reference. Does it make any difference that some CRAs report something along the lines of "consumer disputed account, furnisher investigated and found it accurate, consumer disagrees".  There are enough codes in the Metro-2 format to include this information when furnishing. They are supposed to be compliance codes. Not many judges fully understand all the nuances of compliance.

 

Unfortunately, disclosing that info would make it extremely easy for the JDB to identify me and have an unfair advantage by knowing my work product.

You need to speak to an attorney regarding the credit report issue.  To be awarded statutory damages under the FCRA, you must a violation is willful.  It must be intentional.

If you can only prove negligence, you must have actual damages.

I don’t know what you mean by “work product”, but I cannot imagine that you work for the JDB.   Can you provide any insight as to why you would be allowed to bill it?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have three words of advice to the OP:

 

GET A LAWYER!

Find a competent attorney.  And do so before you do anything risky. 

There is far too much information we do NOT have.  Nobody on the planet could give you decent advice based on what you have posted.

That being said, some of the things you posted raise red flags.  By red flags, I mean the sort of red flags you see at a RR crossing when the gates are about to come down and a train might hit you if you don't get out of the way.  

It is theoretically possible that your account stated bill to the JDB for a "work product" is legitimate.  With the information you have given us, we can't see how it could be legitimate.  If it is NOT legitimate, you could be setting yourself up for a very, very nasty surprise in court.  

The thing is:

1. We aren't lawyers, except for the few guys on this forum who are.  Even the folks who are lawyers aren't YOUR lawyer, and they are probably lawyers in a different jurisdiction.

2. Even if we were lawyers, and even if we were intimately familiar with your state's laws, we don't have the facts a competent attorney would need to give you decent advice.  

 

So the best advice anyone can give you is to see a lawyer before you do anything risky.  Everything you have discussed on this forum is risky.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 6:42 PM, Clydesmom said:

Disagree all you want.  Just do it knowing it could get VERY expensive for you.  My observation is more than just opinion.  There is a former member of this site and a prominent one on a now discontinued site that sued a CA in federal court on FDCPA violations.  For almost 2 years I was one of two people who stood firm his trial tactics and internet antics were going to lose the case for him.  Despite all his minions who lauded him and held him out as some consumer hero giving us relentless garbage for daring to oppose his strategy in the end I was right.  Not only did he lose [for every reason I said he would] and not get a big verdict from the Federal Court he was ruled frivolous and ordered to pay almost $60k in court costs and attorney fees.  He even messaged me that he should have listened to me and I was right all along when it was over.

Your rantings are extremely reminiscent of his almost identical.  You are shooting in the dark hoping for a miracle and in the end will end up shooting yourself in the butt on this wild goose chase.  But again, go ahead.  It is your funeral.

With all due respect, while there are similarities between the OP and Coltfan, there are huge differences, and those differences are noteworthy.

The similarities:  talking about going into court with an extremely risky strategy, and poo-pooing those who want against it.

The differences:  Coltfan was very knowledgeable about consumer law.  Legally, he knew what he was doing.  Coltfan's fatal error was forgetting who his audience was.  His audience was a famous federal judge, Susan Weber Wright, and the jury in the case.  Instead of tuning his strategy to the proper audience, he was playing the macho tough guy in front of what he imagined were his hordes of fans on DB.  Very, very costly mistake. 

 

Who knew that a prominent southern female federal judge would react badly to extremely crude and misogynistic comments?  Who knew that a jury of ordinary folks in Arkansas would look upon Coltfan as a deadbeat?

Well, anyone with any common sense.  

 

I suppose the OP may be forgetting that his audience is the judge, and not us, as well.  Or he may not be.  Coltfan was smart and knew the law, which made his hubris all the more dangerous to him.  I have not seen that the OP has anywhere near the knowledge of Coltfan, which makes the situation potentially more dangerous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.