Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

627 profile views
  1. Check your cardmember agreement. Cap1 removed arbitration from its agreement around 2009.
  2. Once an account is charged off, paying it will NOT reset the 7-year reporting period. That time period is based upon the date of first delinquency that led to collection or charge-off. A payment is not a delinquency. Since a charged-off account cannot be brought back to a current status, it can never again be delinquent.
  3. The 2020 SCOTUS ruling removes the exemption for government-backed debt collection robocalls. From the ruling: “We hold that the 2015 government-debt exception added an unconstitutional exception to the law. We cure that constitutional violation by invalidating the 2015 government-debt exception and severing it from the remainder of the statute.” Prior express consent for debt collectors of other types of debt was and still is required.
  4. The Consent Order does not prohibit Portfolio from attempting to collect time-barred debts. It states that if it does so, it must disclose that the debt is time-barred and the company will not sue to collect. The OP stated that the collection letter included that disclosure. In regard to phone calls, if he does not answer, the disclosure cannot be recited. From the Consent Order: 126. Collecting or attempting to collect any Time-Barred Debt through any means, including but not limited to telephone calls and written communications without Clearly and Prominently disclosing to the Consumer: a. For those Time-Barred Debts that generally cannot be included in a consumer report under the provisions of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a), but can be collected through other means pursuant to applicable state law, Respondent will include the following statement: "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt and how long a debt can appear on your credit report. Due to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it or report payment or non-payment of it to a credit bureau; The Consent Order describes the penalty for failure to follow the terms. It makes no mention of “fraud” or “felony”. On page 59 of the Order. For any violation of this Consent Order, the Bureau may impose the maximum amount of civil money penalties allowed under section 1055(c) of the CFP Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c). Here is 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c). The penalty is strictly financial and makes no mention of fraud or felony. It is a “civil” money penalty, not a criminal penalty. (c) Civil money penalty in court and administrative actions (1)In general Any person that violates, through any act or omission, any provision of Federal consumer financial law shall forfeit and pay a civil penalty pursuant to this subsection. (2)Penalty amounts (A)First tier For any violation of a law, rule, or final order or condition imposed in writing by the Bureau, a civil penalty may not exceed $5,000 for each day during which such violation or failure to pay continues. (B)Second tier Notwithstanding paragraph (A), for any person that recklessly engages in a violation of a Federal consumer financial law, a civil penalty may not exceed $25,000 for each day during which such violation continues. (C)Third tier Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), for any person that knowingly violates a Federal consumer financial law, a civil penalty may not exceed $1,000,000 for each day during which such violation continues.
  5. All you need to do is send the company a letter by certified mail telling it to cease and desist all communications.
  6. Considering Portfolio is a JDB, verifying an obsolete account would also be an FDCPA violation along with possible state consumer law violations.
  7. Was the account opened in 2008 or charged off in 2008?
  8. Portfolio didn’t have to validate. Credit reporting is not an initial communication that triggers a consumer’s right to validation.
  9. You’re referring to 47 USC § 415. It could depend on where a consumer is located. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal statute does not preempt state statutes of limitations for that type of debt. We conclude that § 415(a) does not apply to the plaintiffs' debts, because Congress has not made clear that it intended for § 415(a) to preempt state statutes of limitations with respect to actions to collect debts like those at issue here. "[T]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case." Castro v. Collecto Inc., 634 F.3d 779, 785 (5th Cir. 2011). Congress has not indicated a "clear and manifest purpose," for § 415(a) to preempt state statutes of limitations governing actions under state law to recover non-tariffed charges. Id at 787.
  10. I know that, but those consent orders apply only to those particular debt buyers and no others. The prohibition to reselling accounts comes from the CFPB and is not based on a state or federal law that generally prohibits resales of accounts. Consumers and courts cannot enforce it. A demand from a consumer has no power at all to enforce the prohibition.
  11. Yeah. It’s a shame those letters are still available. I’ll always wonder if the composers of those letters really believed that consumers could demand that JDBs not sell or report accounts and that those demands, along with claims of fraud and extortion, would hold up in court.
  12. I don’t know where that part came from, but it’s not true. Unless the debt has been paid, a JDB can resell it. If it is within the 7-year reporting period, as long as a JDB owns an account and reports accurately, it can report it. For it to do so is not fraud, extortion, or a violation of the FDCPA.
  13. He should get it in writing that when the agreed upon amount is paid, the judgment is satisfied, and a satisfaction of judgment will be filed with the court. When the satisfaction of judgment is filed, the lien will be released.
  14. They could sue, but if you raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, they would not be successful. In addition, you’d have a violation of the FDCPA for filing suit on a time-barred debt.

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
  • Create New...

Important Information