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.


Bluesie58

Members
  • Content Count

    402
  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

726 profile views
  1. What exactly did you say in your letter? Did you dispute specific information (such as the balance, last activity, etc.), or was it a generic dispute and request for the information in your file?
  2. In your first post, you stated, “It has been over 30 days and most of the creditors have not responded.” “609 letters” do not apply to those, such as creditors and collection agencies, that furnish information to the credit reporting agencies. Therefore, those companies are not required to respond to the letter.
  3. The OP did not state if the disclaimer is on the front or back of the letter. That is one factor that could make a difference. In Lesher, the court noted that the disclaimer was on the back of the letter. “Nor do we believe that the disclaimers included in the letters, which are printed on the backs...” The court cited the 5th Circuit in Gonzales v. Kay. “There are some letters that, as a matter of law, are not deceptive based on the language and placement of a disclaimer.” If the disclaimer is on the front, here is the most recent 3rd Circuit decision. While not precedent, the court referenced its own ruling in Lesher. Powell v. Aldous & Associates, PLLC (2019) “In granting Aldous's motion, the District Court's analysis was consistent with our approach in Lesher. The District Court expressly states that its conclusion that the attorney disclaimer at issue in this case is sufficient is premised on "[m]any factors." JA 18. It proceeds to explain those factors: (a) the disclaimer is (i) in a bold, normal size font, (ii) located on the front of a one-page letter, (iii) set apart in a separate paragraph, and (b) the letter is not signed by an attorney. Id. We agree that, given the totality of the letter, such a disclaimer is sufficient to dispel the impression of meaningful attorney involvement. Likewise, Powell's section 1692e(5) claim fails because, for the reasons provided by the District Court, we also conclude that the letter would not lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe that a lawsuit was being threatened. In so holding, because Powell's arguments related to his section 1692e(10) claims depend on the same facts and arguments as those for his sections 1692e(3) and (5) claims, we do not find the sort of ambiguity Powell suggests in support of his section 1692e(10) claim. We will therefore affirm the District Court's dismissal of Powell's FDCPA claims.” The OP’s letter states “this is not a threat to file a lawsuit.” Such a statement would not lead the OP to believe a lawsuit was being threatened.
  4. Was the provided information correct? Is so, the debt is validated. Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. . . . There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999).
  5. Even if a violation is real, it might be a good idea for the OP to first determine if the debt collector can actually be located.
  6. In regard to the SOL. depending on your state laws, a payment made after default can toll/restart the SOL.
  7. You can request validation, but they won’t have to respond. The courts that have ruled on the issue have ruled that credit reporting does not trigger a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA to validation.
  8. Have they sent collection letters?
  9. Check your cardmember agreement. Cap1 removed arbitration from its agreement around 2009.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. All you need to do is send the company a letter by certified mail telling it to cease and desist all communications.
  14. Considering Portfolio is a JDB, verifying an obsolete account would also be an FDCPA violation along with possible state consumer law violations.
  15. Was the account opened in 2008 or charged off in 2008?

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

Guidelines