Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
thinkingman

collection accts listed improperly

Recommended Posts

how can a collection acct be listed as an "open" acct?? is this grounds for deletion?? or will the CRA just have it corrected?? has anyone had luck with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gotten paid $$$ from a medical colletor for reporting a collection account as "open". Here are the violations:

 

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as "Open."

 

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely reporting the legal status of the account as "Open."

 

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692e( by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as "Open."

 

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as "Open."

 

#. Defendant violated 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as "Open" to result in a greater negative impact to Plaintiff's credit scores.

 

 

Now if you disputed with the CRA's and it came back verified, you now have FCRA violations also (specifically Section 623b).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you want to accomplish. If you just want it deleted, then yes a strongly worded ITS is the way to go. If you want $$$ a strongly worded ITS along with a complaint and summons is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They way I see it, by verifying and reporting as such, they owe you at leas $2,000 for violating the FDCPA and FCRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool thanks did you actually collect? plus gain the deletions?

and did they settle or did you go for a hearing and were awarded damages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dumb ? but when you 1st dispute this type of acc't with a CRA how should you dispute it as? 'Not mine'???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dumb ? but when you 1st dispute this type of acc't with a CRA how should you dispute it as? 'Not mine'???

 

I would say yes. Is an "collection" account truly yours? The courts say no due to that being an inaccuarate portrayl of your debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay so it would be pointless to go to the CA thats reporting it to the CRA, correct?

to the OP, sorry for the little highjack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
okay so it would be pointless to go to the CA thats reporting it to the CRA, correct?

to the OP, sorry for the little highjack

 

If the CA is reporting the account as "open" and then verify said notation, then by all means jump on them with both feet. Even by reporting the account as "open" violates the FDCPA which is a strict liability statute. Disputing it with the CRA's just leads to more violations and more leverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read this thread 3 times......

 

I currently have no less than 7 different collection accounts on my CR's that say status "OPEN". And all of them have come back verified after disputing with the CRA. Some I have already sent DV to some....... Looking forward to my second round of DV's now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why give them second round of DV's? The 1st set should have been sufficient. Since they ignored them and did not validate and they verified their illegal "open" entry, then I would be sending something a lot more potent than a DV. But proceed as you must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why give them second round of DV's?  The 1st set should have been sufficient.  Since they ignored them and did not validate and they verified their illegal "open" entry, then I would be sending something a lot more potent than a DV.  But proceed as you must.

 

What if you haven't DV'd them yet, but just disputed with CRAs as 'not mine'? I have the same problem as others who have posted in this thread--ALL of my collection accounts are being reported as open and past due. So far, I've DV'd two of them and disputed all of them as 'not mine' to the CRAs. I'm still waiting for results. If the ones I haven't DV'd don't get deleted from the 'not mine', do I need to DV them or can I go straight to ITS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point well taken...

 

As I see it, I have most of them over a barrel big time.

They all verified, didn't validate, illegally reporting "open", and believe it or not, all but two of the CA's aren't bonded in TX.

 

I will be writing a "strongly worded ITS" this evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to DV them to protect your rights, IF YOU DV THEM WITHIN THE INITIAL 30 DAY PERIOD! Plus The violate section 809 of the FDCPA if the fail to validate, yet still report. If they don't mark the account in dispute, its a violation. See where I am coming from? That one illegal "open" notation can lead to a plethora of other violations if you play it right. Then use those violations as leverage for deletion or as I would do, cash and deletion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point well taken...

 

As I see it, I have most of them over a barrel big time.

They all verified, didn't validate, illegally reporting "open", and believe it or not, all but two of the CA's aren't bonded in TX.

 

I will be writing a "strongly worded ITS" this evening.

Do your research and attach a copy of the complaint that you would file with it also for more weight. Also stress filing a class action suit for systemic violations(i.e. They probably have thousands of consumers they report open collections on). Think they want to deal with that can of worms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to DV them to protect your rights, IF YOU DV THEM WITHIN THE INITIAL 30 DAY PERIOD!  Plus The violate section 809 of the FDCPA if the fail to validate, yet still report.  If they don't mark the account in dispute, its a violation.  See where I am coming from?  That one illegal "open" notation can lead to a plethora of other violations if you play it right.  Then use those violations as leverage for deletion or as I would do, cash and deletion.

 

Thanks, Dolemite. You've been very helpful.

 

Just to make sure I'm clear on what you are saying...If they fail to validate, can they still report as long as they note the account is in dispute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point well taken...

 

As I see it, I have most of them over a barrel big time.

They all verified, didn't validate, illegally reporting "open", and believe it or not, all but two of the CA's aren't bonded in TX.

 

I will be writing a "strongly worded ITS" this evening.

Do your research and attach a copy of the complaint that you would file with it also for more weight. Also stress filing a class action suit for systemic violations(i.e. They probably have thousands of consumers they report open collections on). Think they want to deal with that can of worms?

 

Thanks also for the advice..this has been a great help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to DV them to protect your rights, IF YOU DV THEM WITHIN THE INITIAL 30 DAY PERIOD!  Plus The violate section 809 of the FDCPA if the fail to validate, yet still report.  If they don't mark the account in dispute, its a violation.  See where I am coming from?  That one illegal "open" notation can lead to a plethora of other violations if you play it right.  Then use those violations as leverage for deletion or as I would do, cash and deletion.

 

Thanks, Dolemite. You've been very helpful.

 

Just to make sure I'm clear on what you are saying...If they fail to validate, can they still report as long as they note the account is in dispute?

If they can not validate, it must come off. The marking in dispute should be done during the DV process. Now remember they dont have to validate. But if they dont, they can no longer attempt to collect. Reporting to the CRA's is considered collecting by the FTC and established case law.

Edited by Dolemite_73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be of the dissenting opinion here, but I would favor at least one more communication with the CA. This way you are safegaurding yourself against a bona fide error defense as well as substantiating your violations pursuant to

the "frequency" and "persistence" required by USC 1692k.b.(1):

.b In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors --

 

(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional;

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#813

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might be of the dissenting opinion here, but I would favor at least one more communication with the CA.  This way you are safegaurding yourself against a bona fide error defense as well as substantiating your violations pursuant to

the "frequency" and "persistence" required by USC 1692k.b.(1):

.b In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors --

 

    (1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional;

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#813

I hear what you are saying, but think about it like this. You do the 1-2 punch on a CA. Not only do they verify, but they fail to validate. They then fail to mark the account in dispute, they also mark the account as "open" and "installment". Now say they did this on all three of your reports. There are at least 20 FDCPA/FCRA violations between the 3 reports. Kind of hard to claim bonafide error on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear what you are saying, but think about it like this. You do the 1-2 punch on a CA. Not only do they verify, but they fail to validate. They then fail to mark the account in dispute, they also mark the account as "open" and "installment". Now say they did this on all three of your reports. There are at least 20 FDCPA/FCRA violations between the 3 reports. Kind of hard to claim bonafide error on that.

 

Dolemite: I could not agree with your more. A year ago, this newbie sat in the dark, afraid of my own darn phone, dreading the mail. Not any more! I will not sit by any longer and allow my life (literally, my life) to be controlled by these law breaking parasites. I will not give a second chance when the violations are this blatant....period.

 

HOWEVER:a warning....kids, don't try this at home! Dolemite and now me are pretty savy. Learn to swim before you jump into the deep end of the pool.

 

I hit a JDB with a 24 hour warning....did a nifty little list like yours, Doletmite. Within 12 hours I had a FEDEX delivered with a nice little apology.

 

At noon, they would have been dead meat. Right on Dolemite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinkingman--when you sent your first DV, was it timely? i.e. was it sent within the first 30 days of when the CA first communicated with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today.
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      175,814
    • Most Online
      1,528

    Newest Member
    cherylb18
    Joined

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.
×

Important Information

Guidelines