Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Fedallah

Validation request after 30 days?

Recommended Posts

The FDCPA makes clear a CA's obligations when a consumer DV's within the first 30 days. The FCRA makes it clear that the CA must conduct an investigation when the consumer disputes an entry, but does not provide any requirement for the CA to provide the results to the consumer (although some information may be available via the CRA's report of how the investigation was conducted).

 

If I DV after the initial 30 days, is there any legal requirement for the CA provide any response at all?

 

If the CA thinks I'm looking to get a loan and I'm outside the 30 days, can they just sit and validate disputes to the CR entries and hope I'll pay them?

 

Do I have legal grounds to sue them for doing that? If so, where can I read about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even WITHIN the first 30 days they don't HAVE to validate...they only have to if they want to continue collection activity (actually, only if they want to do it legally)

 

 

now...under FACTA there may be other requirements...depending on your situation, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even WITHIN the first 30 days they don't HAVE to validate...they only have to if they want to continue collection activity (actually, only if they want to do it legally)

 

 

now...under FACTA there may be other requirements...depending on your situation, etc

 

Don't they have to mark it in dispute with the CRA's until they validate though? And if they don't hopefully thats violation #1 on a long list of future violations to use as leverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FDCPA makes clear a CA's obligations when a consumer DV's within the first 30 days. The FCRA makes it clear that the CA must conduct an investigation when the consumer disputes an entry, but does not provide any requirement for the CA to provide the results to the consumer (although some information may be available via the CRA's report of how the investigation was conducted).

 

If I DV after the initial 30 days, is there any legal requirement for the CA provide any response at all?

 

If the CA thinks I'm looking to get a loan and I'm outside the 30 days, can they just sit and validate disputes to the CR entries and hope I'll pay them?

 

Do I have legal grounds to sue them for doing that? If so, where can I read about it?

 

This is the same problem I'm running into. I've read the newbie section and read the FCRA and FDCPA. But they all talk about initial contact and responding within the forst 30 days. I can't seem to find any information on what they have to do AFTER the first 30 days.

 

I keep disputing and sending in police reports, DV letters, etc. They ignore my letters and requests and simply respond to teh CRA as verified. So teh CRA won't remove the TL and the CA doesn't respond to me. I can't seem to figure out what they are violating and I can't seem to find out how I can get teh name of the person who keeps validating the information. The account really isnt mine and nothing I do to remove it seems to work.

 

I'm ready to file a lawsuit, as I have a nice papertrail showing 4 DV letters that were sent as well as a papertrail showing that the CRA investigated it twice but did not remove it after the investigation. I imagine I can file suit against them for placing something on my report that isn't mine (I have suffered actual damages because of this, including but not limited to higher mortgage and interest rates.) But besides that, where can I look to see what they have to legally do?

 

Am I stuck here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok...let's take a look at this.

 

 

let's assume that you DV'd OUTSIDE of the first 30 days...inside the first 30 is another ballgame (additional violations)

 

 

you sent a proper DV, let's say a year after initial contact...

 

 

you then dispute with the CRAs...they verify it...don't mark it as disputed...

 

 

let's play guess the violations...I don't need sections, but list either FDCPA or FCRA...and a short spiel on why it's a violation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FDCPA makes clear a CA's obligations when a consumer DV's within the first 30 days. The FCRA makes it clear that the CA must conduct an investigation when the consumer disputes an entry, but does not provide any requirement for the CA to provide the results to the consumer (although some information may be available via the CRA's report of how the investigation was conducted).

 

If I DV after the initial 30 days, is there any legal requirement for the CA provide any response at all?

 

If the CA thinks I'm looking to get a loan and I'm outside the 30 days, can they just sit and validate disputes to the CR entries and hope I'll pay them?

 

Do I have legal grounds to sue them for doing that? If so, where can I read about it?

 

This is the same problem I'm running into. I've read the newbie section and read the FCRA and FDCPA. But they all talk about initial contact and responding within the forst 30 days. I can't seem to find any information on what they have to do AFTER the first 30 days.

 

I keep disputing and sending in police reports, DV letters, etc. They ignore my letters and requests and simply respond to teh CRA as verified. So teh CRA won't remove the TL and the CA doesn't respond to me. I can't seem to figure out what they are violating and I can't seem to find out how I can get teh name of the person who keeps validating the information. The account really isnt mine and nothing I do to remove it seems to work.

 

I'm ready to file a lawsuit, as I have a nice papertrail showing 4 DV letters that were sent as well as a papertrail showing that the CRA investigated it twice but did not remove it after the investigation. I imagine I can file suit against them for placing something on my report that isn't mine (I have suffered actual damages because of this, including but not limited to higher mortgage and interest rates.) But besides that, where can I look to see what they have to legally do?

 

Am I stuck here?

 

 

since you have proof positive that it's NOT yours...I'd get an attorney and take them to the cleaners...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FDCPA makes clear a CA's obligations when a consumer DV's within the first 30 days. The FCRA makes it clear that the CA must conduct an investigation when the consumer disputes an entry, but does not provide any requirement for the CA to provide the results to the consumer (although some information may be available via the CRA's report of how the investigation was conducted).

 

If I DV after the initial 30 days, is there any legal requirement for the CA provide any response at all?

 

If the CA thinks I'm looking to get a loan and I'm outside the 30 days, can they just sit and validate disputes to the CR entries and hope I'll pay them?

 

Do I have legal grounds to sue them for doing that? If so, where can I read about it?

 

This is the same problem I'm running into. I've read the newbie section and read the FCRA and FDCPA. But they all talk about initial contact and responding within the forst 30 days. I can't seem to find any information on what they have to do AFTER the first 30 days.

 

I keep disputing and sending in police reports, DV letters, etc. They ignore my letters and requests and simply respond to teh CRA as verified. So teh CRA won't remove the TL and the CA doesn't respond to me. I can't seem to figure out what they are violating and I can't seem to find out how I can get teh name of the person who keeps validating the information. The account really isnt mine and nothing I do to remove it seems to work.

 

I'm ready to file a lawsuit, as I have a nice papertrail showing 4 DV letters that were sent as well as a papertrail showing that the CRA investigated it twice but did not remove it after the investigation. I imagine I can file suit against them for placing something on my report that isn't mine (I have suffered actual damages because of this, including but not limited to higher mortgage and interest rates.) But besides that, where can I look to see what they have to legally do?

 

Am I stuck here?

 

 

since you have proof positive that it's NOT yours...I'd get an attorney and take them to the cleaners...

 

That's what I am thinking of doing. I can't believe this is actually this hard to get taken care of. The strangest part is that the debt is paid in full (marked Paid After Collections!) So a Paid collection account that does not belong to me is on my credit report. When I checked my report after my disputes, tehy actually marked it as in dispute (so no apparent violation there.) Yet each time, after the 30 days it came back as being valid.

 

I can't believe it's this hard to get something off of my report that does not belong to me and is paid. I didn't want to have to go to court over this but I see no other option.

 

So other than the actual money damages, did they violate any other laws? There is no collection activity due to it having a $0 balance. It's outside of the 30 days. And they haven't called / written / etc. There seems to be a large grey area on what I can do after the first 30 days.

 

Oh well, I guess I'll just press on and see what I can do with what I have now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FDCPA makes clear a CA's obligations when a consumer DV's within the first 30 days. The FCRA makes it clear that the CA must conduct an investigation when the consumer disputes an entry, but does not provide any requirement for the CA to provide the results to the consumer (although some information may be available via the CRA's report of how the investigation was conducted).

 

If I DV after the initial 30 days, is there any legal requirement for the CA provide any response at all?

 

If the CA thinks I'm looking to get a loan and I'm outside the 30 days, can they just sit and validate disputes to the CR entries and hope I'll pay them?

 

Do I have legal grounds to sue them for doing that? If so, where can I read about it?

 

This is the same problem I'm running into. I've read the newbie section and read the FCRA and FDCPA. But they all talk about initial contact and responding within the forst 30 days. I can't seem to find any information on what they have to do AFTER the first 30 days.

 

I keep disputing and sending in police reports, DV letters, etc. They ignore my letters and requests and simply respond to teh CRA as verified. So teh CRA won't remove the TL and the CA doesn't respond to me. I can't seem to figure out what they are violating and I can't seem to find out how I can get teh name of the person who keeps validating the information. The account really isnt mine and nothing I do to remove it seems to work.

 

I'm ready to file a lawsuit, as I have a nice papertrail showing 4 DV letters that were sent as well as a papertrail showing that the CRA investigated it twice but did not remove it after the investigation. I imagine I can file suit against them for placing something on my report that isn't mine (I have suffered actual damages because of this, including but not limited to higher mortgage and interest rates.) But besides that, where can I look to see what they have to legally do?

 

Am I stuck here?

 

 

since you have proof positive that it's NOT yours...I'd get an attorney and take them to the cleaners...

 

That's what I am thinking of doing. I can't believe this is actually this hard to get taken care of. The strangest part is that the debt is paid in full (marked Paid After Collections!) So a Paid collection account that does not belong to me is on my credit report. When I checked my report after my disputes, tehy actually marked it as in dispute (so no apparent violation there.) Yet each time, after the 30 days it came back as being valid.

 

I can't believe it's this hard to get something off of my report that does not belong to me and is paid. I didn't want to have to go to court over this but I see no other option.

 

So other than the actual money damages, did they violate any other laws? There is no collection activity due to it having a $0 balance. It's outside of the 30 days. And they haven't called / written / etc. There seems to be a large grey area on what I can do after the first 30 days.

 

Oh well, I guess I'll just press on and see what I can do with what I have now :)

 

 

they're reporting information which is known to be false

 

they're misrepresenting the status or nature of a debt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what information I have on the account and what I think so far:

 

Account Number XXXX

Account Type Installment

Credit Limit

(High Credit)

 

Original Amount $482

Minimum Monthly Payment (Terms)

1 Month

Date Opened October, 2003

Date of Status September, 2005

Last Payment Date August, 2005

Loan Type Unknown - Credit Extension, Review, Or Collection

Collateral

Description Account in dispute

 

 

Last Report on September, 2005

Balance Current status Past Due Amount

Paid account/was a collection account, insurance claim or government claim or was terminated for default

 

 

 

Recent Payment History

2005 Sep

Aug Charge Off

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar Charge Off

Feb Charge off

2005 Jan

2004 Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul Charge Off

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

2004 Jan

2003 Dec Charge Off

Nov

Oct

2003 Sep

 

Seven Year Payment History

30 days late: 0 60 days late: 0 90+ days late: 6

 

8/2005

 

3/2005

 

2/2005

 

7/2004

 

12/2003

 

10/2001

 

Things I noticed:

 

it's showing several 90+ days late, but no 30, 60, or 120s. Other than the "Charge offs" The rest of the months are listed as "OK/ Unknown" so it seems like they were just putting random lates up there to do more damage. How can it be 90 days late one month, clear the next, and 90 days late again after?

 

Another thing I noticed... It appears to be 90 days late 2 years before the account was even opened. And then it shows 90 days late two months after it was opened. It also appear as though it was supposed to be something paid in Monthly Installments and is listed as a 1 month term.

 

For all of you experts out there or for those who have seen stuff like this... Does it appear to be legit or are they reaging and adding false information to try to do more damage that it really should? I can't figure out how it can be 90 days late but never 120, 60, or 30. I also can't seem to find out when it was supposedly opened or how it can be late 2 years before it was opened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's what information I have on the account and what I think so far:

 

Account Number XXXX

Account Type Installment

Credit Limit

(High Credit)

 

Original Amount $482

Minimum Monthly Payment (Terms)

1 Month violation

Date Opened October, 2003

Date of Status September, 2005

Last Payment Date August, 2005

Loan Type Unknown - Credit Extension, Review, Or Collection

Collateral

Description Account in dispute

 

 

Last Report on September, 2005

Balance Current status Past Due Amount

Paid account/was a collection account, insurance claim or government claim or was terminated for default

 

 

 

Recent Payment History

2005 Sep

Aug Charge Off violation

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar Charge Off violation

Feb Charge off violation

2005 Jan

2004 Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul Charge Off violation

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

2004 Jan

2003 Dec Charge Off violation

Nov

Oct

2003 Sep

 

Seven Year Payment History

30 days late: 0 60 days late: 0 90+ days late: 6 violation

 

8/2005

 

3/2005

 

2/2005

 

7/2004

 

12/2003

 

10/2001

 

Things I noticed:

 

it's showing several 90+ days late, but no 30, 60, or 120s. Other than the "Charge offs" The rest of the months are listed as "OK/ Unknown" so it seems like they were just putting random lates up there to do more damage. How can it be 90 days late one month, clear the next, and 90 days late again after?

 

Another thing I noticed... It appears to be 90 days late 2 years before the account was even opened. And then it shows 90 days late two months after it was opened. It also appear as though it was supposed to be something paid in Monthly Installments and is listed as a 1 month term.

 

For all of you experts out there or for those who have seen stuff like this... Does it appear to be legit or are they reaging and adding false information to try to do more damage that it really should? I can't figure out how it can be 90 days late but never 120, 60, or 30. I also can't seem to find out when it was supposedly opened or how it can be late 2 years before it was opened.

 

 

that's assuming that it's a CA listing it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's assuming that it's a CA listing it....

 

It's one of our favorites... A$$et Acceptance :/. I'm sure that comes as no suprises to many.

Edited by samseed101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even WITHIN the first 30 days they don't HAVE to validate...they only have to if they want to continue collection activity

 

Under FACTA there may be other requirements...depending on your situation, etc

 

It looks like the consumer can dispute directly with the CA under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (8)(E)(iii) and the CA is then required by law to provide the results of the investigation directly to the consumer:

 

[a CA shall] complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the

results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the

period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting

agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had

elected to dispute the information under that section;

 

So, in my case, where the CA is just ignoring my DV request, my second letter to the CA will be specific about disputing the information under the FCRA. If they do not respond with the results of the investigation within 30 days, they are in violation of the FCRA.

 

I always thought you can validate anytime per PsychDoc's postings?

 

Sure, you can validate anytime, but the CA is under no obligation to do anything unless you validate within 30 days of initial contact. You can dispute information furnished to a CRA directly to the CA at any time and the CA is required under the FCRA to report the results of their investigation directly to you within 30 days.

Edited by Fedallah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even WITHIN the first 30 days they don't HAVE to validate...they only have to if they want to continue collection activity

 

Under FACTA there may be other requirements...depending on your situation, etc

 

It looks like the consumer can dispute directly with the CA under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (8)(E)(iii) and the CA is then required by law to provide the results of the investigation directly to the consumer:

 

[a CA shall] complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the

results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the

period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting

agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had

elected to dispute the information under that section;

 

So, in my case, where the CA is just ignoring my DV request, my second letter to the CA will be specific about disputing the information under the FCRA. If they do not respond with the results of the investigation within 30 days, they are in violation of the FCRA.

 

I always thought you can validate anytime per PsychDoc's postings?

 

Sure, you can validate anytime, but the CA is under no obligation to do anything unless you validate within 30 days of initial contact. You can dispute information furnished to a CRA directly to the CA at any time and the CA is required under the FCRA to report the results of their investigation directly to you within 30 days.

 

So you are waisting your time if you dispute after the 30days Okay got it... yes/no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even WITHIN the first 30 days they don't HAVE to validate...they only have to if they want to continue collection activity

 

Under FACTA there may be other requirements...depending on your situation, etc

 

It looks like the consumer can dispute directly with the CA under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (8)(E)(iii) and the CA is then required by law to provide the results of the investigation directly to the consumer:

 

[a CA shall] complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the

results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the

period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting

agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had

elected to dispute the information under that section;

 

So, in my case, where the CA is just ignoring my DV request, my second letter to the CA will be specific about disputing the information under the FCRA. If they do not respond with the results of the investigation within 30 days, they are in violation of the FCRA.

 

I always thought you can validate anytime per PsychDoc's postings?

 

Sure, you can validate anytime, but the CA is under no obligation to do anything unless you validate within 30 days of initial contact. You can dispute information furnished to a CRA directly to the CA at any time and the CA is required under the FCRA to report the results of their investigation directly to you within 30 days.

 

So you are waisting your time if you dispute after the 30days Okay got it... yes/no

 

 

No...you're not wasting your time

 

 

the CA still must mark it as in dispute...

 

and if they verify it, they'll be verifying information which they have reason to believe is inaccurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it is showing paid you have nothing to lose. Hundred bucks says you file a small claims on those violations that Pryan showed you and sent a settlement letter with it they will delete. 3 reasons 1 why would they defend something they have already been paid on 2 why want to explain ti the judge why they are reporting the way they are and 3 why take a chance of losing a couple grand for reporting the way they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even WITHIN the first 30 days they don't HAVE to validate...they only have to if they want to continue collection activity

 

Under FACTA there may be other requirements...depending on your situation, etc

 

It looks like the consumer can dispute directly with the CA under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (8)(E)(iii) and the CA is then required by law to provide the results of the investigation directly to the consumer:

 

[a CA shall] complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the

results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the

period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting

agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had

elected to dispute the information under that section;

 

So, in my case, where the CA is just ignoring my DV request, my second letter to the CA will be specific about disputing the information under the FCRA. If they do not respond with the results of the investigation within 30 days, they are in violation of the FCRA.

 

I always thought you can validate anytime per PsychDoc's postings?

 

Sure, you can validate anytime, but the CA is under no obligation to do anything unless you validate within 30 days of initial contact. You can dispute information furnished to a CRA directly to the CA at any time and the CA is required under the FCRA to report the results of their investigation directly to you within 30 days.

 

So you are waisting your time if you dispute after the 30days Okay got it... yes/no

 

 

No...you're not wasting your time

 

 

the CA still must mark it as in dispute...

 

and if they verify it, they'll be verifying information which they have reason to believe is inaccurate

 

 

Ohh okies so keep plugging away on them... they got the letters so lets see what happens..

Edited by seattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK...this is really letting the air out of my tires...

 

If I DV after 30 days, the CA doesnt have to do ANYTHING??? They don't have to validate AT ALL??? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK...this is really letting the air out of my tires...

 

If I DV after 30 days, the CA doesnt have to do ANYTHING??? They don't have to validate AT ALL??? :(

 

Nothing other than mark the account as "consumer disputes" or some such.

It's sometimes advantageous to change your tactics to disputing with the CRA, and if verified- pressing the CA on documenting what they are reporting.

They may not have to validate, but there are no time limits on the FCRA requirements to report only accurate information.

If they can't document what they are reporting to the CRA, where's the proof that it is accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"pressing the CA on documenting what they are reporting"

How do I go about that, exactly? Just change the wording to, please validate the information your reported to EX/EQ/TU?

 

Sorry...I'm suddenly feeling pretty dense about all of this, not to mention discouraged. :(

 

 

 

OK...this is really letting the air out of my tires...

 

If I DV after 30 days, the CA doesnt have to do ANYTHING??? They don't have to validate AT ALL??? :)

 

Nothing other than mark the account as "consumer disputes" or some such.

It's sometimes advantageous to change your tactics to disputing with the CRA, and if verified- pressing the CA on documenting what they are reporting.

They may not have to validate, but there are no time limits on the FCRA requirements to report only accurate information.

If they can't document what they are reporting to the CRA, where's the proof that it is accurate?

Edited by WCAdjATL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"pressing the CA on documenting what they are reporting"

How do I go about that, exactly? Just change the wording to, please validate the information your reported to EX/EQ/TU?

 

Read Section 623(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

(15 U.S.C. 1681s–2(a)) as amended by FACTA.

 

Basically, it allows a consumer to dispute directly with the furnisher of information. (the creditor), who is required to investigate and reply within a fixed time frame.

There are certain conditions under which they are allowed to call your dispute "frivolous" and ignore it, so you'll want to read and understand that section before using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, don't forget to check out your state laws. I know Nevada and Arizona both have laws saying they have to validate...they call it verify in Nevada, but it involves them getting docs from the OC and mailing them to you. Arizona's was harder to find, I had to look in the Administrative Code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...I'll definitely have to take a look at that. Not quite sure to find it in the Georgia code, but luckily I have some friends who practice law. :offtopic: THANKS for the tip!

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  

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