Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
pryan67

FYI FDCPA 807(8)

Recommended Posts

This has been discussed before, but due to the large number of threads that have been posted lately concerning CAs selling accounts that have been disputed...it's a direct violation of FDCPA...if they don't let the new CA know that the debt is in dispute, you can take action against them. If the new CA DOES know that it's been disputed, then THEY'RE in violation...so I'd play one off the other...and let them BOTH explain it to a judge...

 

 

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

 

807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e]

 

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

 

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

 

(2) The false representation of --

 

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

 

(:rolleyes: any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

 

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.

 

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.

 

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

 

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to --

 

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

 

(:dntknw: become subject to any practice prohibited by this title.

 

(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.

 

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, just because they sold the debt does not automatically carry a presumption that they did not convey the fact that the account was disputed.

 

Easiest thing to do is simply note in the first letter to the new entity that they bought a hog...

Edited by centex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has been discussed before, but due to the large number of threads that have been posted lately concerning CAs selling accounts that have been disputed...it's a direct violation of FDCPA...if they don't let the new CA know that the debt is in dispute, you can take action against them. If the new CA DOES know that it's been disputed, then THEY'RE in violation...so I'd play one off the other...and let them BOTH explain it to a judge...

 

Have you seen any case law regarding that?? I looked a while ago... then it kindof feel to the back burner.

 

 

-R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, just because they sold the debt does not automatically carry a presumption that they did not convey the fact that the account was disputed.

 

Easiest thing to do is simply note in the first letter to the new entity that they bought a hog...

 

 

True...and notify them that if they WERE told that it was in dispute, THEY'RE in violation, and have them throw each other under the bus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GREAT GREAT GREAT INFO! You're aaammmaaazzzaaazzziiinnnggg!!! :rofl::rofl: There goes one of my collections!

 

OK what about this:

 

DV sent to JDB, DV ignored (wow, shocking), then JDB "retains" another agency to collect the debt... specifically a law office called WWR who then dunns, DV sent to them, ignored, BUT original JDB is still reporting currently, so I'm assuming original JDB is still in control of the debt...

 

so all that confusing stuff before leads to this simple question... :rofl::rofl:

 

can a CA "retain" a law office to collect after they've been DV? The way I read it is it would fall under the same FDCPA violation...

 

 

This has been discussed before, but due to the large number of threads that have been posted lately concerning CAs selling accounts that have been disputed...it's a direct violation of FDCPA...if they don't let the new CA know that the debt is in dispute, you can take action against them. If the new CA DOES know that it's been disputed, then THEY'RE in violation...so I'd play one off the other...and let them BOTH explain it to a judge...

 

 

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

 

807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e]

 

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

 

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

 

(2) The false representation of --

 

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

 

(:( any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

 

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.

 

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.

 

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

 

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to --

 

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

 

(B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title.

 

(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.

 

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

Edited by Cepbush106

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CA that you sent your dispute letter actually still owns the account, and is only using someone else to try and collect, then yes, that would definately be continued collection... It's one thing if the debt changes companies that are totally unrelated... but that's like if I said you to - I dispute this... and then you had your friend Bob call me about it.

 

You'd be liable for his actions...

 

(Very over simplified.. but you get the idea)

 

 

-R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

 

In regards to my other post...

Experian has marked the entry made by Stop Loss as in dispute in regards to bad address and name info. Someone said earlier that disputing an address doesn't mean they can't sell the debt to someone else. It would seem that if EX marks it in dispute and has asked the CA to validate, then they wouldn't be able to sell the debt. Am I wrong with this thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

 

In regards to my other post...

Experian has marked the entry made by Stop Loss as in dispute in regards to bad address and name info. Someone said earlier that disputing an address doesn't mean they can't sell the debt to someone else. It would seem that if EX marks it in dispute and has asked the CA to validate, then they wouldn't be able to sell the debt. Am I wrong with this thinking?

 

 

unless you disputed directly with the CA, that section doesn't apply IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had this happen 2 times just this week. The first one I DV the company, waited until I get the green card then disputed with CRA, it disappeared from my credit report never heard anything else then I get a dunning letter by NCO, and a phone call for the same debt. The other one is DH, I DV the CA after recieving a dunning letter from one CA, that CA is not on credit report but OC and a different CA is, so when I got the greencard back I waited then got a letter and phone call in the same day from a different CA than originally DV. I sat yesterday and wrote new letters to the new CA but if this is illegal I want to do more. I don't have to much more aganist them I am just starting ang these are the first 2 letters I had sent out.

Edited by shannon91c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, just because they sold the debt does not automatically carry a presumption that they did not convey the fact that the account was disputed.

 

Easiest thing to do is simply note in the first letter to the new entity that they bought a hog...

 

 

True...and notify them that if they WERE told that it was in dispute, THEY'RE in violation, and have them throw each other under the bus

 

Sorry to knock the dust off this one, but I'm not getting it. Why would the new CA be in violation if they were told the debt was disputed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to knock the dust off this one, but I'm not getting it. Why would the new CA be in violation if they were told the debt was disputed?

 

Just a guess here, but I'd say it's because they are continuing collection activity on a disputed debt before it's validated? If I'm reading the law correctly, the new CA would be required to provide validation BEFORE they can then ask you to pay the debt, report it to the CRA's, or any other activity that the courts have found to fall under the description of "collection activity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry to knock the dust off this one, but I'm not getting it. Why would the new CA be in violation if they were told the debt was disputed?

 

Just a guess here, but I'd say it's because they are continuing collection activity on a disputed debt before it's validated? If I'm reading the law correctly, the new CA would be required to provide validation BEFORE they can then ask you to pay the debt, report it to the CRA's, or any other activity that the courts have found to fall under the description of "collection activity".

Hmm... I read the validation requirements of §809 as pertaining to the same CA that is attempting to collect the debt because it says "the debt collector", not "any debt collector" or even "a debt collector". Granted, the original CA may be in violation by selling the debt to "collect" on it, but it seems a bit of a stretch to extend the conditional requirements of CA 1 on to CA 2 in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually it says "A" debt collector

 

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

 

 

 

The way I see it either CA 2 is in violation for collecting on a debt that they KNOW is in dispute, and they're likely communicating that information

 

 

OR...

 

they're doing the same thing on a debt that they SHOULD KNOW is in dispute...

 

I would think that reasonable procedures would be to ascertain whether or not it's in dispute..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got a BBB dispute response on CBCS/Verizon. I was informed the account has been sold to Palisades. Palisades has not reported yet so should I send them a letter to prevent them from reporting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GREAT GREAT GREAT INFO! You're aaammmaaazzzaaazzziiinnnggg!!! :P:clapping: There goes one of my collections!

 

OK what about this:

 

DV sent to JDB, DV ignored (wow, shocking), then JDB "retains" another agency to collect the debt... specifically a law office called WWR who then dunns, DV sent to them, ignored, BUT original JDB is still reporting currently, so I'm assuming original JDB is still in control of the debt...

 

so all that confusing stuff before leads to this simple question... :grin::grin:

 

can a CA "retain" a law office to collect after they've been DV? The way I read it is it would fall under the same FDCPA violation...

 

 

edited to add, I just noticed the date on this ooops. You probably know this by now.

 

This has been discussed before, but due to the large number of threads that have been posted lately concerning CAs selling accounts that have been disputed...it's a direct violation of FDCPA...if they don't let the new CA know that the debt is in dispute, you can take action against them. If the new CA DOES know that it's been disputed, then THEY'RE in violation...so I'd play one off the other...and let them BOTH explain it to a judge...

 

 

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

 

807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e]

 

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

 

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

 

(2) The false representation of --

 

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

 

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

 

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.

 

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.

 

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

 

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to --

 

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

 

(B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title.

 

(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.

 

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

 

 

you should tread carefully with them. Some use lawfirm ca's to intimidate(sp?) you. However sometimes they "retain" lawfirm ca's to start a case. Is the tl within SOL? If not don't worry, if so then just be careful, because just because they "retained" I use that word lightly, an attorney ca and they can sue..... Then push and be pushed. However I do believe and thank pryan because I think he is right and they will abuse as much of the law until they get cornered on it multiple times. Good luck..

 

 

edited to add that I just looked at the date on this and I didn't realize this was from feb... You probably know this by now

Edited by newhome2005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got a BBB dispute response on CBCS/Verizon. I was informed the account has been sold to Palisades. Palisades has not reported yet so should I send them a letter to prevent them from reporting?

 

I would...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually it says "A" debt collector

 

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

 

 

 

The way I see it either CA 2 is in violation for collecting on a debt that they KNOW is in dispute, and they're likely communicating that information

 

 

OR...

 

they're doing the same thing on a debt that they SHOULD KNOW is in dispute...

 

I would think that reasonable procedures would be to ascertain whether or not it's in dispute..

 

I get what you're driving at. I just don't see anything in the FDCPA supporting a position that a purchaser inherits the dispute status.

Share this post


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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

Sign in to follow this  




  • Today's Birthdays

    1. seattle
      seattle
      Age: 42
    2. goodkarma127
      goodkarma127
      Age: 21
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      177,997
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Relly
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines