Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Dirty

Federal Regulations Stipulate That A Dispute Can Be Determined To Be "FRIVOLOUS"

Recommended Posts

This is the letter I got back from Applied Bank. I was hoping someone could help me and suggest a second letter to them. Maybe A Nutcase letter? Any suggestions would be very helpful. Thanks in Advance. :lol:

 

Dear Mr. D____

 

We have recieved your request concerning validation of your debt. Federal regulations stipulate that a dispute can be determined to be "frivolous" if the consumer fails to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information or the dispute was previously submitted. As a result of our review, we have determined that your request falls in this category. We will not provide any further response concerning this request.

 

It appears that you may be working with a Credit Repair Agency. If you are currently paying the agency for this service, it would benefit you more to work with us to find a better solution. We are willing to clear your credit history concerning this account if you are willing to settle the obligation.

 

Your account was charged off; however we are willing to settle your account. Please contact us toll free at the number given below to make arrangements for payments to settle your account. If you satisfy the terms of this arrangement, we will consider your account settled and instruct the credit bureaus to delete the account from your credit file.

 

If you are interested in our offer, please contact us toll free at......so we can begin the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Applied Bank is pulling the frivolous dispute card ..

 

Is this your first contact with them? what did you send them? DV? if so and they deem your request frivolous on whim with no prior contact the federal regulations which they speak of bind them to certain rules they are not following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Applied Bank is pulling the frivolous dispute card ..

 

Is this your first contact with them? what did you send them? DV? if so and they deem your request frivolous on whim with no prior contact the federal regulations which they speak of bind them to certain rules they are not following.

 

 

Fantastic. Sue them. I'll be interested in the judge's opinion about the frivolity of your DV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody actually read the FCRA anymore?

 

If so, refer to § 623(a)(8)(F) of the FACTA amended FCRA. You'll notice a furnisher may determine a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant based on the criteria specified in the letter. Furthermore, if you look down to subsection ( c) of the same section, you'll notice the furnisher cannot be held liable for violations of this section except as provided for in § 621. What that means is only a governmental body may bring civil charges against a furnisher for violations of this section. The exception is you may sue only if the furnisher fails to heed an injunction against the violation that was the result of a civil action brought by a governmental body.

Edited by JerseyBaby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jersey, I believe (as I've dealt with this exact issue previously)

 

§ 623. (a)(8) ABILITY OF CONSUMER TO DISPUTE INFORMATION DIRECTLY WITH FURNISHER

 

(F) FRIVOLOUS OR IRRELEVANT DISPUTE-

 

(I) by reason of the failure of a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information; or

 

(II) the submission by a consumer of a dispute that is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by or for the consumer, either directly to the person or through a consumer reporting agency under subsection (B), with respect to which the person has already performed the person's duties under this paragraph or subsection (B), as applicable.

 

They still need to show good cause, they can't simply say because we said so.

 

We have recieved your request concerning validation of your debt. Federal regulations stipulate that a dispute can be determined to be "frivolous" if the consumer fails to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information or the dispute was previously submitted. As a result of our review, we have determined that your request falls in this category. We will not provide any further response concerning this request.

 

(ii) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION- Upon making any determination under clause (i) that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, the person shall notify the consumer of such determination not later than 5 business days after making such determination, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the person.

 

(iii) CONTENTS OF NOTICE- A notice under clause (ii) shall include--

 

(I) the reasons for the determination under clause (i); and

 

(II) identification of any information required to investigate the disputed information, which may consist of a standardized form describing the general nature of such information.

 

Assuming the OP hasn't contacted them previously (thats why I asked in my post above) based on their failure to provide a form requesting specific additional information they require and their strong arm refusal to further discuss the issue, it would be quite clear to me they're in violation.

 

How much is this debt for OP? (do you owe this debt? perhaps you should just pay them? considering they've offered to delete the TL ..)

Edited by Sultan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a credit card with a 350 limit when I lived in NY almost 7 years ago from Cross Country Bank. here is what is on my tc report now. Cross Country Bank is now applied bank. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

I sent a DV letter to applied bank on Jan. 26, 2008. I also sent all 3 CRA's validation letters yesterday. I hope that was a good move from what I have learned here in tha last month.

 

My experian account says this is scheduled to be on record until Nov. 2008. I don't want to wait eight more months. If I could get rid of this account, my credit score would sky rocket. :P

 

If I didn't have to go to work, I could read these boards all day. :D thanks for the help CB

 

TransUnion Experian Equifax

Past Due: $932 $932 $932

High Balance: $933 $933

Terms:

Limit: $350 $350

Payment: $0

Opened: 07/02/2001 07/2001 07/2001

Reported: 01/31/2008 11/09/2007 02/2008

Responsibility: Individual Individual Individual

 

 

 

 

Late Payments (last 7 years):

TransUnion Experian Equifax

days late: 2 2

days late: 1 1

days late: 3 32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got a credit card with a 350 limit when I lived in NY almost 7 years ago from Cross Country Bank. here is what is on my tc report now. Cross Country Bank is now applied bank. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

I sent a DV letter to applied bank on Jan. 26, 2008. I also sent all 3 CRA's validation letters yesterday. I hope that was a good move from what I have learned here in tha last month.

OCs don't validate, they verify.

 

since its scheduled to come off in 8 months, you shoulda waited at least 2 months then disputed with the CRAs as obsolete. 2 of the three probably woulda removed it on their own within 3 months without a dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anybody actually read the FCRA anymore?

 

If so, refer to § 623(a)(8)(F) of the FACTA amended FCRA. You'll notice a furnisher may determine a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant based on the criteria specified in the letter. Furthermore, if you look down to subsection ( c) of the same section, you'll notice the furnisher cannot be held liable for violations of this section except as provided for in § 621. What that means is only a governmental body may bring civil charges against a furnisher for violations of this section. The exception is you may sue only if the furnisher fails to heed an injunction against the violation that was the result of a civil action brought by a governmental body.

 

 

Actually I think the problem here has nothing to do with the FCRA, it's that the OP appears to be DV'ing an original creditor -- the FDCPA does not obligate an OC to validate. (Some state laws might though).

 

Secondly however, IMHO the FCRA is not going to absolve any CA/JDB of their debt-validation obligations as per the FDCPA. The issue of "reinvestigating" that they are accurately reporting the data they have on hand, is completely different from the issue of validating that debt data in the first place.

 

You can be accurately reporting the details attached to an invalid debt -- the FCRA 623 is addressing the reporting.

 

If a CA/JDB took this route, that's like a bartender challenging a kid with a fake ID, and the kid replying that no, his fake ID really does spell his name correctly and have his picture on it so the complaint is frivolous per the FCRA.

 

Seems to me anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin, you are absolutely correct. My reply was to the original post, which seemed to imply the OP disputed the account with the OC, and to the subsequent replies which seemed to suggest the OC had no ability to deem the dispute frivolous and they should be sued for such action. Well the OC can deem the dispute frivolous and the consumer has no cause of action to sue over violations of the relevant statutes.

 

But it certainly does appear the OP is mixing disputes, validations, and verifications into a confusing jumble of incoherence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sultan, my post wasn't meant to address the validity of the frivolous label in this case. It was simply meant to show that furnishers do have the ability to label a dispute frivolous when circumstances warrant, and that consumers do not have a legal cause of action if violations of the relevant statutes occur.

 

The frivolous label may or may not be warranted in this case. We have insufficient information to make that judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sultan, my post wasn't meant to address the validity of the frivolous label in this case. It was simply meant to show that furnishers do have the ability to label a dispute frivolous when circumstances warrant, and that consumers do not have a legal cause of action if violations of the relevant statutes occur.

 

The frivolous label may or may not be warranted in this case. We have insufficient information to make that judgement.

Jersey, I see what your saying ..

 

BTW, I'm always trying to catch ya and say hi when I see you (some of the threads your not going back to RE: Marv WSJ, etc.)

 

How have you been? its good to see ya around once in a while .. :lol::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin, you are absolutely correct. My reply was to the original post, which seemed to imply the OP disputed the account with the OC, and to the subsequent replies which seemed to suggest the OC had no ability to deem the dispute frivolous and they should be sued for such action. Well the OC can deem the dispute frivolous and the consumer has no cause of action to sue over violations of the relevant statutes.

 

But it certainly does appear the OP is mixing disputes, validations, and verifications into a confusing jumble of incoherence.

 

That makes me sound like a freaking Dirty loser or something. :lol: All I know is, last month my fico scores were under 550 and this month they are almost 650. I have had over 10 accounts deleted from reading these boards in 1 month. Everything is just starting to sink in now. Yes I made a few mistakes when I first started but you profesional disputers don't beat me up to bad. :rofl: And yes I made a mistake by saying vailidate instead of saying verify. Anyway, I am proud of my credit repair so far and will fix it somehow even with the "confusing jumble of incoherence" Anymore suggestions..................... ;)

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  




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