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.


Sign in to follow this  

My version of the 1-2punch, invoking the FCRA and FDCPA

The last post in this topic was posted 2753 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

I'm new and still learning. This was a read educational piece but I feel that much is still over my head.

 

Can someone help define what the following items mean? I have seen them in the previous posts.

 

-Dunning Letter

-Factoring company

-ITS

-Green Card (I think it is the verification piece that comes back after you send the CMRR?

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jen,

 

How did that letter work for you?

 

Thanks.

 

the collection is gone... and the CA is now being investigated by the OSBC for TILA violations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen,

 

How did that letter work for you?

 

Thanks.

 

the collection is gone... and the CA is now being investigated by the OSBC for TILA violations.

 

Oh Wow awesome job! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen,

 

How did that letter work for you?

 

Thanks.

 

the collection is gone... and the CA is now being investigated by the OSBC for TILA violations.

 

Translation:

 

Dont take no Crap!

 

Go Jen!

 

 

jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, I've been reading this thread and many others, and thinking of using the 1-2 punch. I have an old collections debt from LVNV, that I vaguely remember being contacted about, but not for a few years.

 

Does it still make sense to use this approach? (i.e. send to CRA and CA at the same time, and use both the FCRA and FDCPA in the DV letter? One of the CRA's is reporting this as open, so I think I have them on that violation at least.

 

Thx!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, I've been reading this thread and many others, and thinking of using the 1-2 punch. I have an old collections debt from LVNV, that I vaguely remember being contacted about, but not for a few years.

 

Does it still make sense to use this approach? (i.e. send to CRA and CA at the same time, and use both the FCRA and FDCPA in the DV letter? One of the CRA's is reporting this as open, so I think I have them on that violation at least.

 

Thx!

 

sorry this response is late, I'm not on as much as I used to be.

 

if the question hasn't been answered, I would:

 

1. dispute with CRAs first. See what the results are.

2. if it comes back verified, then 1-2punch them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jen,

 

You and I seem to often disagree with one another... However, I have to say you have done a great job with this thread & discussion. :)

 

Nice job!

 

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, I've been reading this thread and many others, and thinking of using the 1-2 punch. I have an old collections debt from LVNV, that I vaguely remember being contacted about, but not for a few years.

 

Does it still make sense to use this approach? (i.e. send to CRA and CA at the same time, and use both the FCRA and FDCPA in the DV letter? One of the CRA's is reporting this as open, so I think I have them on that violation at least.

 

Thx!

 

sorry this response is late, I'm not on as much as I used to be.

 

if the question hasn't been answered, I would:

 

1. dispute with CRAs first. See what the results are.

2. if it comes back verified, then 1-2punch them.

 

 

I also have a collection from LVNV Funding that is in collections. I have been paying this account down monthly, and will be done in about 2 months. It reports "paying under a partial payment", how do I get this removed from collections? I wasn't as knowledgable about handling past collections so no I did not get an agreement to get it removed.

 

To add more to this problem, this collection originated from an old Wal-Mart card. So in addition to the balance being reported as a collection, I have the GEMB/Walmart being reported as a paid collection that is also a charged off account. The date of last activity is 5/04. There are 5 (30 days), 3 (60 days), and 4+ (90 days). I need this removed.

 

What should I do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this great info. I'm so grateful for people like you who are willing to take the time to share your knowledge and provide all of us with such concise, well thought out and genuinely useful information. You obviously have studied diligently and dedicated alot of time and energy to the effort. Thank you, Jen. Great post! :rolleyes: I'm just a lowly little newbie (sent out my very 1st DV today :swoon: ) so I don't yet completely understand everything in this 1-2 punch and the 5 day rule is beyond me, but each day I learn more and more, and posts like these alert me to issues I need to investigate further....Thanks again!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for this great info. I'm so grateful for people like you who are willing to take the time to share your knowledge and provide all of us with such concise, well thought out and genuinely useful information. You obviously have studied diligently and dedicated alot of time and energy to the effort. Thank you, Jen. Great post! :ph34r: I'm just a lowly little newbie (sent out my very 1st DV today :D ) so I don't yet completely understand everything in this 1-2 punch and the 5 day rule is beyond me, but each day I learn more and more, and posts like these alert me to issues I need to investigate further....Thanks again!!!

 

 

what I suggest while waiting for a response (or lack of) from CA:

 

PRINT (sorry trees) out the FDCPA

Get a pen

get a highlighter

and start reading.

 

write down questions on a piece of paper, and come here and ask.

 

highlight things you think are important.

 

know your FDCPA and suddenly a lot of things click.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for this great info. I'm so grateful for people like you who are willing to take the time to share your knowledge and provide all of us with such concise, well thought out and genuinely useful information. You obviously have studied diligently and dedicated alot of time and energy to the effort. Thank you, Jen. Great post! :clapping: I'm just a lowly little newbie (sent out my very 1st DV today :swoon: ) so I don't yet completely understand everything in this 1-2 punch and the 5 day rule is beyond me, but each day I learn more and more, and posts like these alert me to issues I need to investigate further....Thanks again!!!

 

 

what I suggest while waiting for a response (or lack of) from CA:

 

PRINT (sorry trees) out the FDCPA

Get a pen

get a highlighter

and start reading.

 

write down questions on a piece of paper, and come here and ask.

 

highlight things you think are important.

 

know your FDCPA and suddenly a lot of things click.

 

This is so true. Even after reading it a hundred times, there are times when there are NEW things that click with me.

 

The 5 day rule thing: 1692g of the FDCPA. A collector must send you a "dunning" letter within 5 days of contact. There are cases that state that contact includes a voicemail and phone calls are communication. I'm pretty sure that a credit pull and reporting on your credit report is also considered initial communication. I do know that it IS a communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...a credit pull and reporting on your credit report is also considered initial communication.

Is a soft pull (without any reporting) considered initial communication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...a credit pull and reporting on your credit report is also considered initial communication.

Is a soft pull (without any reporting) considered initial communication?

 

the FCRA does not differentiate between soft and hard pulls

 

It might be a stretch to consider that first communication. You might try a non-PP letter and see what kind of response you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...a credit pull and reporting on your credit report is also considered initial communication.

Is a soft pull (without any reporting) considered initial communication?

 

the FCRA does not differentiate between soft and hard pulls

 

It might be a stretch to consider that first communication. You might try a non-PP letter and see what kind of response you get.

Thanks--I think I'm just going to hang tight on this one unless the CA (Hilco Receivables) takes some further action. I'm hoping they were just snooping around on my report and decided to pass on purchasing some god-knows-how-old collection from god-knows-who.

 

If they pull a hard inquiry, or place a collection on my report, or start calling, or send a dunning letter, then I'm planning on sending a DV and taking it from there. Does this seem like a good course of action?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warning..... this might get long... but I've been stewing on this for two weeks or more. :P

 

This is regarding a 1-2 punch where the CA is reporting to the CRAs, usually before sending me anything. I always dispute with the CRA first (if the CA has not sent me anything or called) and if it comes back verified, then I go on and use variations of the following letters.

 

Lately, there is a lot of discussion of what goes into a dispute, and I believe there is no single magical bullet.

 

Some like the long DV with the kitchen sink (as I call it) and some like the 3 line DV (the one I used to advocate). As time on the board has gone by, my POV has changed regarding what I put in my DV. I've witness some good debates and participated in a couple, and done more research done on my part....... my DV currently looks dramatically different than it did 1 year ago and certainly 3.

 

I keep a USB drive with ALL my disputes and I have to say, some of the older ones, I'm embarassed I sent and probably posted somewhere here on this board! ;) Hopefully, this will be a keeper, but I reserve the right to morph my method of attack at any time. :rofl:

 

The change in my DV came directly from reading the FCRA section 623 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to CRAs [15 USC 1681s-2] (read HERE!!!! ). This section of the FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that they know is inaccurate.

 

Under the FCRA, there's two kinds of disputes initiated by a consumer, through the CRA directly which triggers one set of requirements initially and through the furnisher directly which triggers another set. Each have their jobs to do and each has it's own guidelines. It took me reading the FCRA many, many, many times to understand each (this is why I advocate printing out the FCRA and FDCPA and get to studying with a pen and highlighter).

 

Basically, a dispute under the FDCPA asks the CA to prove the debt is valid. A dispute under the FCRA is when you are asking for verification of what they are reporting. In the scenario I laid out, the CA is bound by the FDCPA and the FCRA, as a data furnisher. The FCRA is very specific on how a consumer should do this and the responsibilities of the data furnisher (DF).

 

 

This is a RL example from December of a variation (none of my DVs are exactly alike anymore) of a DV (part 1 of the punch).

December 5, 2007

 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED # 7x

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

I am in receipt of a recent credit report showing an entry by your company for account #xxx. I have not received any correspondence from your company regarding this alleged debt. This letter serves as initial communication. This letter was a timely dispute of this alleged debt, therefore I demand all collection activity cease immediately.

 

This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that your claim is disputed in full. .

 

More specifically, I am disputing the reporting of the following items to the credit reporting agencies:

* The amount of $xxx.xx is due your company

* that this alleged debt is payable to you

*the date of last activity reported by your company

*that this account is considered a factoring account

* that you have the right to report lates on 6/07, 7/07, 8/07, 9/07,10/07 and 11/07.

* I was never late to you on the above-mentioned dates.

 

As a data furnisher to credit reporting agencies, {CA} has an obligation to report and provide accurate information. The specific items disputed above (as notated by bullet points) are not accurate and I dispute your reporting of this information as allowed under 15USC1681s-2(8)(D). If you update this information as correct with the credit bureaus, I request that the supporting documentation be forwarded to me.

 

In each of the line items above, {CA} is making false representation of this alleged debt, as defined in 15USC 1692e(2)(A).

 

Please send proof of the accuracy dispute items above and a full validation as intended by the FDCPA . If proof of this debt can not be obtained and forwarded, I will assume there is no proof and will consider this matter with your company closed and expect removal of notations of this account to any and all credit reporting agencies to which you are currently reporting, as required by all disputes under the FCRA and FDCPA.

 

It is inconvenient for you to contact me any time by phone, please direct all correspondence to me via mail.

 

Sincerely,

ME

(in rereading this, my wording is choppy, but it's a direct c/p for example purposes)

 

As you can tell, my DVs include an explanation of why/how they were reporting wrong since after verifying the first time (after my general dispute to the CRAs) they obviously didn't know that they were reporting wrong :P When I've disputed this way, they usually fall off quickly. There have been a few exceptions, but considering how many baddies I started with, I consider this method a success.

 

 

Then when I dispute with the CRAs (part 2 of the punch), I make sure that I am disputing the same bulleted items from above (in the dispute to the CA).

 

The reason? Not only did I notify them of their specific errors in a dispute to them (the CA), but then the CRAs are supposed to inform them I am disputing the same items. If they verify and continue report (in this example as a factoring company), then I believe it makes it more credible as "willful negligence" and there can not be a bona fide error.

 

 

Sometimes they fall off 2 of the 3 reports (darn you Experian!!).... if they do, then I use a variation of this letter by Sassy:

 

Dear DF,

 

You were notified of my dispute of your information on account # by CRA1. As a result of that dispute, the information was deleted from that report.

 

As a furnisher of information, at the time of that investigation, you were also required to remove the same information from ALL other CRA's that you reported to.

 

You failed to properly complete your investigation and provide the results to each of the CRA's you report to. This is a violation of FCRA, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information.

 

I am not requesting a new investigation, I am requesting deletion of the information from CRA2 and CRA3 as you were required and failed to do.

 

To cure these violations, please have the TL removed from CRA2 and CRA3 within 10 days of receipt of this letter.

 

Sincerely,

 

I know it's sometimes a pain to send off letters, but here is a good reason to, especially when dealing with DFs (whether it's an OC or a CA):

 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/07/030710fcratestsenate.htm

25. In practice, furnishers sometimes investigate disputes received directly from consumers because they are required in some circumstances not to report, and to correct, inaccurate information. See FCRA �� 623 (a)(1) and (2). But furnishers have no affirmative obligation to investigate these disputes. Thus, if a consumer contacts the creditor only by telephone to dispute, and the creditor previously supplied to the consumer an address to submit disputes, it is not liable under FCRA Section 623(a)(1) for continuing to report this information, even if it is inaccurate.

 

 

 

Overall...... my DVs have changed dramatically. I used to be a 3-liner, invoking only a FDCPA dispute. My argument? That they knew their obligations, and I don't have to lay it out for them.

 

Today, I still am not laying out what is considered validation (which is legally a gray area) for them, but what I am doing though is making it clear to the CA/DF that I know my rights and will proactively protect them. So now, I make sure I fully utilize the protection laid out under the FCRA AND the FDCPA (but please, please, please check your state laws first as they may hold your greatest protection!).

 

I also feel that this method provides a clear and concise paper trail. If I do decide to sue later, whether it be the CA or the CRA, I feel that my disputes were specific in their nature (xx and xx and xx are wrong) and specific in my requests (please delete within 10 days, etc).

 

Before you get sue-happy, read the part in the FCRA where it explains that a consumer cannot sue to enforce section 623(a). Enforcement of this section is specific to the named governmental bodies. However, a consumer can sue to enforce section 623( b ) which has a relationship with the (a) provisions. COnfused? It's ok, I still am not 100% clear. :lol:

 

 

So, when a CA pops up on my credit report (and have no received prior communication from the CA), I:

 

1) Dispute with the CRAs first

 

2) if verified, send out a 1-2 punch as outlined above, disputing both under FDCPA and FCRA

 

3) if a deletion comes back on 1 or 2 of the 3 CRAs, follow up with the DF with letter from above (thx sassy)

 

4) In the meantime, get to know your state laws.... if you have to escalate this to letters to the state AG, then this will be helpful to know.... do they need to be bonded? If you find out the CA is licensed properly(if required), then find out if there is a CA regulating board in that state or your state.

 

5) send out a second 1-2 punch if necessary..... usually this is an almost-ITS letter to both the CRA and the CA/DF what their violations are. My DV#2 includes dates, cmrr#s, specific violations, etc.

 

 

Another reason I keep my letters specific and serious..... PsychDoc once said:

A litigious mindset requires that you act professionally, seriously, deliberately, and assertively. Your actions are an attempt to protect your civil rights, which is no laughing matter.
I take those rights seriously and I will not have them trampled on by a bottom-feeding organization. These companies have cause me enough tears and sleepless nights I no longer am namby pamby about how I attack them, especially on hot-topics with me, such as SOL debts (sometimes 10 years or more).

 

per the FTC, what are the responsibilities of the data furnisher?

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041119factaappg.pdf

 

FCRA links in full :

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc..._41_20_III.html

 

complete post by psych doc on attacking credit repair with a litigious mindset:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/Discussions...dset-34965.html

 

and if you haven't read it yet (or in awhile).... psych doc's seminars are a good periodic read and should be your bible on how to attack your credit report problems.

 

/musings.

 

attack away :P

 

 

 

ETA for clarification: the original 1-2punch for for attacking CAs within 30 days of their first communication/letter to you. I do not mean for this to replace or even expand on that original post.... what I meant by 1-2punch was attacking the CA and the CRA at the same time causing the CA to violate more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bigbear, I'm assuming in that HUGE quote, there was a question accidentally nestled...... can you repost without the quotes what you're looking for? thanks! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while this letter seems to work for many, including myself... I still am struggling with this:

 

The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a consumer reporting agency

(“CRAâ€) that they know (or consciously avoid knowing) is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to

this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to

notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. Sections 623(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)©

 

anyone want to help me tackle this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That, to me, basically says that the FoI can report correct, or incorrect information. If they report incorrect information, they must provide a correct mailing address for a consumer to send a 623 dispute to.

 

 

-R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 2753 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

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  




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      179,966
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    branch
    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