dumb question about validation

[screwedbysears]

Is requesting validation considered a dispute under the FCRA.

 

FCRA § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

 

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

 

(1) Prohibition.

 

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.

 

No cause of action for a consumer under for A violations.

 

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

 

( Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

 

(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

 

( review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];

 

© report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and

 

Only enforceable by a consumer in conjunction with a CRA dispute.

 

Expressly creates a private right of action for damages for willful and negligent violations of the FCRA

 

Private right of action created by sections 616 (§1681n) and 617 (§1681o) -- based on a violation of 623( (§ 1681s-2().

 

Private cause of action to ENFORCE section 623(

[SassyinAz]

Is requesting validation considered a dispute under the FCRA.

Yep, if you use the word dispute.

 

However, to enforce section 623(, the dispute has to come FROM the CRA's, they are the filter by design.

 

(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall

 

Here's the referenced section from the FDCRA:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#611

 

§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

 

(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information.

 

(2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information.

 

(A) In general. Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer.

 

The violation, when requesting validation is, from the FDCPA:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#807

 

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

 

(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.

 

Sassy

[screwedbysears]

Sassy Im in a bind I think and maybe you can help me out. As you know I did a bunch of 1/2 punch's and they are now starting to come in IE dispute with CRA and they say "remains" nothing about dispute in TL except for NCO they did right! and the one CA I sent the most validations to denied my offer to settle for delete , the problem is that they are all past the 30 days "to validate" and now I find out that the 1/2 punch works only if you dispute within the first 30 days is this correct?

As it stands right now with what you know what are my option I spent alot Of money on CMRR I hope all is not lost.

[SassyinAz]

Dang me, screwed, you've too many threads going on this same topic, so linking them, I already answered in the other one:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...p=288546#288546

 

I don't disagree with Mama, but she should have told you the rest.

 

The violation under the FDCPA ISN'T failure to cease collection activity, it is failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed and communicating information that is known or should be known to be false.

 

AND, if you disputed with the CRA's and it came back remains or verified or whatever, the violation is under the FCRA as well, Section 623(, failure to conduct an adequate investigation and continuing to report inaccurate information.

 

That's the deal outside of the 30-days, which is still arguable any day of the week but you don't have to worry about it anyway since AZ has it covered, the information has to be inaccurate. Within the 30 days, validation has to be provided or collection must cease, inaccuracy is a non-issue, those are their only 2 options.

 

Linked the exact sections for you previously above.

 

Sassy

[screwedbysears]

Sorry Sassy I was just pulling what little hair out when I read that if its over 30days the can continue collection activety,When wife yells at me everytime I CMRR (money) she doesn't see the big picture.So what Im doing is still ok I can get them on verify with CRA after sending validation and them not responding to me?

Sorry to be a pill

[SassyinAz]

Sorry Sassy I was just pulling what little hair out when I read that if its over 30days the can continue collection activety,When wife yells at me everytime I CMRR (money) she doesn't see the big picture.So what Im doing is still ok I can get them on verify with CRA after sending validation and them not responding to me?

Sorry to be a pill

oh good, screwed, I like it when you're apologizing instead of me You're no pill though and don't pull out those last hairs or I'll have to be calling you ScrewedChia like Mr. Sassy (ya know, the chia pets ;-)

 

Yep, you're ok and you've violations to pursue or use to negotiate with.

 

They don't have to respond to you either, but verifying is a violation without the dispute notation. And, once you've disputed through the CRA's there are additional violations. Then you've the state violations as well, as Mama mentioned in this thread:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...p=289601#289601

 

The FDCPA addresses the manner and methods of collection -- the FCRA addresses the accuracy and completeness of the information.

 

Mrs. Screwed will one day appreciate your efforts, it costs you a lot more to keep those collections on your reports than CRRR.

 

Meant to ask you too, did your initial validation letters (thinking of the cell phone calls) say to communicate further in writing? They can't call your cell phone anyway.

 

Sassy

[screwedbysears]

No I didn't because they have never called and it hasn't been a problem they were just sitting there (TL)and I wanted to clean them up.

Now for the fun part writing the ITS letter, Im debating to ask for a small fee for their violations or just offer them to delete all TL, plus the one I IIBK back in 2002. The letter I have started asks for $1500 and deletions I mean the money would be nice about $6000 if I went to court but I just don't want to hassle with it, or look like I just trying to make a quick buck.

I think I'll just ask for deletion and if they refuse, go for the throat.

or give it my attorney I think this would be easier for him to make some money then the lawsuit I have against RMA and EQ. which is going nowhere. Dang this takes so long!!!