Trying to understand the 1-2 punch

[apa3705]

If I 1-2 punch a CA that has been on my account for over a year now must they vallidate before verifying with the CRA's? Or does this not apply because it is passed the initial 30 day timelimit?

 

Thanks for helping me clarify this.

[Sinzard]

I would like to know the answer to this as well.

 

Thanks

[apa3705]

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

[apa3705]

Sorry to keep bumping. Just trying to see if anyone knows the answer

[screwedbysears]

The one two punch can be used but it would be very flimsy in court IMO you can use after 30 days here how it works send a validation letter to the CA as soon as you get the green card back or go online and see if they recieved it. dispute the account as not your yours if it comes back verified but not marked indispute then you have them on 2 violations one FDCPA and FCRA

 

FDCPA § 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:

 

(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. This is a 1,000 dollar violation

 

 

FCRA:

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

 

 

(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.

 

 

 

Now if you want to take them to court on this you can do it but I think

but I have yet heard anyone do it on this board and win I have never heard anyone do this and lose either it is more of a scare tatic. If someone can give me a thread it would be great.

[apa3705]

So you are saying that the intial 30 day time period has no effect with the CA having to vallidate with you before verifying with the CRA (when using the 1-2 punch). There is no time period? A CA must vallidate before verifying no matter if it is within the first 15 days that they are collecting on your account or if they have been trying to collect on your account for over 6 years?

 

So if the CRA verifies and your CR shows "disputed by consumer", but the CA did not vallidate with you first, is that a violation?

[kwimberl]

Actually, they are only required to cease collection activity if you dispute in the first 30 days. I would still try the 1-2 punch though. They may not know this. :wink:

 

They DO have to say it's in dispute when it is. If they do not, it's a violation.

[apa3705]

So if the CA verifies before vallidating that is not a violation if I sent them a DV letter passed the initial 30 days?

[screwedbysears]

they don't have to validate ever after the 30 days, but if they don't validate and you dispute or if you don't dipute they are to mark it on your CR as in dispute.

[sushichef40]

I am doing a 1-2 punch on CBCS.

 

I got my green card back a few days ago. EQ now has a status of "Checked". My TU and EX is still unchanged.

 

Anyone know what that means?

[screwedbysears]

Means they got it and verified it if doesn't say indispute its a violation

[sushichef40]

thanks screwedbysears,

 

i just did online dispute on TU. i will see how that goes.

 

So...violation 1 one EQ?

[screwedbysears]

YEs what violation are you going for and was this with the first 30 days? FCRA or FDCPA you can sue under either one but under FCRA there is really no statue that you get any money so there is no insentive for them to responde under fdcpa you can sue for a $1,000

 

§ 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:

 

(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.

[SassyinAz]

YEs what violation are you going for and was this with the first 30 days? FCRA or FDCPA you can sue under either one but under FCRA there is really no statue that you get any money so there is no insentive for them to responde under fdcpa you can sue for a $1,000

 

:shock:

 

FCRA:

 

§ 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n]

 

(a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of

 

(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or

 

( in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;

 

(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and

 

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.

 

( Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater.

 

© Attorney's fees. Upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper.

 

§ 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o]

 

(a) In general. Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of

 

(1) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure;

 

(2) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.

 

( Attorney's fees. On a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper.

 

Now if you want to take them to court on this you can do it but I think but I have yet heard anyone do it on this board and win I have never heard anyone do this and lose either it is more of a scare tatic. If someone can give me a thread it would be great.

I think you should empower your search button, Screwed, if you're believing no one has filed on this.

 

Shaking my head!

 

Sassy

[screwedbysears]

Like I said in my thread I never heard of anyone one winning just on the 1 & 2 punch after taking them to court. Not that you can't win a deletion by threatening them. If you can point me to a thread where someone has gone into court and solely on the fact that they did not mark indispute on their CR after doing the one two punch that would be great.

[screwedbysears]

Follow up if you do owe the debt and it isn't out of SOL what better time to file a counter claim to your suit for non payment? Lets be honest the one two punch is to trap a CA into a violation to get them to delete a correct account in most cases. so unless you have a really good case I doubt it will work.other then to scare them in to deletion.IMHO

[SassyinAz]

Follow up if you do owe the debt and it isn't out of SOL what better time to file a counter claim to your suit for non payment? Lets be honest the one two punch is to trap a CA into a violation to get them to delete a correct account in most cases. so unless you have a really good case I doubt it will work.other then to scare them in to deletion.IMHO

You've got to be kidding me, Screwed, the 1-2 punch isn't a trap to delete correct accounts.

 

Sassy

[screwedbysears]

Then what is it. If you owe the debt then it is what it is. if you don't owe the debt then yes it will help you in your case if it is an invalid debt.

If Im wrong which I have been many times before when it comes to credit I admit it Im no expert then please explain how Im wrong, Sassy I do take what you say very serouisly and feel that you are one of the most knowlable persons when it comes to CB, but thats the way I see it.

Im still looking for a thread where someone has won a case soley based on the fact that a CA verified a TL and did not mark it in dispute.

[jamiern]

Bump

[screwedbysears]

I said what I said! No one has posted a case here yet where they won on the 1&2 punch. By no means does then mean that you should use it but its a gamble that is really hard to back up when push comes to shove.