*Whychat* Your letter to CAs re: SOL

[citygirl8]

In your sample letter to the CAs you suggest including the following language:

 

Under the laws of (state) continued collection activities, including reporting, verification or reinsertion of accounts beyond their legal collection date to any consumer credit reporting agency, may be considered extortion and/or fraud and subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution.

 

I don't find any similar language in my state code.

 

I also am not making the connection that:

 

Under the FDCPA, any such action, or threat of such action is a violation of the law,and grounds for fines and civil sanctions.

 

You site sec. 807, but I don't see how that relates to reporting to the CRAs.

 

So how is it that I'm getting the TLs off my reports? I need some edjumacation on SOL issues here!

[Why Chat]

In your sample letter to the CAs you suggest including the following language:

 

Under the laws of (state) continued collection activities, including reporting, verification or reinsertion of accounts beyond their legal collection date to any consumer credit reporting agency, may be considered extortion and/or fraud and subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution.

 

I don't find any similar language in my state code. PM me your State and I will find it for you

 

I also am not making the connection that:

 

Under the FDCPA, any such action, or threat of such action is a violation of the law,and grounds for fines and civil sanctions.The Courts have had a ruling, which is quoted,that reporting is an implication that the account is legally collectible,i.e. a violation

 

You site sec. 807, but I don't see how that relates to reporting to the CRAs.

 

So how is it that I'm getting the TLs off my reports?  I need some edjumacation on SOL issues here!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[LKH]

In your sample letter to the CAs you suggest including the following language:

 

Under the laws of (state) continued collection activities, including reporting, verification or reinsertion of accounts beyond their legal collection date to any consumer credit reporting agency, may be considered extortion and/or fraud and subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution.

 

I don't find any similar language in my state code. PM me your State and I will find it for you

 

I also am not making the connection that:

 

Under the FDCPA, any such action, or threat of such action is a violation of the law,and grounds for fines and civil sanctions.The Courts have had a ruling, which is quoted,that reporting is an implication that the account is legally collectible,i.e. a violation

 

You site sec. 807, but I don't see how that relates to reporting to the CRAs.

 

So how is it that I'm getting the TLs off my reports?  I need some edjumacation on SOL issues here!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Why Chat,

 

What about the FCRA which says negatives can be reported for 7 years +180 days from the date of the initial delinquency. It doesn't say only if the SOL has not run. So, while a state law may state what you say, wouldn't the FCRA trump that?

[citygirl8]

Whychat -- You've got mail.

 

LKH, thanks. I think you phrased it better than I did. That's what I want to know basically. Though I think it's the FDCPA, not FCRA.

[breck]

subscribing to thread.

Im very interested in the answer to this too.

I have been puzzled by this for some time.

[LKH]

Whychat -- You've got mail.

 

LKH, thanks.  I think you phrased it better than I did.  That's what I want to know basically.  Though I think it's the FDCPA, not FCRA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

807 of the FDCPA talks about false and misleading practices. But, the FCRA dictates what can and can not be reported and for how long.

[Why Chat]

The FCRA regulates the reporting, however the FDCA regulates the legality of ANY type of collection activity, and has ruled that reporting is a form of collection activity.

 

As to the State rules or Federal laws on fraudulent extortion by publication,here is an interesting article on the subject.

 

http://www.rbs2.com/infotort.htm

 

Remember that adverse reporting affects a person economically, so reporting that an account is collectible AFTER being notified that it is legally time-barred may be considered to be fraudulent extortion by publication, as the goal is to extract $$ from the victim by the PUBLICATION of the account, even though any LEGAL collection is time-barred.

[LKH]

Without trying to be argumentative, the link you posted specifically states "false information".

 

A valid collection that is past the SOL IS a valid collection. There is no law that states they can not report valid info even if past the SOL.

 

If the info can not be validated, as I said in another thread, then I would agree that yes, they can't legally report it as that would be continued collection activity. But in the case of a VALID collection, they have every right to report it whether past the SOL or not.

 

I'd appreciate it if you could point me to where in Arizona law it is said

 

"Under the laws of (state) continued collection activities, including reporting, verification or reinsertion of accounts beyond their legal collection date to any consumer credit reporting agency, may be considered extortion and/or fraud and subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution."

 

Even if there is state law stating such, which I'm not aware of for Az anyway, federal law still would outweigh state law.

[Why Chat]

I agree that the article referred only to false information, however, the point I am making wasn't specifically aimed at the main theme of the article, but rather at the FDCPA prohibition of threatening legal action when it is not actually possible to carry it out.

 

The FDCPA has RULED that credit reporting is a form of collection activity.

They have also ruled that reporting an account is an inference that the account is legally collectible.

 

I have discussed this at length on another forum with Sassy, and I am sure that she can dig up the thread and post it.

[LKH]

I agree that the article referred only to false information, however, the point I am making wasn't specifically aimed at the main theme of the article, but rather at the FDCPA prohibition of threatening legal action when it is not actually possible to carry it out.

 

The FDCPA has RULED that credit reporting is a form of collection activity.

They have also ruled that reporting an account  is an inference that the account is legally collectible.

 

I have discussed this at length on another forum with Sassy, and I am sure that she can dig up the thread and post it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, reporting is a form of collection, no question. And I also agree that threatening legal action where none can legally be taken is a violation of the FDCPA as well.

 

I'm sure sassy could find it. lol

 

My only point in this is that IF it is past the SOL but was properly validated, if requested, then they can report it. That's the only point I've been trying to make.

[Why Chat]

I located it:

 

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttal...&threadid=59797

 

This is a long involved very thorough legal discussion, if you have insomnia it is a surefire way to get to sleep.

[*GB*]

Even if there is state law stating such, which I'm not aware of for Az anyway, federal law still would outweigh state law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct me if Im wrong, but I always thought that State law in certain circumstances will trump Federal law, providing the State law affords the consumer more protection than the Federal law.

[hunter29180]

I located it:

 

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttal...&threadid=59797

 

This is a long involved very thorough legal discussion, if you have insomnia it is a surefire way to get to sleep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great reading!!!! raises some questions. lets say SOL in a state is 2 yrs... then you could then use the SOL letter to end that line and then remove it from your credit file at the cra's?

[citygirl8]

... then you could then use the SOL letter to end that line and then remove it from your credit file at the cra's?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's exactly the purpose of the SOL letter and theory that Whychat developed. I know lots of people have just sent out the letter as is, but I really don't like to send letters that I don't understand 100%.

 

So, I'm trying to do the research and figure out exactly what applies in the case that I'm considering using it, and understand how to use it.

 

Whychat - You're right that link was good for insominia. I got a start on it last night, and I'll keep reading today while I'm killing time at work.

[Frisbee]

subscribing

[LKH]

I located it:

 

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttal...&threadid=59797

 

This is a long involved very thorough legal discussion, if you have insomnia it is a surefire way to get to sleep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great reading!!!! raises some questions. lets say SOL in a state is 2 yrs... then you could then use the SOL letter to end that line and then remove it from your credit file at the cra's?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Isn't going to work. IN fact, why don't you try it and be the test subject. Several people, Evelyn most recently comes to mind, have used the SOL letter and ended up getting sued and LOST in court.

 

Why would that happen?

[belleama]

You know LKH I spent a good part of last night thinking about our discussion yesterday . WhyChat's response to this thread seems to support my theory that reporting ANY invalid debt would not be permitted.

 

If they can't collect for whatever reason (past SOL, wrong person, unable to properly validate, etc) the alleged debt becomes invalid and reporting of it would be inaccurate.

 

A + B = C (invalid debt + inaccurate reporting = Deletion).

[LKH]

I located it:

 

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttal...&threadid=59797

 

This is a long involved very thorough legal discussion, if you have insomnia it is a surefire way to get to sleep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The law you cited for Az. deals with goods and services and trying to extort same. What does that have to do with reporting to a CRA and trying to collect money that is legitimately owed?

 

IMO, the ONLY way this works is if you have sent a validation request and they refuse or can't properly validate. Otherwise, if they do, they can report even if past the sol for the full 7.5 years.

[belleama]

I located it:

 

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttal...&threadid=59797

 

This is a long involved very thorough legal discussion, if you have insomnia it is a surefire way to get to sleep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great reading!!!! raises some questions. lets say SOL in a state is 2 yrs... then you could then use the SOL letter to end that line and then remove it from your credit file at the cra's?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Isn't going to work. IN fact, why don't you try it and be the test subject. Several people, Evelyn most recently comes to mind, have used the SOL letter and ended up getting sued and LOST in court.

 

Why would that happen?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That kind of thing happens all the time when the judges don't know much about the FCRA, FDCPA, or even the states own consumer protection laws. This usually happens in small claims court. If you don't have all you ducks in a row and are unable to show the judge what you are basing your claims on you will lose.

 

I seem to recall several people here going to small claims court with violations against a CA and had the court throw it out simply because the judge did not understand the FCRA and the FDCPA. I think the same would hold true on the other side of the coin, too.

 

Small claims is not the place to go unless you are dealing with landlord/tenant laws. I'm sure if these people brought copies of the statues (a judge in small claims court is not going to look it up themselves ) a judge would be hard pressed to rule against them.

[pryan67]

You know LKH I spent a good part of last night thinking about our discussion yesterday . WhyChat's response to this thread seems to support my theory that reporting ANY invalid debt would not be permitted.

 

If they can't collect for whatever reason (past SOL, wrong person, unable to properly validate, etc) the alleged debt becomes invalid and reporting of it would be inaccurate.

 

A + B = C (invalid debt + inaccurate reporting = Deletion).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

you're forgetting one VERY important thing...

 

SOL just means that they can't (usually) win a lawsuit if they sue you...they can still attempt to collect (such as dunning letters, etc)

[belleama]

The law you cited for Az. deals with goods and services and trying to extort same. What does that have to do with reporting to a CRA and trying to collect money that is legitimately owed?

 

LKH, I seem to be missing something here. Why exactly do you keep saying "legitimately owed?" The alleged debt is not "legitimate" if it is invalid.

[belleama]

you're forgetting one VERY important thing...

 

SOL just means that they can't (usually) win a lawsuit if they sue you...they can still attempt to collect (such as dunning letters, etc)

 

Are you saying that the law distiguishes between invalid debts? That the law somehow allows collection activities as long as it not a certain type of invalid debt?

[bretherite]

OK help.

 

DH has several accounts that were charged off then IIB. IIB date was 4/1997. They only show on EX. About a month ago they changed them to good standing. two weeks ago one started showing as a recent CO So I disputed as IIB1997 Obsolete. They changed to IIB but won't delete. Does it have to be 7 years + 180 days before they delete? or is there a good letter to send EX to get this handled?

[LKH]

The law you cited for Az. deals with goods and services and trying to extort same. What does that have to do with reporting to a CRA and trying to collect money that is legitimately owed?

 

LKH, I seem to be missing something here. Why exactly do you keep saying "legitimately owed?" The alleged debt is not "legitimate" if it is invalid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Legit meaning if you send the ca a validation letter and they properly validate, then it is a legit debt that they can report and collect on.

 

Why Chat is there case law to support your assertions? I don't know of any. And if there is and I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it, but I don't think there is any such thing.

 

Pryan, thanks for your input. Exactly what I've been trying to say.

 

 

Also - being past the SOL doesn't make the debt "invalid". It only gives you and affirmative defense against a lawsuit, and that won't always work either.

[belleama]

Legit meaning if you send the ca a validation letter and they properly validate, then it is a legit debt that they can report and collect on.

 

"And collect on" is the key phrase here. If the item is time barred they cannot collect on it.