Talk about bold......

If it shows "Disputed by consumer", then no violation.

well, hang on nascar, that depends--

If the OP asked for validation before they put it on the credit report, and if they have not provided that validation, then there IS a violation of the law. Credit reporting is collection effort, as stated by the FTC, and once you request validation, they cannot conduct any collection efforts at all until they validate. It all depends on the timing of this. It is also wrong for them to list the debt as though they are the OC, but I dont know if that alone would qualify as a FCRA violation or not.

Plus, if they re-aged it, that is illegal. BUT, it also says it was charged off very recently. So the Collection tradeline is likely new.

Yes, if they put it on the CR *after* they got your Debt Validation letter (The date of the postmark on the green card) than yes, that would be a violation.

But they likely reported to the credit bureaus at the time they sent the dunning letter.

Basically, if you can't prove it in a court of law, then it doesn't really matter whether it's a violation or not, and hence lies the problem...

And I really doubt that the account is sold this soon, they are not usually sold until around 2 years after charge off, because the buyers only pay around 4 cents on the dollar for it...

Most collection agencies are service contractors who get a percentage of what they collect...

Also, the way the FDCPA works is not automatic. You have to sue them, it is a self-policing mechanism. You have to watch your step with this one - be very careful and get everything in writing!
More info:
"http://www.budhibbs.com/collectorpages/bureaus_the.htm"

Does anyone know, do original creditor's ever reassing debts to new collection agencies? For example, let's say a debt was charged off and assigned to a collection agency around 6 years ago, and payments were made to that CA. Then out of the blue a new CA pops up, trying to collect on the debt. Is it likely that they bought the debt from the first CA, who felt it was no longer worth the effort. Or would an OC "fire" the first CA and hire a new one? I am curious, because it would seem like it could be illegal for a CA to claim they are representing an OC, when in fact they bought the debt and are collecting for themselves. Also, it doesn't seem realistic that an OC would keep a debt 6 or 7 years after it was charged off, and keep trying to collect.

Chrys- It was charged off in April of this year. I found out that the account was charged off by the OC when I attempted to make a payment online. It refused and gave me a number to call. It turned out to be the recovery department of the OC. They told me that the legally sold the account to The Bureaus. The Bureaus gave me the number to ARS. ARS did a regular inquiry on my CR on 5/4. The Bureaus did an inquiry on 4/7. The Bureaus went in June 09 and added the account to my file. They have themselves as the original creditor and the account number has changed. I thought they re-aged the account but now I do not think they did. This is well within the sol. ARS rec'd the validation request from me on 5/11. No validation has been sent as of today. The Bureaus added their account to my file between 6/12 and 6/29. I have both reports and they were not on that first report but on the second. Now since ARS rec'd the validation letter and not The Bureaus, would The Bureaus be bound by the same collection activity as the retained collector? I do know that the validation requests are forwarded to The Bureaus who request the documentation from the OC. If in fact they are treated sorta as one for the purpose of validation then I think they violated the FDCPA. Further, I have proof.

Quote:

Violation #1. It said nothing about being in dispute. I did dispute thru the credit bureau tho. No news on that yet.
That could be violation #2 if I am thinking correctly. I know that the CA doesn't have a time limit to validate but what is the norm? It seems the CA didn't bother to request documentation until I called 31 days later to ask when I could expect the validation. He admitted to me today that somebody dropped the ball on requesting the paperwork. All the while posting fees and interest on my dime.

NASCAR, I meant if the tradeline itself was put on the credit report after the DV letter, not the update to Dispute - which is what they're supposed to do when receiving a dispute.

As long as they do not make any more attempts at collection until they validate, they can take as long as they want. They are allowed to contact you to tell you one of 3 things: 1) They (or the original creditor) are thinking about a possible lawsuit. 2) They (or the original creditor) *will* actually file a lawsuit. 3) They have surrendered the account to the original creditor and will no longer attempt to collect on the debt.

They say they are going to sue me. After these violations they are going to sue me. The gall of these people. I am done attempting to deal with these people on my own. I am looking for an attorney to sue the piss out of these ass wipes.

Nascar is right on this one. The phrase disputed by consumer is a very easy and legit violation to handle. The FCRA states you can orally dispute the debt with the data furnisher (creditor-collections) and or the credit agencies.

Unknow of where you are, but try Larry P Smith and Associates.

Perfect, I am in Illinois. I have now forwarded my info to him. Thank you.

Well the FDCPA specifically states that the Dispute must be *in writing*. The FCRA covers the actual credit bureaus, in which it says "notif[y] the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller" but that is also because the dispute process with the CRAs is audited and overseen by the FTC itself and reported to Congress. This person did not dispute to the CRA, but to the creditor.

As I said, if the dunning letter states ARS then they got the Dispute then sneaking in The Bureaus behind your back is a violation. They KNOW your address!

Document everything, get all your paperwork together. If they sue you, then countersue, collect the $1000 (and possible attorney fees and court costs), and use that to pay off the debt!! Delicious irony! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

And besides that, if they are afraid to send you Verification, then the Discovery phase of the court process is going to wipe them out! Perhaps you should hit for your $1000 anyway! And if you have to take a day off from work and it costs you a day's pay, you can also request the court to add that [15 USC 1692i(1) "any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure [to comply with the FDCPA rules]" and attorney fees and court costs.

It's unfortunate that you have to go through this sordid mess but it's better not to roll over and let them run you over. Good luck with your case!


OH by the way, SJD, if they send it off to another CA, then that CA must also send you a dunning letter with dispute instructions.