Fighting a CA in states that don't have good consumer laws

Wow, this is some REALLY great information, thanks for posting it! This should be a sticky!

Thanks. I think I am going to expound on this....call it Guerrilla Disputing. I need to look into the FDCPA as well, I think there was a tidbit that is almost the same. Even though it is only $1000 for all violations that would still be an extra K tacked on to whatever else you get them on. Heh Heh Heh.:twisted:

I have a copy of the Metro 2 somewhere in all my files...I need to dig it out and post all the pertinent stuff. You would be amazed...it just shows the CAs know darn well what they are doing because right in that manual for account type, it has COLLECTION. And that is only one example....could use excerpts from that manual in the court case to further show they were doing it on purpose to further damage your credit illegally.

Goldenbast--
I have a question or two, I'm also from Texas. I recently sent my first ever DV to CA, they received it on March 12, so they still have a little time to reply, but I was wondering if I don't hear from them. Can I request that the remove the hard inquiry that they made on my credit report? They are not showing an account, they said that the where collecting for NCO, I don't have an account for NCO either. They said NCO bought the debt from SST/CIGPF1CORP, for me basically not to contact them "All inquiries regarding this account should be made to Client Services, Inc. and not CIGPF I Corp, as they may have no readily available information based on the sale of this account." Anyway, I was just wondering if they do not validate, do they at least have to remove the inquiry from my credit report?

You need to mention the specific Texas code, but yes, they HAVE to validate or remove it if they don't/can't. Further, if you use the written notice as per the business and commerce code, you can treble the damages you seek in court.

FDCPA does have some ammunition:

?? 807. False or misleading representations
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:

(2) The false representation of???
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or
(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

( 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.


?? 808. Unfair practices
A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

You can use 807 2 a in conjunction with the FCRA violations. Try using ( 8 ) if they verify with the CRAs...I am sure they count as a 'person' lots of 'persons' in fact.

808 is golden if the original amount owed does not match the 'current' or 'past due' amount, since they have to prove with a contract that they can legally charge the interest or fees.

Just remember that no matter how many ways they violate the FDCPA, the amount you can sue for is only $1000.

?? 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports

(3) To a person which it has reason to believe
(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction
involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and
involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account
of, the consumer; or

(F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information
(i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the
consumer; or


Ok, now..these could be used to demand a validation of sorts....make them prove they had permissible purpose for even looking at your reports in the first place!

They say they have the above purpose? Fine...make them prove it.

Ok here is a sample scenario and a sample letter. You can use this example as a springboard to craft your own letter using the above method and laws:

You see these on your Transuniuon report:

1. Loan Type: factoring Company Account
2. Account Type: Open
3. Reporting a Past Due amount

This is on Experian:

1. Loan Type: Installment Account
2. Account Type: Open
3. Terms: 1 Month

Now lets say this sample account is a medical debt, well now it can't very well be an installment or factoring account now can it? Plus as I mentioned before, there are specific ways this should be reporting. So now armed with the knowledge of the laws you can craft a letter like this:


I have checked my credit reports and have found the account (name account and add number if you have it) on Transunion and Experian. I would like to point out that you are grossly misrepresenting the account on both credit reports as listed below:

?? Loan Type: Factoring Company Account on TransUnion
?? Loan Type: Installment Account on Experian
?? Account Type: Open on TransUnion
?? Account Type: Open on Experian
?? Reporting a past due amount on TransUnion
?? Reporting a past due amount on Experian
?? Terms: 1 month on Experian



As you undoubtedly know, there are set standards for reporting as set forth in the Metro 2 manual that standardizes reporting procedures. The Loan Type should be Collection Agency as this account is neither a Factoring Company account nor an Installment account. The Account Type should be closed as this is a collection account and closed by the original creditor. There is no past due amount as I have never entered into any type of payment arrangement with you to create a past due amount just as I have never entered into any type of contract with you that would create any terms.

This is clearly considered misrepresentation of the character of the account on these credit reports according to Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) 623.a.1.A, and Fair Debt Collection Practicec Act (FDCPA) 807.2.A I am sure you are aware that violations of these codes can incur civil remedies of $1000 per violation in the FCRA and $1000 for violations of the FDCPA. It would be hard for your company to claim a bona fide error or unintentional since there is a set standard according to the Metro 2 manual.

I would finally like to know if you had Permissible Purpose in even looking at my credit reports at all. If you do in fact are legally collecting upon this account then I would like to see proof of this. If you can not, or will not provide said proof then obviously you have no Permissible Purpose and are in vioilation of that chapter of the FCRA (604) as well.

[COLOR=black]If you do not comply I will be forced to take you to federal court and recover damages of:[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]$8,000 for ( 8 ) FCRA violations and $1,000 for FDCPA violations totaling $9,000 plus any court costs.

I hope we can take care of this matter amicably and without the need for civil suit,


[/COLOR]

That right there is a thing of beauty. Nice work, GB.

623 Investigations have always been in the arsenal. They key is: Your dispute must be legitimate. If your dispute has been labeled as frivolous, your request will be denied. That is why all disputes should be specific. No "Not Mine"'s. A TL must be complete and accurate. Dispute anything blank on any Tradeline.

can you please explain for people like me, that dont actually know the specifics, what exactly a "factoring company account" even is, and why the difference is important on the reports?

Also, while your letter idea is good, is it even necessary in all cases? For example, if a debt collector is NEVER permitted to legally use "factoring company account" and this is stated in the Metro 2, then how could they claim bona fide error? It would seem to me that I could make quite a strong case in front of a jury using the Metro 2 guidelines and showing how those are the only guidelines, and have been for how long now?, that are used by CA's to report accounts. I could just imagine a debt collector changing all of their intentional errors and thus escaping from having to pay up when they deserve to pay the penalties.

You could. They might be able to snake their way out of it with a 'clerical error', but if you point it out and they still don't do anything, then there is no help for them.

A factoring company account is a business account that has not defaulted...these accounts are sometimes sold to generate money..they are 'incomes receivables'.

The difference is in how the credit scores are rated and in how potential creditors look at accounts....a factoring account is a business account and it looks like you have business debts.

The CAs may start going in and fixing the obvious errors and when that happens this method won't work as well. But right now, this method of reporting is so rampant that it would take ALOT of extra manpower to go in and start changing peoples info.

They are so quick to 'verify' with the CRAs that for now they will violate left and right and it is almost guaranteed money in your pocket.

I am a firm believer of using EVERY bit of information in the laws to benefit yourself. While these CAs continue to violate the law, I will keep developing guerrilla tactics to combat them.

Here was LVNV's response to my complaint about the Factoring notation:
[QUOTE]

.......alleges that we are violating the FDCPA by reporting
his accounts as “installment” accounts and listing LVNV as a
“factoring company.” We respectfully deny these allegations.
Per the CDIA (Consumer Data Industry Association) Metro 2 manual,
factoring company is defined as “a company or individual who
purchases accounts with the intent of collecting debts owed.”
Therefore, the term is accurate in this situation. The statement
“installment account” is generally how a revolving line of credit
is defined by the credit bureaus. This comment is added by the
bureaus to further define the account; therefore, this statement
cannot be altered
[/QUOTE]

That is dribble. Send them an intent to sue letter because that is NOT what a factoring company is. Nor is Installment correct because it has become simply a 'collection account'. The OC reporting it as an installment account is correct, but not a CA reporting an account that a CA has, that has already been closed by the OC.

I have got to go dig up my metro 2 manual....if I can't find it, im gonna go buy one.

Did they respond to the account being past due or having terms?

Here are a few web-based definitions of "Factoring"

From: Answers.com

factoring
[FONT="]In finance, the selling of [URL="http://www.answers.com/topic/accounts-receivable"]accounts receivable[/URL] on a contract basis to an agency known as a factor in order to obtain cash payment before the accounts come due. The factor assumes full responsibility for credit analysis of new accounts, payments collection, and credit losses. Factoring is most often used in seasonal industries such as textiles and shoes to shift the functions of [URL="http://www.answers.com/topic/credit"]credit[/URL] and collection to a specialized agency.

From: allbusiness.com

[/FONT]
type of financial service whereby a firm sells or transfers title to its accounts receivable to a factoring company, which then acts as principal, not as agent. The receivables are sold without recourse, meaning that the factor cannot turn to the seller in the event accounts prove uncollectible. Factoring can be done either on a notification basis, where the seller's customers remit directly to the factor, or on a non-notification basis, where the seller handles the collections and remits to the factor. There are two basic types of factoring:

WHEE! I found my copy of Metro 2. I may buy a new one as this one is older and a newer version may be out. It has been so long since I went through it, but I am going to re-read it and post here excerpts that pertain to specific areas of reporting.

Hmm. It seems the company who made the metro 2 standard is the one who screwed up, not to mention they contradict themselves. In one part it lists it is ok to report as type open, in another part it says it shouldn't. LOL. Also it seems it is allowing the JDBs to slip in as 'factoring company' as it lists a factoring company as a company that buys debt, but this is false....LOL.

BUT the end result should still be the same. The Metro 2 allows for either classification of factoring or collection agency. So the JDB is not 'forced' to report itself as a factoring company. BUT you could also bring the company that made the metro 2 into the suit for misrepresentation, since there is a clear definition of just what a factoring company is.

You could also drag in the CRAs......they are allowing this mis-information to be posted and are even encouraging it! Somewhere in all this the account in debate would end up getting deleted because someone wouldn't want to go to court over it.

There is caselaw (I still need to find this) that backs it up as well. The facts are that a collection account is NOT an open account since the 'original' account is a closed account, so to must the collection account.

But at least in the metro it states that collection accounts should leave 'terms' blank.

The California debtors rights require debt collectors to provide or send the consumer a notice describing their rights under the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the FDCPA., and the notice must state that:-The debt collectors may not contact the consumer before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. -They may not harass or threaten the consumer with violence or arrest or by using obscene language.

Quote:

The SC BBB

Quote:

Amazingly, confoundingly, I am being sued by Midland Funding and the case has now gone on for four months or so and I have yet to see ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT which shows they have the right to collect.

An abuse of the courts, imo, but the judge seems to be the puppy dog of the attorney who is seeking default judgments by the hundreds against people they hope won't show up because they have nothing to go on.

The judge keeps continuing the case and I really want to find out how to go after his ass and the attorney for exparte communication and his apparent collusion with the attorney. Nothing is said aloud by the Plantiff Attorney, a slimy lawfirm by the name of Irwin and Frank. Her voice is the judge's voice. how am I supposed to represent myself against the judge. I am really angry this is allowed to go on and its probably my case just the tip of the iceberg.

By way of explanation, the reason I posted this here even though its gone past simple collection is because of the failure to state a claim and present evidence.

[QUOTE=goldenbast;678106]Ok..long winded title eh? Anyhow I was thinking about people who don't live in Texas and don't seem to have any way to battle these CAs who put everything under the sun on credit reports and ignore DV letters for being outside of the 30 day window.
I am thinking there may be a different way to do this for those people and it may work. It involved using the FCRA namely, this section:
?? 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 has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.
(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person
shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer
reporting agency if
(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and
(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.
Ok so what someone should do then is send a letter to the CA who is reporting things that are inaccurate like terms, open account, factoring, installment, whatever, past dues, etc...list each one specifically and point out how it SHOULD be reporting. Example:
1. You are reporting a past due balance when I have never entered into any payment arrangements with you to be past due upon.
2. You are reporting this account as type Factoring Company account when it should be reported as a Collection account.
When you get the green card back, you then dispute with the CRAs like you were doing the 1-2 punch. When it gets verified and you have given the CA a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem you send them an ITS letter informing them that since they willfully continue to report these obvious errors, you have no choice but to sue them as there is no way they can claim a bona fide error on this.
If they STILL don't respond (and we all know they likely won't) then you go file in court for the $1000 PER violation. This could add up if they are reporting on all 3 reports and more then one item...say they are reporting open, past due and wrong account type..that is $9000 in violations...plus don't forget the court fees.
Now from what I have seen and experienced, once you file they see you mean business and suddenly they start trying to settle.
I honestly think this would work, and work well.....problem is I live in a state where it works even better then that due to our wonderful state laws....
So...someone in another state should try this method....I am certain it would work....would turn the collection industry on it's ear if people who couldn't DV under normal circumstances could nail them in this fashion.:cool:
So whatcha think?:lol:[/QUOTE]



Mortgage Uk

Quote:

Very useful, thank you. I'm currently working on a Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate Default Judgment which used an affidavit and no other evidence to get their judgment. this is good info!

Thanks to everyone contributing.:D

II am going to rework the original post since there is now FACTA which allows for dealing directly with the OC. There is a whole new method of validation using the FACTA that is quite exciting because now even OCs have to deal with your validation requests.

I had to laugh at the post about the lady who has first hand knowledge of the account despite working in a taco stand a year before...I would have responded with, "What, did she see me swipe the card for a few tacos? Otherwise I don't see how she could possibly know about this account over the years while she was making tacos."

:???: omg, I think someone took my brain out while I was sleeping (sort of) to play with and didn't put it back, either that or one of those quack doctors slipped in overnight and did a lobotomy on me because I'm all confused and turned around. Stuff on my computer is all messed up and now I'm looking at this and stuff I thought I wrote ain't here and stuff I didn't think I wrote is. Or maybe I'm Alice and I've fallen down that dang rabbit hole again. I need to go take a brain pill and start over. :rolleyes:

Clarify: Sort of sleeping, not sort of took my brain out. Far as I know if someone takes your brain out, it's out, there is not sort of to it?

Two Brain Pills coming up!