cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Identity Theft/Collection Agency Communication

tag
nbsiddiq
Established Member

Identity Theft/Collection Agency Communication

I am a victim of Identity Theft.  I have filed dispute letters with all 3 bureaus. My questions is this:  2 collection agencies sent me a letter for the first time stating I should call them to validate my identity.  Should I call or send them a letter?

Message 1 of 3
2 REPLIES 2
llecs
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Identity Theft/Collection Agency Communication

Keep everything in writing. Never call. And mail them CMRRR too so you have proof they received your letters.

Message 2 of 3
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: Identity Theft/Collection Agency Communication

If you send a timely request for debt validation, it invokes an automatic cease collection bar on the debt collector pursuant to FDCPA 809(b).

Timeliness is defined as being requested either prior to any dunning notice sent by the debt collector, or if the debt collector has sent dunning notice, within 30 days of that dunning notice.  Thus, the date of dunning notice is critical, as well as the date of the DV request.

 

As the dates are determinative of the effect of any DV, congress stipulated in section 809(b) that a DV request must be "in writing."

An oral  request simply does not constitute a proper DV.

While some on this site advocate never signing a DV as a precaustion against someone forging your signature, I dont advocate not signing.

Since a DV has timeliness considerations and must be made by the consumer, if you encouter an anal debt collector who questions your identity, your signature is your signed statement that you are the asserted consumer, and that you are filing the request.  Any potential issues of forging your signature can be severly dealt with by civil action.

 

With all that being said, neither the dispute nor DV process are, in my opinion, the best way to deal with debt that you assert resulted from identity theft.

Neither process requires the debt collector to provide supporting documentation in order to propertly verify.  They must conduct a reasonable investigation, and provide their finding based on that investigation as to whether they have adequate basis for concluding that the debt is valid.

If they have any documents in their possession that were purportedly authorized by you, they can reasonably verify based on that documentation.  They have no independent basis for determiing its authenticity, and no requirement to conduct their own private investigation.  Thus, either process can lead to legtimate verification, for which the consumer has no right to an administrative "appeal."  You are sutck with their finding.  In order to get their supporting documentation and obtain third party review of its adequacy as proof of you as the party who authorized the account, you need to either get the matter before a court and/or send the creditor an identity theft/police report, which enttiles you to all business records in their possession related to the account.  FCRA 609(e).

 

In order to deal with the inherent deficiency of the administrative DV and dispute processes, neither of which involve the production and review of evidence, congress established the independent identity theft process undr the FCRA.  That process enables a consumer to at least get any information that they attest resulted from identitty theft blocked from their credit report.  It does not solve the issue of the identity theft itself, but at least blocks the information from the consumer's credit report, and thus their credit scoring, without any production and review of documenttion.

 

You must file a sworn statement before a law enforcement agency attesting, under penalty of criminal sanctions for any knowingly false statements, that you never authorized the account/transaction.  That sworn statement, if sent to the CRA along with proof of your identity and a statement that you never authorized the account/transacition, requires the CRA to immediately block that information from any subsequent credit report they issue.  FCRA 605B.

One CRA apparently also requires an FTC affidavit of identity theft, apparently to comply with the requirement for a statement from the consumer that they did not authorized the account, notwithstanding that you say that in your police report.

You should purse credit report blockage under FCRA 605B.

 

 

Message 3 of 3
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.