CA DIDNOT RESPOND TO MY DV, BUT CRA STILL WONT REMOVE

[tryin_to_make_it]

I SENT A DV LETTER TO LTD FINANCIAL.  TWO MONTHS LATER THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED. I SENT A LETTER TO CRA SAYING THAT I DV'ed LTD AND THEY DID NOT RESPOND.  CRA STILL CAME BACK WITH A VERIFIED RESPONSE. WHAT DO I DO?  IS IT TIME TO SEND IN A COMPLAINT???

[RobertEG]

The CRA is correct.

The CRA is not a party to a DV letter or to the DV process under FDCPA 809(a).  That is strictly between you and the CA.

There is no requriement that a CA ever respond to a DV request.  All that their lack of response mandates under the FDCPA is that they (the CA) cannot conduct further active collection activity until such time as they choose to respond.  It has nothing to do with prior credit reporting with the CRA, and they wont remove on the basis of lack of DV response.

Do you dispute the accuracy of the debt itself?  If so, you can dispute with the CRA under FCRA 611(a), but not under the DV process of FDSPA 809(a).

Message Edited by RobertEG on 05-26-2009 06:07 PM

[nothingman02]

As mentioned, CRAs are not concerned. Send out another DV and see what happens. Then complain to the BBB, AGs and the FTC. Note that the CA has verified to the CRA but not to you. Whats the intent?? Fire off complaints to the above mentioned good people.

[MissMovingForward]

I was under the impression that they (the CA) had to cease all collection activity (including CRA reporting) until they DV...regardless of how long it takes to do so or if they decide to do it at all.  So, based on that assumption, wouldn't it be a valid dispute with the CRA that the CA continues to report and therefore has continued collection activity?

[tryin_to_make_it]

Can anyone answer MISSMOVINGFORWARD's question or comment on her assumption above??

[nothingman02]

Yep. You are correct in that the CA is in violation (or so the FTC opines) by verifying to the CRAs before validating your DV request. Its called some 1-2 punch I think. But the thing is, why should the CRA worry about a FDCPA  violation that the CA has committed? Its not their concern. As long as the CA keeps verifying to them, they are satisfied. They dont give a lizard's s#@g about whether the CA is validating our debts for us.

Having said that, you could request the CRA to provide you the proof of their reasonable investigation. Also, you could use your documentation and ask the CRA to forward the same to he CA and demand an explanation about the lack of verification and that the debt is not valid etc etc. If the CA backs off or does not verify in time, the CRA  will delete. And perhaps, if the CRA is convinced that the debt is invalid and they are reporting inaccurately, they might delete. I doubt it. The way to proceed would be complaints to the BBB, FTC and the AGs.CRA disputes have come to become a farce of some sort..

[MissMovingForward]

So along with filing a complaing with the BBB, should all documentation relating to the request to DV be sent to the CRA (CMMR receipts, letters, etc.) with a request to delete the CA entry until they validate?  Has anyone had any success with getting a CA deleted with this method?

[holhat]

I am also under the impression that the CA must validate the debt they are reporting about if you request in writing.  If they don't, I was told (by a mortgage broker) that the CRA must delete.  How is it fair for a CA to report on debt that you don't know of or disagree with?  Of all the letters I have to sent to CRA and asked them to verify, I have never recieved a response other then it's deleted or it now says "verified" on my report.

Only one of 3 CA have ever answered me either.  Upsets me that I am unable to see how CA and/or CRA are working with my credit report at all.  We just have to trust that they, complete strangers who don't care about me anyway, are right and therefore my credit is what is???  hhhhhmmmm......Not likin that at all. 

[holhat]

So why even bother with the whole DV letter to the CA if they don't have to respond and the CRA doesn't care if they do or not either?  I'm lost....

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The CRA is correct.

The CRA is not a party to a DV letter or to the DV process under FDCPA 809(a).  That is strictly between you and the CA.

There is no requriement that a CA ever respond to a DV request.  All that their lack of response mandates under the FDCPA is that they (the CA) cannot conduct further active collection activity until such time as they choose to respond.  It has nothing to do with prior credit reporting with the CRA, and they wont remove on the basis of lack of DV response.

Do you dispute the accuracy of the debt itself?  If so, you can dispute with the CRA under FCRA 611(a), but not under the DV process of FDSPA 809(a).

---

While you are technically correct, there is also one aspect of CRA responsibility.  A CRA may not knowingly report false, erroneous or incorrect data.  Therefore, when a CA fails to abide by federal and state law in the process of collection, they no longer have a legal reason to continue any "act of collection" which includes any type of reporting or update verification under FDCPA.

While a CRA is not directly regulated by the FDCPA, CA's ability to pull and report to CRA's is.  In addition, the CRA is regulated by FCRA which mandates that a CRA may NOT knowingly report erroneous, false or otherwise inaccurate information.  Therefore, if a CA fails to comply to FDCPA and similar state laws, and the CRA is put on notice and provided proof of such non-compliance, the CRA is regulated by the FCRA to only report accurate information.

This technical legal issue will not be automatic nor necessarily recognized voluntarily.  However, a nice letter from an attorney gets a completely different result than a letter from you.  Therefore, if you have properly DV'd a CA and the CA has failed to respond and you have notified the CRA and thereafter the CRA updates your CR as "verified" you should involve an attorney to address this issue.  The CRA is in violation of FCRA because they are aware of the FDCPA violation, that such violation precludes a collector from updating, verifying or providing additional information without validating the debt to the consumer.

Again, this is not automatic and not clearly written as the statute.  Like most legal issues, it is the implied or reasonable application of law and resulting responsibility of the CRA based upon their knowledge of the inaccuracy. 

What is the inaccuracy?  The doctrine of estoppel by silence.

Because the CA has not supplied the required validation, and thus proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v. Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists.

If there is no debt, there can be no derogatory report, otherwise both FCRA and FDCPA are being violated, in addition to numerous state laws (depending on the state).

However, as a practical matter of time, it usually is more efficient to have the attorney write directly to the CA first.  If you live in a state which requires bonding of the CA, then filing a monetary claim against bond is quite effective as well.  Just make sure you are in fact in the right and not merely saber rattling.