08-26-2012 01:19 PM
Your logic is predicated upon the assumption that lack of verification of the debt is an admission that they cannot validate.
They have the right under the FDCPA to withold verification. The DV process is not one that compels debt verification. It is a debt collection practices process that imposes a penalty upon them until such time as they choose to provide verification. It frees the consumer from active collection on the debt until they have been provided the requested information. If you wish to compel verification, you would have to get the issue before a court, which has the authority to compel a party to produce information. However, failure to have provided verification is not basis for a civil action under the FDCPA.
A debt collector who knowingly reports a false debt is commiting an illegal act that would subject them to civil damages. I doubt they would do so based on the fact that debt verification is not compulsory.
Debt collectors are in business to collect on debts. The imposition of a cease collection bar puts them out of business until they provide verification.
I dont see the DV process as toothless. It is what it is.
08-26-2012 01:20 PM
I've been looking into that as well.....It's a rather long paper trail. At first it showed on my CR as ThinkCashFBD and then supposedly sold to First Bank of Delaware, and then off to CACH LLC, and then they use their people.....I'm trying to track down all the pertinent info before I file anything with the AG........
08-26-2012 01:45 PM
First the party that supplied an illegal loan is liable. Contact an attorney in your state for specifics. Robert while I appreciate that we the consumer can sue civil to make them be compelled to produce info lets face it thats a rarity. Most people dont sue or take debt collectors to court. Although the CA's can be held liable for false info on a report, it is done all the time. Or else how can one explain how zombie debts miraculously appear on ones report ie when going for a mortgage as an example. The CA's know that chances are good a consumer will pay it for fear that it will interfere with a closing on a mortgage. Then they submit to delete, thats called ransom. the kidnapping of your credit. Because the process is lengthy that is exactly why the CA's target people applying for a mortgage. It should be illegal for any creditor to see what inquires a consumer has. If the system was set up to automaticaly report tradelines as inquiries do the cc company or creditor would be protected. Perhaps the FCRA needs some amendments. Remember also that we arent a giant community, most dont realize its existence, and the population as a whole is pretty credit stupid, (wrong info out, variations into determining what the FCRA is and isnt. This is a larger isssue that needs to be brought to the attention of our constituents. And why in gods name would a bill to protect the consumer give such a lattitude to a CA as to validating the debt. In theory if they are not compelled to validate a debt they can destroy ones credit by simply putting it on report then selling to another agency. Pretty easy way to make money until the govt discovers them and shuts them down. Making the consumer a dog that is chasing its tail. A vicous cylce that a consumer could have on a report for a full 7years plus the notorius 180 days !@!!!!!!
09-03-2012 07:33 AM
A bit of an update!!!!! As I had mentioned before about sending a timely DV letter after receiving the dunning letter, I proceeded to send a letter to my Attorney General and also filed a complaint with the BBB.
A bit of a shocker.....Friday I got home and found a letter from the PA Attorney General giving me more insight on the matter, and that they would be involved in the matter and would also get the Banking Dept in Pennsylvania also involved in the case. To my surprise this morning I checked my email and found I had gotten a response back from the BBB on my complaint. In my complaint with all parties I listed CACH LLC, First Bank of Delaware, and Pezzuto Law Firm in my complaints with all agencies. CACH LLC in their response to my complaint clearly states, they are a "passive debt buyer", they don't generate calls or send letters; which IMHO would violate or hinder anyones opportunity to file a timely DV in a matter........With that being said they noted the account would be closed and no monies owed. They stated they have requested deletion of their trade lines from CRs
09-06-2012 08:05 PM
Another bit of an update on my progress......Today I had an itch to check my scores......I check EQ first and my score has jumped to 693, and I had disputed with them that an old Sprint bill was paid, and sent proof, and they came back with a response that it isn't showing on my report.....To my surprise when I check my report it's still showing under the collections tab with the original amount owed still showing.....Is that normal or does it just take time for them to update everything........
TU update as well, and jumped from 639 to 661 as well......
I had be disputing with CACH LLC and Pezzuto Law, and had contacted my AG, and also the BBB as well.....I did get a response back from the AG stating they would be looking into the matter and opening a file, and wanted me to forward any information I had to them, and they also stated that they would be getting the PA Banking Dept involved in the matter as well. I was contacted by a very nice lady from the banking dept and I had informed her of what CACH LLC response was to my BBB complaint as well, and see also requested a copy of any information, and stated they will be looking into their practices as well....
I'm curious because on both my credit reports the CACH LLC is deleted, but I'm still seeing the original TL from First Bank of Delaware where the debt was originated from.....Again is this something I could challenge since the removed CACH LLC........