This is a growing tactic being complained of by numerous posters. Yes, the name of your specific debt collector is associated with a lot of those complaints.
So it appears to be more than just a one-time "misunderstanding."
I presume that you filed a DV, and they "mistakenly" treated it as a dispute?
Having become the apparent tactic d'jour by some debt collectors, something needs to be done. I have been wrestling with possible ways of addressing this mess, and offer a few thoughts....
First, you could dispute the accuracy of their reporting, but they have obviously thunk that one out. It's a consumer catch-22 to dispute the reporting of a dispute, thus placing a legitimate dispute flag in your credit file.
You could just call or write, and point out their "error," but that is just a letter with no clout. I would still, at the least, notify them that it was not a dispute, and you are awaiting their debt verification, and until received, they are under a cease collection bar.
YOu could assert that reporting to a CRA while under a cease collector bar imposed by your DV is a prohibited collection practice under FDCPA 809(b).
But FDCPA violations dont compel correction of credit reporting issues, and are long and hard to purue. Not much mileage there.
One tactic that may have actual clout is to take them at their word.... that they are treating it as a direct dispute.
If they consider it to be a direct dispute, they are NOT permitted to simply delay action on the direct dispute by requiring more information. They have 30 days to act on the dispute. If they notify you that you have provided insufficient information to investigate your "dispute," the proper recourse is for them to dismiss it as "frivolous or irrelevant," and notify you what they consider to be missing from the dispute. That must be done under the direct dispute rules within their investigation period.
They are not doing that.
Thus, they are holding it to be a direct dispute, and yet not complying with their requirements to investigate or dismiss it. Delaying investigation is not a provision of the rules.
Dismissing concludes the dispute, and would thus compel reporting of removal of the dispute flag to the CRAs.
Maybe others can come up with a better plan, but it has reached the point where consumers definately need some way to put clout into addressing this improper tactic.
