Portfolio Recovery

[Kikimin]

Question on how to handle this CA. I'll start by saying portfolio recovery has been a nightmare! They reported my old cap one CO in March and I mailed out a DV immediately since the amount reported is not correct. They updated all CRA with a comment that the account is in dispute. I have received no info on this acct and it has been 36 days and counting. Received an alert today stating that an account has been updated and sure enough it was portfolio updating the account and the comment section now shows "null". What does that mean? Do I send Portfolio another letter stating that they have not provided the requested documentation or do I dispute with the CRA and show proof of CMRR? Any help is appreciated!!

[RobertEG]

You have what is a common issue with Portfolio.... your DV is treated as a direct dispute.

A debt validation request is made under the FDCPA, and does not relate to the accuracy of credit reporting,  It is not a dispute under the FCRA, and should not be treated as such or noticed to the CRA as a pending dispute.

The debt collector has no period fo or requirment for response to a DV request.  If timely, a DV imposes a cease collection bar, which remains in effect until such time as the debt collector has first provided the requested debt validation.  They can choose, even the DV is timely, never to response, and simply cease collection activities.

If they treated as a direct disppute, however, it imposes a 30 day period for their investigation of the accuracy of the disputed information.

They have apparently nulled-out any dispute notification, so that issue appears to be resolved.

There is no basis for any dispute over their lack of response to the DV, and the CRAs are not a party to the DV process, so there is no reason to send anythng to them.

It appears that you now simply have a DV request that properly remains unanswered,and thus the debt collector continues to remain under a cease collection bar.

[Kikimin]

Robert just to make sure I am understanding you correctly because I made a dispute under FDCPA there is no requirement to respond to my DV request however they DO need to cease collection of the debt? If that is the case isn't updating the account with the CRA in fact still attempting to collect the debt? If I dispute the account with the CRA and they respond isn't that also still attempting to collect on the debt? I'm just trying to figure out what my next step should be as I was under the impression that if I request a DV within the 30 days I was entitled to a response.

[RonM21]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

You have what is a common issue with Portfolio.... your DV is treated as a direct dispute.

A debt validation request is made under the FDCPA, and does not relate to the accuracy of credit reporting,  It is not a dispute under the FCRA, and should not be treated as such or noticed to the CRA as a pending dispute.

The debt collector has no period fo or requirment for response to a DV request.  If timely, a DV imposes a cease collection bar, which remains in effect until such time as the debt collector has first provided the requested debt validation.  They can choose, even the DV is timely, never to response, and simply cease collection activities.

If they treated as a direct disppute, however, it imposes a 30 day period for their investigation of the accuracy of the disputed information.

They have apparently nulled-out any dispute notification, so that issue appears to be resolved.

There is no basis for any dispute over their lack of response to the DV, and the CRAs are not a party to the DV process, so there is no reason to send anythng to them.

It appears that you now simply have a DV request that properly remains unanswered,and thus the debt collector continues to remain under a cease collection bar.

---

I agree with this, it appears you did your part and there just hasn't been resolve yet on their end, so they remain in the ceasing collection situation.

[RobertEG]

That is a theory that is openly advocated on other sites, and in my opinion, has no merit.

The tactic, referred to as the "1-2 Punch," advocates sending a timely DV, imposing a cease collection bar, and them immediately sending a dispute under the FCRA.

The theory is that the cease collection bar under the FDCPA prevents the debt collector from responding to the CRA referral to them of the dispute, and thus mandates deletion of the disputed information.

The clear fault, in my opinion, is that the FCRA MANDATES that a furnisher respond to a dispute.  It is thus a required action under statute, and not an act with primary intent to collect on the debt.  A primary interpretation of statute is that one law should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with other statutes.  It is inconsistent to interpret that congress intended the cease collection provision under the FDCPA to bar required compliance with another statute, namely the FCRA.

Those that make such a fanciful interpretation of the interplay of the two statutes have no precedential case law that provides any support for their interpretation.

In my opinion, it has NO merit.  A debt collector is not barred from their stautoriily mandated requirment to investigate and respond to a dispute filed under the FCRAl

They would be in violation if they declined to do so.

[Anonymous]

So as the OP stated the amount they are reporting is incorrect and I am in the same boat as the OP, so now they can just write null on it and let it sit and nothing changes. So what are OP's suggested next steps when the OP asked for validation then if we ask for this they don't have to validate or give us any of the information we requested? Can you please tell me in layman's term. 

thanks.

[RobertEG]

Simply stated, the debt validation process under the FDCPA does not require the debt collector to send validation.

The intent by congress was to provide consumers a reprieve from active collection until the debt collector first provided certain information, not to compel debt valitation.

However, unlike debt validation, which does not require the consumer to document anything in order to file a DV request, if the consumer can establish a documented showing that credit reporting is inaccurate, then they can use the dispute process under the FCRA, which does have a mandatory investigation and response period.

Thus, if speciifc inaccuracies in reporting can be identified, the dispute process can be used to compel investigation and response within a set period.

Additionally, the current trend is for states to enact their own debt collection practices statutes that have additionaly provisions not currently incuded under the FDCPA.

Notable are are ehnanced debt collection practices statutes and regs enacted by TX, CA, and NY, which do include provision of mandatory responses, but not necessarily mandatory validation.  TX, for example, mandates a response within 30 days, but does not mandate validation within 30 days.  If the debt collector responds that they are not yet prepared to provide valaidation, they must delete their credit reporting until such time as they do provide the requested validation.

[Kikimin]

So what should my next step be than? Send a direct dispute?

[Anonymous]

it sounds like a dispute under the FCRA is the right thing to do if inaccurate information was truly found. Where to go from there is beyond me. I am waiting to learn more.

[RobertEG]

If you have a pending, timely DV, you can wait for any response.

If you also have documenttion of the inaccuracy of some reported informtion, then you can file a dispute.

However, lack of response to your DV would not be a basis for any such dispute.