@guiness56 wrote:
I still disagree and believe you are both wrong.
I know what the FDCPA says and none of the things you pointed out said they don't have to delete once they find out it is not your debt. No where does it say prior reporting, once proven as not yours, will not be deleted. I also understand what can happend before and after a DV. Again, it does not say they don't have to delete.
If that were the case, the CAs could put anyones debt on anyones report and have nothing to worry about.
No way do I believe or will ever believe that if you can prove it is not your debt or they can't prove it is yours, would it be allowed to continue reporting on your CR.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
The FTC has made it clear that in your ordinary DV, a CA does not need to remove the tradeline if they fail to respond. We see ample evidence of that hear in the forums.
If, however, you can show that the debt is simply not yours because, for example:
1. It had already been paid;
2. The OC made a billing error;
3. Or you find the debt actually belongs to another person;
... then the CA is required to delete the tradeline. That is not a function of, but can be a consequence of DV.
Since it is settled law that the requirements for a valid response to a DV request are minimal, there are probably many, many cases where the consumer feels the debt is not theirs and the CA is convinced, on the other hand, that it is. The CA has your name and address and likely even has come up with a SSN and DOB off of your credit report. Given that pretty much the only thing they need to give you for a proper DV response is a breakdown of the amount owed, identity of the debtor and, if requested, the name & address of the OC, on the face of it there is probably little you can gleen that in and of itself would prove the debt is not yours if you are up against a person with a similar name. It is up to the consumer to dig.
If the collection account does not belong to the consumer and the CA has been made aware of that, then if they continue reporting they are in violation of § 807. But it will take more than just a vague claim that the debt is not yours. 99.9% of people in jail claim innocence.
In FDCPA Staff opinion: Lefevre-Cass of 1997, dated well after the initial FTC Staff Commentary of 1988 which was earlier quoted, the FTC Advisory is still clear:
I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?"
Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g.
II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?"
As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.
You cannot annotate a tradeline as in dispute if it has been deleted. That would be sort of like painting a house that doesn't exist. Try if you like.
