Re: Debt Validation[ Edited ]
05-10-2007 11:11 AM - edited 03-30-2010 08:49 AM
Statute pertaining to DV is § 809 of the FDCPA, aka 15 USC 1692g.
DV seems to scare off at least some CAs and even some OCs. Before I knew any better, I DVed two OCs and got two deletes. You can only DV a CA--not an OC--and you must do it within 30 days of receiving notice.
There are two possible violations committed by CAs when you DV them. First, their notice to you must contain certain things--see 809(a). Second, once you timely DV a CA, they have to validate or cease collection efforts--see 809(b). They can take as long as they want to validate. 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, or longer. Does not matter. But they MUST cease collection efforts, and that includes reporting to the CRAs.
If they don't validate, they cannot call, write, sue, or continue reporting to the CRAs. IOW, if they don't validate, then they have to delete from the CRAs. But understand this does not preclude an OC from continuing to report. DV only affects the CA.
The statutes say you have to DV within 30 days. However, if the CA puts something on your CR, and you don't find out for years, has the 30 day clock already run? I dunno and I'm not a lawyer.
In my very non-legal opinion, if a CA puts a collection on your CRs, but you don't find out for years, I say the 30 day clock starts when you find out. If they've never sent you anything in writing and never notified you by phone, then I don't see how the clock could reasonably be ticking. Not a lawyer and not a federal judge so consider my opinion accordingly.
Assuming they respond, what exactly constitutes adequate validation under law? Can they simply respond in writing saying, "You owe this so pay up."? Can they send you a letter with your name, address, a dollar amount, and the name of a creditor? Excellent questions to which I have no simple answers, but I suspect the answers are no and no.
Hopefully the matter will be decided very soon before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that is worth watching. Guerrero v. RJM. Case # 05-15121. The credit industry, IMHO, is deathly afraid of a published opinion in this case. The 9th Circuit tends to be very consumer friendly, so long as they don't think you are squirreling around with them.
In direct answer to your question, if you timely DV and they don't cease collection efforts, then they are in violation. Since it's Arrow, I would try to collect all the violations I could on them. If you're in a one party state for the recording of phone calls, record your conversations with them and don't tell 'em you're recording. With hardheads like Arrow, you'll want the law, and the threat of a lawsuit, on your side. Even if you're in an all parties state, I'd still record my calls. Obviously you need to tell 'em you're recording, but they might be foolish enough to say harassing or threatening things even if you tell 'em you're recording the call.
You saw the $100K lawsuit a woman in L.A. won against Arrow a few days ago? They are one after Fred Hanna's own heart. The law means nothing to them.
I suspect this post, and perhaps this thread, will soon disappear. Talk of lawsuits isn't exactly viewed with great praise in these here parts. But I ask the question to all, if the law says one can sue, and if the courts permit the suit to go forward, and if $100K awards are being given to consumers because CAs and OCs are continuing to violate the laws, why is this not a valid topic for discussion?
Fair Isaac is part of the credit industry, but by and large Fair Isaac has the least involvement with consumers. Fair Isaac doesn't report to CRAs or store credit information of any kind. Fair Isaac is the algorithm that the OCs, CAs, CRAs and consumers utilize. If these sorts of discussions aren't permitted, then it seems Fair Isaac is displaying more than a bit of bias towards those in the credit industry.