Mod Cut! Please see the note in the post below.
My last letter to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson,
I would suggest reviewing the following information, specifically where it states the items listed below. I also would like to note, in your previous emails sent you state the following ** Federal law requires me to inform you that this is an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.** This clearly constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, yourself representing the CMI Group. This is clearly a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
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.
IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8).
It is also advisable to review the FDCPA regulations as well.
*** Federal law requires me to inform you that this is an attempt to
collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that
Thank you for your 3/15 and 3/23 emails. As I mentioned to you, I have
been out sick for the past few days, and was delayed getting back with you.
However, it did give me an opportunity to review Twyla Boatley v Diem
Corporation, specifically again. In his decision on that case, even Judge
McNamee acknowledged that Diem Corporation had an opportunity to raise a
defense based on the validation request being received outside the 30 day
period prescribed in the FDCPA, but they did not do so. Were we in such a
position, we would undoubtedly raise that defense, since validation
requests outside of that window are not binding on the collector. Neither
unanswered validation requests outside of that period (30 days from receipt
of the initial letter) nor reporting to a credit reporting agency after
that window constitutes a violation of the FDCPA, despite what some credit
help websites would lead someone to believe. And, we have advised the
bureaus that this matter is disputed, as required.
In your 3/23 email, you asked us to review the information from the FTC,
which you quoted. Having done that has only served to reinforce our
position that we have not violated the FDCPA. In response to each of the
paragraphs you quoted, the FTC pointed out that, "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." In fact, both of the questions posed made that same
stipulation, as asked. Because your request for validation was well after
the 30-day validation period instituted under section 1692g(b) of the
FDCPA, we are not obligated to cease collection activity (whether that be
communicating with you about your request to have this deleted or reporting
to the credit bureaus), nor to provide verification.
Despite that, on 3/18, our client Time Warner advised that they are sending
an itemization of the bill, which we will send on to you. There is no
specific list of required validation items universally accepted by the
If your ultimate goal is to get this removed from your credit report,
because you have stated that you are a victim of ID theft, we can take care
of that upon receipt of the three items I mentioned in my previous email to
1. A signed and notarized ID Theft affidavit (the one you sent us is
2. Proof of residency at the time the specific debt was incurred (
just prior to February 2007)
3. Copy of your Social Security card
We already have the copy of the filed police report that you provided.
We, too, are ready to get this resolved for you, but we really can't
without the items mentioned. These are the same items that we require in
other cases of ID theft, as recommended by the Federal Trade Commission.
Please do not post the personal information of others in the forums. Its not allowed. Thank you for your cooperation.
--fused, myfico moderator