@RobertEG wrote:
I respectfully offer that maybe you are mixing apples and oranges.
DV requests under FDCPA 809(b) have absolutely nothing to do with validity of credit reporting under the FCRA.
CRAs dont, and shouldnt, consider DV disputes, or DV validaton, as part of their statutory authority to act upon as regards anything in their credit files. They are separate statutes, with totally separate intents.
When you DV a CA, they have no obligation to even respond. The CA did not say that they cannot validate, only that they have yet not validated.
They had no obligation to even tell you that, so I see no way that such a letter influences anything of legal merit. They just remain under authorty of FDCPA 809(b) for cessation of further collection activity untl such time, at their choosing, they may decide to present verifiation.
The OC has told you that the debt has been sold to the CA, and thus they are no longer a party to the debt.
If you dispute the debt itself, then your recourse for dispute with the CRAs is under FCRA 611(a), and not FDCPA 809(b).
I pretty much knew this, but I probably didn't make it clear that I did. My issue is no longer that the CA did not validate when I initially requested validation from them. My issue is with what the CA actually provided for validation. A copy of a stop payment check. The check is stamped by the other party's bank as "stop payment do not resend". It is my understanding that consumers have the right to stop payment on checks. I did not receive any services from the contractor, and the stop payment was done with-in 3 days of me receiving the guys bid for work,which is what Illinois law requires. I would think the CA would at least have to include with the validation how my stop payment negatively effected their client. Although, I know it didn't because the contractor never performed any work, and I cancelled with him the same day I got the bid.
It is my opinion that this CA has not properly validated,and therefore is reporting an unvalidated debt. I am a bit confused when you say they aren't required to respond to my validation requests. I understand the part about how they aren't required to respond. But, when they do respond, and the validation they provide is not proper or incomplete, am I wrong to think that I may have them on a violation.On the grounds that they could be reporting a debt they can't validate.
I am thinking that disputing with the CRA's is no longer an option. It appears to me that CA feels their validation is sufficient enough for them to legally report the debt. Therefore, when CRA's asks the CA for verification, the CA simplys verfys with the CRA's.And because the CRA wants verification and not validation from the CA, the CRA's will continue to report. Therefore, I have taken this to be a situation were the fight is between myself and the CA. I'm just not sure what is the proper and cheapest venue for this fight.
I'm going to shoot the CA one last letter. Included with this letter will be, the written position I have on this matter, as well as proof that I have filed a complaint with my state's AG, and proof that I am prepared to hire a private attorney to work on behalf. I will state in the letter I am making this one last attempt to seetle this via a PFD for $0.20 on the dollar, since thats about the amount of what it will take for the attorney to start working on my case. If this scare tactic doesn't work, I will have to make the decision, if I truley want to pay an attorney to pursue this.
Thanks to everyone for all their input.
Message Edited by bigman023 on 02-02-2010 05:27 PM
5/2009 EQ-504(FICO), TU98-567(FICO), EX- 503 (FAKO)
10/17/11 EQ-633, TU04-652, EX-681 All lender Pulls
10/17/11 TU98-678
12/21/2012 TU98-677 (39% Util)
01/21/2012 EQ - 661 (37% Util) SW Alert
