Quote:
|
Originally Posted by seeker
hmmm.. a little reading of the "white on the paper" may reveal that the second attorney purchased the debt from the credit union ...
Just a thought. And, while I'm expending all this energy thinking -- sounds a little like attorney one may also be on the shady side, or why would he not have thrown at you that "FDCPA doesn't apply to ORIGINAL creditors"? However, I believe that the FCRA does .. and they have feloniously (sp?) attempted to report an unvalidated claim, although the CRA came through for you and nipped that bud right off!
And to that, Jerseee -- HOW do we use the deleted info of the CRAs ? Can you give a little outline here -- my brain is just emerging from a mental fog (ya know!) but I need to get some things handled with that -- No two are the same and come to think of it experian never even did respond !
Thanks for all your guidance. If worse comes to worse and we keep getting you teary eyed, we'll take up a collection to keep you in tissue!
Seeker
|
Well first off Seeker how do you know for sure that these Attorneys are mere *debt collectors* versus creditors who purchased the debt from the Credit Union?? Attorneys acting as debt collectors are subject to the FDCPA (they're treated as 3rd party debt collectors) but I'm not sure about debt purchasers. Besides, both slimball Attorneys say that they are representing the Credit Union as its Attorney and they always stamp their letters with that FDCPA *This Is An Attempt To Collect a Debt . . .* disclaimer . . . . .
And I know you've asked Jerseee how to use the CRA info against the creditors but I'll take a shot anyway. When the CRAs delete an account from your credit files, this raises a rebuttal presumption that the debt is legally invalid. And what I mean by legally invalid is that something is seriously suspect with the original loan agreement. This is why the FCRA states that the creditor cannot place the account back on your credit report without first verifying the debt, which is just a fancy way of saying *prove the validity of the original loan contract.*
Here, the bogus creditor bears the burden of explaining, under the penalty of perjury, that there was an offer, acceptance, mutual assent (i.e. meeting of the minds between you and the bank) and consideration (i.e. the bank gave you something of value like money in exchange for your Prom Note). In other words, it must go back to the very first day you walked into the bank and signed the paperwork for the *loan* and explain what happened on THAT DAY. And if the bank did not follow the Truth In Leding Act and provide full disclosure of the source of the loan, then there is no contract as of THAT DAY. Period. This is why subsequent payments on an account cannot *verify* the debt because this occurred AFTER the contract was avoided and given no legal effect. . . . . I hope I explained that right . . . . .
So if the collector still attempts to collect the debt without first verifying the debt, he has violated the FDCPA and the collector, not the creditor, can be held liable for your damages. This is like a thief coming to you and saying, "Give me your money and so what if I don't have a right to take this money from you, B@*$*"!
That first attorney I speak of has no clue how the FDCPA works because he said to me *The Credit Union has complied with the FDCPA . . . . .* and not *I complied with the FDCPA . . .* or *My firm has complied with the FDCPA . . . .* It makes you wonder how in the hell these people get admitted to the bar.
One more thing, all of your credit reports should say the same thing so I'll advise you to stay on the CRAs. If 1 CRA deletes an account from your credit report, that same account should be deleted from ALL of your reports. Otherwise, if 1 CRA says the account cannot be verified and the other says it IS verified, there's a problem with their investigative process. Think about it. There's only 1 FCRA that requires ALL the CRA to accurately investigate and report information. Therefore, ALL THE CRAs are governed by 1 federal statute and all of them should use the same investigation process and report the same things, right? More than likely, the creditor probably lied to one CRA and said that the debt is valid even though it is invalid . . . . . . .
And if 1 CRA fails to conduct their investigation within 30 days from the date it received your request, they've violated the FCRA. Period. That means it's time for you to sue their asses and get paid! Can you say *Ca-ching*?!!
I see suing collectors and CRAs can be a steady source of income if you know what you're doing . . . . ;-)