OC Lied to Me

[Curtis]

Bottom Line: I did a pay-for-delete and they didn't delete it.


I had a $77 electric bill that I forgot to pay because I moved out of the place and didn't get it until 3 months later at my new place. It went to collections and I tried doing a pay for delete through the CA, but they always said "Pay us first and we will work something out." Yeah right! So I ended up calling the OC. I got to some supervisor high up that was really nice. She said the OC would have the CA delete the collection from my report. So I paid the OC and they sent me a letter stating, This debt is to be removed from CRAs, explicitly saying to delete it not just mark it paid. She said this letter was also sent to the CA. I have called the CA several times and they refuse to say anything about the letter. So I faxed it to them at least 3 times on different days. I finally got someone to say they recieved it, but they will not delete it because they say the OC can not tell them to delete it!! That makes no sense to me. I know they are mad because I went behind their back and paid the OC, but I have a signed letter from the OC saying to delete it.

I have tried contacting the lady from the OC that I talked to, but she is never there. I have left at least 1 message a week for the last 3 months and she will not respond and no one else seems to have her authority to delete items. Im sure she is avoiding me.

I have also disputed this account via online dispute and it came back verified.


(I posted this in the Collections Forum, but I think I may get more help here. Feel free to delete this one if I am creating clutter.)


I was told in another thread that the CA is correct and they don't have to delete based on what the OC said. So What do I do now? 1 2 punch? Or is it too late? Besides goodwill letter I think I'm stuck.

[JF1]

In my experience the OC is the one that sold the debt to the CA, and had the ability to recall that debt. Of course every situation is different. I have had success with the 1-2 punch. Make sure to send the DV and dispute off the same day and CMRRR. The CA has to validate the debt before verifying with the CRA's if they verify before validating you have them on a FDCPA violation.

[Lian]

The premise behind the so-called 1-2 punch that a debt collector is prevented from verifying a dispute back to the CRA while under a cease collections bar due to receipt of a DV letter is, in my opinion, pure conjecture that is unsupported by any provision of statute.

Try it if you like, but expect a battle if you assert an FDCPA violation. Verification of a dispute under the FCRA is a statutory mandate under FCRA 611(a), and is not, in my opinion a debt collection practice issue prohibited under FDCPA 809(b).

As for verifying a paid debt, the debt collector could accomplish that it thirty seconds by simply sending a letter stating "We verify that the amount of the debt is $0." There is no debt to verify.

As for the OC "recalling the debt," I have no idea what that means. If the OC owned the debt, then the debt collector did not. The debt collector was just an agent performing a service for the OC. The OC has no authority to commit to the deletion of accurate credit reporting made by another party.

The OC simply gave you a promise that they were not authorized to make.

[chane]

Lian, people have been using the 1-2 punch for many years. Are you saying that you don't think it works?

I can't imagine it getting that popular if it's pure conjecture. Maybe it's a technique used to scare CAs, but something that would never hold up in court?

The way I look at it, if it's working, keep doing it! What is the worst that can happen? Are there any unintended consequences that could happen as a result?

[30daylate]

I would just go straight to the Credit reporting agencies. Let them know that the OC says it is paid off and that the CAs are being jerks. dispute letters were made for cases like these.

[Lian]

I doubt that the CRAs will intervene.

It is a policy explicitly stated in the uniform credit reporting manual used by each of the CRAs, and also incorporated into their reporting agreements with furnishers of information, that furnishers are not to delete prior reporting based on payment of a debt.

The "agreement" with the OC, in addition to not beiing binding on the debt collector, is directly contrary to establshed CRA policy. I would doubt that the CRA would intervene in attempting to enforce a CR deletion on grounds directly contrary to their established policy.

[Lian]

I understand that reliance on the “1-2 Punch Process” is asserted to “work,” but it is, in my opinion, not supported by the relevant law.

The “1-2 Punch Process” presupposes that a debt collector is barred from replying to a CRA on the results of their reinvestigation of a consumer dispute until such time as they have provided prior validation of debt to the consumer under FDCPA 809(b). In my opinion, such a supposition is unsupported by statute, and to accuse a debt collector of violating the law by fulfilling their statutory obligation in a dispute process is certainly a serious accusation..

In a dispute filed by a consumer contesting the accuracy of information reported to a consumer reporting agency, any party who has furnished information to a consumer reporting agency is required, under the provisions of FCRA 623(b), to report back to the consumer reporting agency handling the dispute within prescribed times, as follows:

§623(b) Duties of Furnishers of Information upon Notice of Dispute
(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall
(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2);
(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;
(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis; and
(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1), for the purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly-
(i) modify that item of information;
(ii) delete that item or information; or
(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.
(2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period set forth under section 611(a)(1) within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding the information.

A basic assumption of the “1-2 Punch Process” is that the “cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt” provision of FDCPA 809(b) prevents the debt collector from communicating with the consumer reporting agency with regard to an express requirement of law. It is, in essence, an assertion that one required provision of law prevents compliance with another required provision of law. That surely was not the intent of Congress.

Debt collector communications with a either a consumer or a consumer reporting agency are expressly sanctioned under FDCPA 805(b) without any prior consent of the consumer. The consumer can, of course, choose, under FDCPA 805(c), to require a debt collector to cease communications with the consumer, but this does not extend to ceasing communications between a debt collector and a consumer reporting agency.

Additionally, FDCPA 805(c)(2) permits a debt collector, even while under a cease communications notice from the consumer “to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor my invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor.”

A statutorily specified remedy required of a debt collector under FCRA 611(a)(2) is that they must provide to the consumer reporting agency the results of their investigation of a dispute initiated by the consumer within a specified period.

The assertion that “verifying your debt with the credit bureaus as accurate” is an impermissible collection of the debt under FDCPA 809(b) is simply not stated in the statute, or supported by any case law of which I am aware. It is not a collection of the debt.

That the consumer can specify that the debt collector provide remedy by way of investigation of a dispute under the FCRA, and then invoke FDCPA 809(b) as a means to prevent such remedy defies reasonable logic, and is not supported by the statute.

The obligation to respond to the consumer’s initiation of a dispute is thus not, in my opinion, reasonably considered to be a collection activity that is a violation of their “cease collection of the debt” provision under FDCPA 809(b).