PRA trying to trick with irrelevent claim of frivolous DV???

spinn · 04-09-2007, 11:52 PM

My friend received a letter about six weeks ago from Portfolio Recovery Associates cllaiming they were awaiting information from a dispute my friend had made. My friend never filed a dispute and I think it was some sort of trick.

My friend sent them a simple "I dispute this debt" DV along with a statement saying she had never filed a dispute with them.

Today....they sent back a letter claiming the dispute was frivalous according to fcra 15 usc 1681-s-2-(a)(8)(f)(ii). They are treating this as a CRA dispute. They are also threatening to send it to the colection floor.

The debt is SOL.

They then claimed the matter is closed. It is all very confusing. Is it a CRA dispute or a debt validation they are asking about.

And why is the CA sending a letter if it were an fcra dispute?
What is my friends next move....???

jlynn · 04-10-2007, 12:00 AM

Was wondering who would be the first to pull this kind of crap. The plain ole "I dispute" alone can be a grey area.

Did your friend say, I dispute, please send me proof? You say your friend never filed a dispute, does that mean with either the CA or the CRAs?

spinn · 04-10-2007, 12:05 AM

my friend said "i dispute the alleged debt and have not received any letters previous to this one"

the ca was not disputed and last cra dispute was possibly 2 yrs ago via lexington.

Pale Rider · 04-10-2007, 01:22 AM

This is just another sloppy attempt by the collectors to grasp for anything while slowly sinking into the depths. If it is truly SOL, it really doesn't matter and a full C&D will put an end to the foolishness. If they continue, remind them that they have certain steps they must take under that section, and are still bound by FDCPA provisions. I have never seen anything in the Acts that require disputes spell out which specific Act you are disputing under. That is an interesting question that I am sure can easily be added to the list of CA myths.

spinn · 04-10-2007, 01:32 AM

That is what I am slightly concerned about actually. The debt was incurred in Texas in late 2002. Texas has a 4 year SOL so that is up. My friend moved to New York though and NY has, I believe a 5 year SOL which is not up. Ny does have a borrowing statute meaning they use the 4 year TX SOL.

The NY courts have no way of knowing the debt was incurred in TX though so my friend has to be alert and aware of what they may try to slip past the court.

Its clearly a trick because the CA would have no reason to answer an FCRA dispute with a letter sent directly to my friend.

I think they are trying to trick her into sending something to them that they could then use to prove the debt....nice try.

Westernacc · 04-10-2007, 06:16 AM

Wonder if they were on a "fishing expedition" When I was In Law Enforcment occasionaly we would send a letter or call a residence to try and get a confirmation/ solid addy to serve a warrant. ATL..attempt to locate. This may be a crude concept of that. It was always surprising how many smart ones fell for the " ya won a big screen" routine.

Sorry if this has no relevance, merely a concept idea, to confirm her addy or whatever.

Felonious Monkey · 04-10-2007, 10:24 AM

PRA has done the same thing to me. Back in Nov 2005, I blind DV'ed them because of a neg they were reporting to the CRA's. They never verified and negs were deleted. No response from them until Feb. 2007 which basically said "please send us all of your info, otherwise we will consider this debt not to be disputed anymore and will proceed accordingly." I of course did not respond and the other day received the follow-up letter stating that they no longer considered it disputed yadda yadda yadda. Alleged debt is still within SOL.

My strategy? Let 'em keep violating, since each letter they send states thet "This is a letter from a debt coillector and is an attempt to collect a debt" Gotta love continued collection activity

spinn · 04-10-2007, 10:29 AM

I think it is a fishing expedition.

Anyways.....I think my friend yous send a letter to the effect of:

"My letter to you was not a dispute with the CRAs, it was me requesting validation of this alleged debt and exercising the rights afforded to me by the FDCPA"

I really am not sure what they are up to here.

The thing is....since it is Cap One....they may actually have it, but it is still SOL.

roybean · 04-10-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinn

My friend received a letter about six weeks ago from Portfolio Recovery Associates cllaiming they were awaiting information from a dispute my friend had made. My friend never filed a dispute and I think it was some sort of trick.

My friend sent them a simple "I dispute this debt" DV along with a statement saying she had never filed a dispute with them.

Today....they sent back a letter claiming the dispute was frivalous according to fcra 15 usc 1681-s-2-(a)(8)(f)(ii). They are treating this as a CRA dispute. They are also threatening to send it to the colection floor.

The debt is SOL.

They then claimed the matter is closed. It is all very confusing. Is it a CRA dispute or a debt validation they are asking about.

And why is the CA sending a letter if it were an fcra dispute?
What is my friends next move....???

When disputing an alleged debt you never volunteer information (at least I don't). All you need to say is "I dispute."
Keep track of your credit reports and begin disputing with the CRAs. Once you have disputed with the jdb or CA, you've already done what you needed to do....now let the violations rack up!

spinn · 04-10-2007, 07:23 PM

So the consensus seems to be that my friend shouldnt send anything since she has already DVed?

She isnt worried about credit reports, doesnt use or need credit now so shes just letting things fall off. Not the best idea but most people dont want to deal with this stuff.

I am just trying to make sure she isnt sued.