Not reporting debt as disputed

[Enigma]

Debt Collection Tricks and Traps :: Michigan Collection Law Blog published By Michigan Creditor Lawyers Nitzkin & Associates

The dangers of credit reporting to collection agencies

I just read a very interesting opinion by Judge Cleland in the case of Purnell v Arrow Financial, 2007 U.S. Dist Lexis 7630 (Decided Feb 2007).

The collection agency defendant reported a debt that was disputed by the consumer to Equifax over a period of several months. The court held that each of these reportings to Equifax, without the dispute marker, constituted a discrete violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Without boring you with the details, the statute of limitations for an FDCPA action is one year. In this case, however, that statute was renewed every time the collection agency reported the debt without the dispute marker.

Moral of the story to collection agencies - Be careful to report any debt that has a dispute with that dispute marker.

[apexcrsrvc]

That is the single most prevalent violation of the FDCPA but, unfortunately, one that most folks miss. It's always been my opinion that for every day that notation is absent, it is a continous tort.

For whatever reason though, most feel that this violation in of itself is not worth pursuing. While it doesn't yield much it is a violation. I suppose many attorney's don't understand the term strict liability or either, feel its not worth the time (which it probably isn't on a contingency basis).

[Qtip]

Good post and information enigma!

[cracrap]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma Debt Collection Tricks and Traps :: Michigan Collection Law Blog published By Michigan Creditor Lawyers Nitzkin & Associates The dangers of credit reporting to collection agencies I just read a very interesting opinion by Judge Cleland in the case of Purnell v Arrow Financial, 2007 U.S. Dist Lexis 7630 (Decided Feb 2007). The collection agency defendant reported a debt that was disputed by the consumer to Equifax over a period of several months. The court held that each of these reportings to Equifax, without the dispute marker, constituted a discrete violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Without boring you with the details, the statute of limitations for an FDCPA action is one year. In this case, however, that statute was renewed every time the collection agency reported the debt without the dispute marker. Moral of the story to collection agencies - Be careful to report any debt that has a dispute with that dispute marker.

but even though its a continuous tort on a monthly basis, i thought that the max damages for a fdcpa claim is 1k? how would it total more?