May 8, 2008

Seminar Paper On The Fair Credit Reporting Act Related To Debt Collectors - Part Two - Overview Of The FCRA

As we mentioned yesterday, we are putting up parts of our seminar paper that we recently presented at the University of Alabama Law School. This deals with credit reports and debt collectors and we presented this to collection lawyers and consumer lawyers.

As always, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE FCRA

A. Players

Furnishers are those individuals or companies (including debt collectors) that furnish or provide information to the CRAs about consumers. This is normally done on a monthly or quarterly basis.

The consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”), which include Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion , are the companies that compile the credit reports on consumers. The furnishers send the information about consumers to the CRAs who then store that data. When someone requests a “credit report” then the CRA from whom it is requested will “pull” the data together for that consumer and create or compile the report.

A credit report is defined as “any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness . . . .” 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(d)(1).

A “user” of information is anyone who pulls or requests a credit report from a CRA. There are specific rules about who is allowed to pull a report and under what circumstances it is allowable to pull a report.

B. How Credit Reports Are Obtained

It is now much easier for consumers to pull their credit reports. They are allowed to pull them for free every twelve months by going to www.annualcreditreport.com. With advertising on TV and other places, there is more awareness of the need to pull credit reports. Consequently, more consumers know what is on their credit reports. This fact enhances the effectiveness and dangerousness of the credit reporting tool for debt collectors.

C. How Inaccurate Information Is Disputed

If a consumer feels information is inaccurate, there are two ways to dispute it. One way, which invokes the FCRA, is to send a dispute to the CRAs. This can be done in a variety of ways, but the two main ways are by letter and by using the web based system at each CRA’s website. The other way is to dispute directly with the furnisher. Unfortunately for consumers, while this imposes duties upon the furnisher, there appears to be no private right of action (under the FCRA) unless the CRA notifies the furnisher of the dispute.

Basically the dispute needs to identify the consumer and the account or “trade line” that is alleged to be in error. It also needs to identify what the problem is unless the furnisher has the information in its file to show that the account is inaccurate. For example, if the debt collector knows that the account has been included in bankruptcy and discharged, the dispute letter could simply state the account is “inaccurate” as the debt collector knows it is inaccurate. But, for example, if the debt collector has the wrong “Sara D. Williams” then the consumer should send a letter pointing this out and possibly including an affidavit. The more information given to the CRA, the more responsibility this puts on the CRA to do an adequate job of investigating the dispute.

The CRA is supposed to forward all relevant information to the furnisher so, once again, the more information that is provided then the more responsibility the furnisher has to investigate.

The CRA has thirty days from receipt of the dispute to investigate. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i(a)(1)(A). In our experience, the extent of the investigation by the CRA is simply to forward the dispute on to the furnisher with an electronic code which describes the dispute. That might be “bankruptcy” or “disputes account balance” or “not his/her account” etc. This means as a practical matter whether the account/trade line will stay on the consumer’s report or will be deleted or will be modified is up to the furnisher. Therefore, the debt collector must ensure that it has performed a reasonable investigation as it cannot count on the CRA to independently investigate and catch the debt collector’s errors.

D. Statute of Limitations For FCRA Claims

The statute of limitations is now two years from the date the consumer discovers the violation and within five years of the actual violation. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p. This is a change in the law as TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 122 S.Ct. 441 (2001) had held there was no discovery rule in the FCRA. But Congress changed the statute to, in essence, overrule Andrews in the 2003 amendments to the FCRA.

With respect to a consumer who has disputed with a CRA information provided by a furnisher, it is two years from when the furnisher received the notification from the CRA of the dispute as there is no private cause of action against a furnisher (under FCRA) until the CRA notifies the furnisher of the dispute. We’ll address this in the final section.

E. Damages Under FCRA

The basic rule is that if a furnisher negligently violates the FCRA then the furnisher is liable for actual damages (compensatory damages – including emotional distress), court costs, and reasonable attorney fees. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681o(a). If the violation is willful then the consumer can receive statutory damages (up to $1,000) or actual damages and punitive damages. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n(a).

If someone obtains a credit report without a permissible purpose then the damages are statutory or actual damages, punitive damages, court costs, and attorney fees. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n(b).

May 7, 2008

Seminar Paper On The Fair Credit Reporting Act Related To Debt Collectors - Part One - Introduction

We recently were asked to present a seminar at the University of Alabama that was attended by consumer lawyers and collection lawyers. We prepared a written paper to go with the presentation and we will attach the entire paper as a pdf but for now we will put it up in sections over the next several days.

We hope this will be helpful. If you have any questions about debt collectors and how credit reports relate to them, please let us know.

I. INTRODUCTION

Debt collectors can use the reporting of a debt to a consumer reporting agency (CRA) as a “powerful tool designed, in part, to wrench compliance with payment terms . . . .” Rivera v. Bank One, 145 F.R.D. 614 (D.P.R. 1993).

The fact that reporting debts owed by consumers is a powerful tool cannot be questioned. Nevertheless, is it a dangerous tool? If the area of credit reports is mishandled in one of several ways then this powerful tool can become extraordinarily dangerous for the debt collector.
We will look at three main areas. First, an overview of the FCRA. Second, when can debt collectors pull the credit reports of consumers who owe money? Finally, what are the dangers for debt collectors reporting information to the CRAs when the consumer disputes the accuracy of the information reported?


May 6, 2008

What Is An Offer Of Judgment And Why Did The Debt Collector Make One In My Case?

Sometimes Alabama consumers are faced with an "offer of judgment" in cases by debt collectors. An offer of judgment (OOJ) is made under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It means what it says - the defendant is offering to allow the plaintiff consumer to take a judgment against the defendant.

Odd, huh? The reason defendant debt collectors do this is to "stop the bleeding" by limiting the damages that the plaintiff can recover. It is similar to a normal settlement offer but it has one twist in favor of the collection agency - if you reject the offer and then get a judgment for less than the amount of the OOJ, you can be responsible for some of the costs and expenses the debt collector incurred after you rejected the OOJ.

Normally, an OOJ is not terribly important as if you lose the case you may be responsible for many of these costs anyway. Also, the OOJ is rarely enough to cover a reasonable jury verdict and the attorney's fees that are owed.

One great advantage of an OOJ is it is a judgment. You sued the debt collector and there is now a judgment against the debt collector. The collection agencies will try and say it is meaningless as it was done for settlement purposes - but it is a judgment. We had a defendant make an OOJ which we accepted - then the defendant sent us a release for our client to sign. We responded - "Its a judgment, not a settlement" so there was no release, no confidentiality, etc. Just a judgment which will always be on the record of the defendant.

So, if you get an OOJ, it needs to be examined but it should not be a cause for any alarm as long as you are being reasonable in what you expect a jury to return a verdict for in your favor.

May 3, 2008

Why We Sue Abusive Debt Collectors Instead Of Just Asking Them To Stop

Sometimes defense lawyers tell us we should have just told the debt collectors that we caught them doing something wrong (harassing conduct, false credit reporting, contacting third parties, etc) and let them fix it instead of suing them. While at first this sounds reasonable, the reason the debt collectors want this is very malicious.

Collection agencies think they should be allowed to violate the law and then when one out of ten or one out of a hundred consumers hires a lawyer, then the lawyer should tell the collection agency how it is violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and as long as the collection agency promises to "behave" no suit should be filed.

This is wrong on several levels. We represent consumers - we are not traffic cops. Our job is to sue abusive debt collectors - it is not to issue "warnings". Even if we were like the police - think of it like this. If the police see someone stealing and they catch the thief, can the thief say "Oh well, you caught me this one time out of a hundred. Tell you what Officer, I'll just put this money back and we'll call it even, ok?" That makes no sense!

In the same manner, if the debt collector just had to obey the law occasionally when they get caught, what incentive would there be to do the right thing? None. In addition, the FDCPA has been around for 30 years! This is not a new thing. Collection agencies and debt buyers know exactly what the law is and how to comply with it. They have just chosen to violate it blatantly - particularly when it comes to credit reporting and contacting third parties (neighbors, family, co-workers, etc).

Congress intended that consumers could and would sue to help encourage abusive debt collectors to clean their act up. So, are we embarrassed about suing abusive debt collectors instead of "giving them a warning"? Absolutely not!

If you have been abused by a collection agency, feel free to contact us. We don't issue warning tickets - we sue abusive collectors.

May 2, 2008

Have You Been Sent A "Fax Verification" At Your Work - A Classic Dirty Trick Of Debt Collectors

Alabama consumers often face this dirty trick which violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) - a collector will send in a "fax verification" or "employment verification" to the consumer's work. Supposedly this is to find out if the consumer works there but the real reason is to embarass and shame the consumer as all illegal third party contact is designed to do.

Debt collectors use this because it is effective. No consumer wants a call from "Human Resources" or the payroll department about some fax form from a collection agency. No consumer wants their boss walking into their cubicle or office holding the fax from the debt collector. This is why collectors use this dirty trick.

The irony is the debt collector has sealed his fate by sending the fax - it is perfect proof of who sent it, from what number, and the exact time. The collector can't lie about sending it like collectors often do about illegal phone calls.

If you have suffered this type of abuse from a collector, please feel free to contact us immediately to discuss your options.

May 1, 2008

Third Party Contact (Neighbors & Co-Workers) - Why Debt Collectors Break The Law

Debt collectors illegally call third parties - that is, neighbors, family, co-workers, ministers, etc - for one reason and one reason only - because it is effective in getting Alabama consumers to pay money.

Collectors often say "It must be ok to do this because look how effective it is in getting people to pay!" OK - so would killing the consumer's dog, I suppose. Or shooting the windows out of the consumer's house. Effective and legal do not always go together!

Collectors call neighbors and co-workers to embarrass and humiliate Alabama consumers and force them to pay. It is appropriate to collect legitimate debts in a legitimate manner but just because something is effective does make it right.

If you have a debt collector or debt buyer who has been calling third parties then you know how effective it is. How disturbing it is and embarrassing that it is. You have an option - contact us to talk about what your options are in suing the abusive debt collector. It is not only legal - but highly effective - to sue abusive debt collectors who break the law.

April 30, 2008

Why Is This Debt Collector So Hateful Towards Me?

Some collectors are just jerks. Plain and simple. But most are under-trained and overworked with too much pressure to bring in money and promises to pay.

It is like we see with our trucking litigation cases - often times the truck drivers are good people but they are put under so much pressure to make the "runs" that they exceed the number of hours or they don't get enough sleep or they overload their trucks. This, sadly, is true of many collectors. They have an "auto-dialer" that constantly throws calls at them. They are calling people who don't want to talk to the collector. The collector has no control over his or her time - the calls just keep coming off the auto-dialer.

We say all of this to point out that collectors are often mean and short tempered because the collection agencies have put too much pressure on them to collect money. In these hard economic times, when it is harder to pay collectors, the collectors receive even more pressure to get money in or at least promises to pay. Some, unfortunately, give in to the temptation and become abusive in order to get the money in.

If you have been abused by a collector, for whatever reason, feel free to contact us for a free consultation on your rights.

April 29, 2008

Why Do Collectors Become So Abusive For Several Months?

There is a natural "life cycle" to collection - for about 90 to 120 days a collection agency will make an all out push to get a payment or a promise to pay. This short time period with all the pressure that goes with it for collectors leads to many collection agencies crossing the line and violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Often times clients are puzzled - they haven't heard from a collector in a year or two and then "all of the sudden" they are bombarded with multiple calls, threats of jail, threats of garnishment, and all sorts of abusive behavior.

While understanding that collection agencies and debt buyers will concentrate their activities for a short period of time (90-120 days) doesn't make it pleasant to deal with, perhaps this knowledge makes it somewhat easier to understand. There is certainly nothing wrong with aggressive legal collection. People should pay their debts. But when collectors cross that line and become abusive (unfair statements/conduct, untrue statements, disrespectful, and undignified conduct) and when it is so concentrated over a period of weeks, it can become very difficult to not let this affect you.

If you are dealing with an abusive debt collector, please contact us and we will gladly advise you of your rights and let you make the best option on how to proceed.

April 28, 2008

What Do Collection Agencies Want From Alabama Consumers?

Debt collectors, including debt buyers, want Alabama consumers to pay money or to promise to pay. Collection agencies evaluate their employees based upon how much money is actually brought in and how much money is promised to be brought in.

This means that often collectors will claim that you promised to pay and that you have now broken your promise. This is a dirty trick of collectors to get you on the defensive and to feel obligated to pay a debt that you may not owe.

Usually collectors who use this unfair strategy will insult you, curse you, or otherwise violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Being warned is being armed so don't let collection agencies' dirty tricks surprise you as the collectors try and get money or the promise to pay out of you.

If you have been the victim of abusive debt collectors who violate the FDCPA and Alabama state law, feel free to contact us as we sue abusive collection agencies and abusive collectors.

April 28, 2008

Verdict Against Equifax Including Attorney's Fees

The Consumerist has a nice post on a wonderful verdict in Florida that has resulted in over $500,000 in attorney's fees along with the multimillion dollar verdict. Often companies such as Equifax, Experian, or Trans Union act like these cases have no value so this is a nice reminder that juries do take seriously the destruction of someone's credit report by a consumer reporting agency.

Remember to pull your credit reports and examine them for errors. If you have errors, dispute them with Equifax, Experian and Trans Union. If these agencies won't correct the errors, feel free to contact us for a free consultation to advise you of your options.

April 27, 2008

New Post On Indiana Consumer Lawyer Blog About Being Sued For A Debt

Our friend Robert Duff has a good post on being sued by debt collectors. He discusses the problems that debt collectors and debt buyers face (such as not being able to prove their case) and also ways that it can be practical to hire a consumer lawyer to defend you if you have been sued. We are amazed when we look on the Alabama court system and see in Jefferson County (Birmingham area) alone that there are hundreds of cases filed every month by debt collectors and debt buyers who cannot or will not prove they own the debt and the Alabama consumer owes it.

Please feel free to contact us if you have been sued by a debt buyer as you have options in defending the case and in potentially suing the debt buyer for violating the law (suing on an old cell phone bill or putting false information on credit reports, etc).

April 26, 2008

Student Loan Garnishment - Without A Judgment

One threat that is often made against Alabama consumers is that their wages will be garnished. This violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when there has been no judgment as it is a false statement which is a classic way in which collectors violate the FDCPA.

The Michigan Collection Law Blog reminds us, however, that there is one time in which a collector can make this statement without violating the FDCPA - when certain types of student loans are being collected. As Gary Nitzkin puts it:

I learned about the Administrative Wage Garnishment for the first time today. I understand that since this law was passed in 2003, it has been a huge success in recouping defaulted student loans. Well why shouldn't it? After all, a collector simply has to locate a debtor's place of employment and whammo.....he can garnish the debtor's wages without a judgment.

But just because the debt collector may be able to legitimately threaten garnishment without a judgment, other violations of the FDCPA can still form the basis of a legitimate lawsuit to stop abusive collectors.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about a debt collector's conduct towards you.