Author Topic: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company  (Read 29747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

E. Normis Debtor

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2433
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2006 12:08:45 AM »
I'm not really much into credit reporting, but for some reason this issue raised a hair. 

Outside of debt in which there is a security interest, I can't see that the UCC applies.

So, through my affiliation with the NACA, I contacted one of the attorney's I know who is very much into credit reporting.

Though they are aware of consumers concerns, and she referred me to this one in particular that was reviewed by the FTC (looks like this could have been submitted by a poster on some forum) http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/FACTA-furnishers/522110-00101.htm

Her very noncommital response was that they felt there were more meritorious issues at stake on which they could achieve favorable results, and provided me with their --> latest submission for changes to the CFR. Which excludes whether or not it is proper for a JDB to report as a factoring company.
I don't respond to PM's or emails for advice on specific circumstances.  My participation in this forum is general in nature, and not intended to create an attorney/client relationship.

hannah

  • Guest
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2006 02:32:32 AM »
I'm not really much into credit reporting, but for some reason this issue raised a hair. 

Outside of debt in which there is a security interest, I can't see that the UCC applies.

So, through my affiliation with the NACA, I contacted one of the attorney's I know who is very much into credit reporting.

Though they are aware of consumers concerns, and she referred me to this one in particular that was reviewed by the FTC (looks like this could have been submitted by a poster on some forum) http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/FACTA-furnishers/522110-00101.htm

Her very noncommital response was that they felt there were more meritorious issues at stake on which they could achieve favorable results, and provided me with their --> latest submission for changes to the CFR. Which excludes whether or not it is proper for a JDB to report as a factoring company.

I will read all this weekend however, it has been my experience that NACA attorneys never return a phone call from a consumer and only like to take class action cases. We all know that not all caselaw comes from class action but a great deal of attorney fees are generated. Perhaps they are right to concentrate on issues they think are "more meritorius", perhaps not.  I do know that the factoring issue is one that I brought up in discovery with PRA. I asked if they were a factoring company. Their answer? No. Their attorney said after being asked in my interrogatories that the "credit reporting agencies put that on your credit report...our client did not report it that way". They also said this to the judge in my case in a motion hearing. So I subpoened the CRA's. They said PRA reported it that way. Gee, what should I think now? That the continuous reporting of factoring is something that the CRA's are doing all on their lonesome? Yeah, right!! When PRA removed the factoring company account notation, my FICO raised 22 points and I documented everything.

klinked

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 562
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2006 03:07:12 PM »
I thought I would supply a real-life example to illustrate this discussion. I have no idea who the OC may be. I have written and asked but no response.
This is on DH CR and is LVNV. They have both been disputed as 'not mine"

No original creditor name listed. It was never on Experian.
    Can the pay status be 'collection/CO"  but be listed as a factoring company?

                                              TransUnion               Equifax 
 Account #:                                  4****                    OSI ****
 Condition:                              Derogatory                Open
 Balance and Limit:            Balance of $1155             Balance of $0 
 Type:                             Factoring company account  Unknown - credit extension, 
                                                                                            or   collection
 Pay Status:                      Collection/Chargeoff             Late 120 Days
 Responsibility:                    Individual                           Individual
 Date Opened:                       10/30/2002                         10/2002
 Date Reported:                      05/30/2006                        04/2006
 Payment and
 Terms:       
 High Balance:                                   $860                           $860 
 Past Due:                                        $1155     
 Remarks:                         disputed by consumer        consumer disputes this item 

I apologize if I am interjecting inappropriately
Did I mention that we bought a house? and the dishwasher and freezer and oven were all ruined when the ceiling fell in from the slow leak in the bathtub and we had to tear up 1/2 the kitchen floor-

Life is good. Most days. Will be again.

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2006 12:16:51 AM »
Yes, a factoring company account could very well be listed as a collection account as well, if the account was a factored account at the time it went into collections! When a factor buys an account, they take full assignment, without question and or silly tricks--including all the documentation--for a performing account.    The factor becomes the OC for all intents and purposes once they do take ownership.  That is not the case with LVNV...they don't do true factoring.  All they bought, really, is the right to collect, sue for the balance, and sell those same rights in perpetuity on "dead" accounts.  Nothing else. 

So, the irony here is... we don't like EQ,  and they do perpetuate lies a lot...BUT EQ is actually listing the account as the correct type here!  (collection account)

However, klinked, you don't have much to worry about right now. Or, rather, DH does not, as far as the scores go, anyway:  Both TLs are marked as being "In dispute", so they should have no effect on the scores until and unless the dispute is removed/resolved.
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

stargazer0725

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 95
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #34 on: July 18, 2006 10:03:26 PM »
Okay...I might be stretching, but how's this case cite?  It's from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals about a RICO case, however it clearly defines what factoring is (Background Section I, Paragraph 1):

Click Here


stargazer0725

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 95
HELP PLEASE!
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2006 10:16:37 PM »
Okay guys, this is coming to a head for me.  I need to fight an MSJ from a JDB and this is one of the MANY violations that I've got them on (or should I say WANT to get them on).

They've basically said that the CDIA guidelines are what they are going by, which outline how a Third Party CA / Debt Purchaser / Factoring Company should report.

Is there anything in the CDIA guidelines that outlines whether a JDB is a CA, a Debt Purchaser, or a Factoring Company?  Can I use the above case as an argument against a JDB being a Factoring Company?

And they are saying that they have a right to report another account per Section 6-19 (#42) of the CDIA reporting manual.  It basically answer the question on how accounts should appear when they have been sold to another LENDER.  They are NOT a LENDER.  What's my best argument for this?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2006 10:18:53 PM by stargazer0725 »

madshooter

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 10
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2006 10:28:32 PM »
I currently have a CA listing an acct. on my TU and EXP reports as an open acct. with terms of 1 month and a past due balance. They have refused to validate and have continued reporting even after the 1-2 punch and an estoppel letter and another follow up letter for Non PP, 3rd DV, and request for contract of terms for there open acct. with terms of 1 month. SOL runs out on this acct. in less than a week. I plan on going after them in Aug. for there many violations. I believe I have them on at 7 or 8 of the top of my head. When they state that it is an open acct. with terms there are 2 violations right there, correct?

Cipher

  • Guest
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2006 02:37:20 AM »
No, there is only one:  The "open account".  It's not, it's a collection account.  The "terms" of one month? This is actually accurate for a collection account (all it means is that the balance is due now, normal in collections).

stargazer0725

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 95
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2006 03:41:29 PM »
No, there is only one:  The "open account".  It's not, it's a collection account.  The "terms" of one month? This is actually accurate for a collection account (all it means is that the balance is due now, normal in collections).

Actually, the CDIA reporting guidelines for Metro2 stipulate just the opposite for CA's / Debt Purchasers / Factoring Companies (found on pages 10-3 to 10-6):

1) They're instructing all to report an "Open" Portfolio Type.
2) They're instructing all to report a "Zero Fill" for Terms Frequency (blank field).

Now...the question is, how do you prove that the CDIA guidelines are wrong?  Do you subpeona someone from Fair Isaac to talk about how different info would affect your score, or what?

But then you're faced with the problem of proving up a violation against a company that was "just doing what they were told".

hannah

  • Guest
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2006 08:35:16 PM »
Actually, the CDIA reporting guidelines for Metro2 stipulate just the opposite for CA's / Debt Purchasers / Factoring Companies (found on pages 10-3 to 10-6):

1) They're instructing all to report an "Open" Portfolio Type.
2) They're instructing all to report a "Zero Fill" for Terms Frequency (blank field).

Now...the question is, how do you prove that the CDIA guidelines are wrong?  Do you subpeona someone from Fair Isaac to talk about how different info would affect your score, or what?

But then you're faced with the problem of proving up a violation against a company that was "just doing what they were told".

The CDIA/Metro2 stuff is merely software for reporting. It is not issued by the government nor is it written into any law that they have to use it. They choose to use it. JDB's are NOT factoring companies. They do NOT provide financing nor are they a lender. The problem is between them and the CRA's. They don't have to report...they don't have to use Metro2 if they do report. If they report inaccurate information, it's a violation. PRA said in interrogs that they didn't report that they were a factoring company. That the CRA's "just put it on the report all by themselves". I subpoena'd all three CRA's. I got answers from 2 that the JDB reported that way and didn't have to report it that way but did anyhow. I was getting ready to have the court compel answers from the third CRA when we settled. I now have another JDB reporting without the "factoring" notation so it couldn't be that it cannot be reported accurately now could it?  How many here on DB have a JDB on their report that isn't listing that they are a factoring company? Ask them if they are required by any law to report an alleged debt to a CRA. Then ask them if they have to report using only the Metro2 software? Ask them if they report any other way...see where I am going with this?

I also had redacted copies of 12 other people's reports from 7 other states along with an affidavit from each of those other people stating that this was a true redacted copy of their credit report and on each one was PRA big as life reporting that the accounts listed by them were a factoring company account. One time is a mistake, a bona fide error. Twelve times across 7 states is not.

CrzyAmerican

  • Life is a series of collisions with the future; it is not the sum of what we have been, but what we yearn to be.
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 323
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2006 09:17:54 PM »
I would like to get whatever that you can give on your case. Did you file or was it a counterclaim? Was it in Federal?

If you are allowed and or have time to share the info on your case I would appreciate it. I have a couple JDB's reporting the same and would like ammo for future actions.




Did I ask this already? If I did please excuse my memory.  ::)

hannah

  • Guest
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2006 09:26:10 PM »
I would like to get whatever that you can give on your case. Did you file or was it a counterclaim? Was it in Federal?

If you are allowed and or have time to share the info on your case I would appreciate it. I have a couple JDB's reporting the same and would like ammo for future actions.

Did I ask this already? If I did please excuse my memory.  ::)

Perhaps you did...I don't remember as many have PM'd me about it and I thought I had gotten back to everyone. I will try to post it in a different thread tomorrow.

stargazer0725

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 95
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2006 03:28:11 PM »
Hannah:

I'm on the same side as you and really want to nail these guys for the way they're poisoning credit reports.  However, I'm at a loss as to how to get around this particular issue.

Their argument is not that they made a mistake in reporting the way they did on my report.  They are taking the position that they were following instructions that were set down for them in writing, which could possibly kill my claim that they were willfully and maliciously reporting incorrect information - and there goes any potential for FCRA awards over and above actual damages.

What tack can be used to discredit the CDIA guidelines?  I've been told that IRS guidelines are not persuasive evidence (which in my opinion would be THE authority on financial issues).  So I'm trying to track down anything that would persuade a court that they should NOT have followed the CDIA guidelines when reporting.  Ideas anyone?

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 7100
  • Thank you Sears, NCO, AA and the rest for my toy
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2006 03:57:58 PM »
Hannah:

I'm on the same side as you and really want to nail these guys for the way they're poisoning credit reports.  However, I'm at a loss as to how to get around this particular issue.

Their argument is not that they made a mistake in reporting the way they did on my report.  They are taking the position that they were following instructions that were set down for them in writing, which could possibly kill my claim that they were willfully and maliciously reporting incorrect information - and there goes any potential for FCRA awards over and above actual damages.

What tack can be used to discredit the CDIA guidelines?  I've been told that IRS guidelines are not persuasive evidence (which in my opinion would be THE authority on financial issues).  So I'm trying to track down anything that would persuade a court that they should NOT have followed the CDIA guidelines when reporting.  Ideas anyone?

Read Len Bennett's testimony, it gives you the information you need. Here's how I would attack it:

Your Honor, I allege the following:

1. The Consumer Credit Reporting Industry has adopted a certain standard called the Metro2 reporting standard for investigating consumer disputes to the contents of a consumer's credit file.

2. That credit is an important factor of modern life is undeniable, and that accurate credit files are a vital part of that fact is undeniable and has been borne out in Congressional Findings.

3. FCRA requires investigation of a disputed item in a consumer's credit file when requested by a  consumer.

4. There are two different types of disputes - disputes as to Form and Disputes as to Substance. A Dispute as to Form is a question of whether a Credit File accurately contains what the creditor has in their own files. A Dispute as to Substance is a question of whether what is in the Creditor's file is, in fact, accurate.

A creditor could report to a CRA that Your Honor is a Cannibal. The truth of that statement is not a concern of Metro2, only whether it accurately reflects what the creditor's files indicate. As long as the creditor's file indicates that Your Honor is a cannibal, the CRA will insist that it has been verified that Your Honor is a cannibal.

5. CRA's only investigate Disputes as to Form. CRA's do NOT investigate disputes as to Substance.

6. FCRA does not make any distinction between the two forms on investigation. in fact, FCRA does not even mention different forms on investigation - it merely states "investigate".

7. Because CRA's do not as a matter of policy investigate as to Matters of Substance, I contend that any investigation done bya  CRA is incomplete and therefore inaccurate, and in complete defiance of the legislative intent of FCRA. The Metro2 Standard was adopted so as to appear to give as minimal compliance with FCRA as possible. It fails in that efort because it is not designed to investigate as to Substance.

8. The creditor in this instance was notified by me CMRRR on XX/XX/XXXX that the trade line they are reporting is inaccurate and disputed. they have refused to correct the trade line and continue to report it as inaccurate in violation of FCRA.

9. The creditor in this instance was notified by me CMRRR on XX/XX/XXXX that the trade line they are reporting is in accurate and disputed. they have refused to correct the trade line and continue to fail to report it as disputed in violation of FCRA.

10. For that reason, I am seeking $XXXX in damages against the Creditor.

This is how you pursue inaccuracies in a CRA file - by suing the source. CRA's have been able to successfully argue in Courts that Metro2 satisfies FCRA and the Courts have bought it. It will take better legal minds than ours to overturn that mindset.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006 04:02:02 PM by Flyingifr »
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Morality of Debt? No one ever went to the Nether Regions for not paying a debt.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

hannah

  • Guest
Re: Why a JDB is NOT a Factoring Company
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2006 04:05:46 PM »
Their argument is not that they made a mistake in reporting the way they did on my report.  They are taking the position that they were following instructions that were set down for them in writing, which could possibly kill my claim that they were willfully and maliciously reporting incorrect information - and there goes any potential for FCRA awards over and above actual damages.

What tack can be used to discredit the CDIA guidelines?  I've been told that IRS guidelines are not persuasive evidence (which in my opinion would be THE authority on financial issues).  So I'm trying to track down anything that would persuade a court that they should NOT have followed the CDIA guidelines when reporting.  Ideas anyone?

Reread my above post and the one Flying just posted. You attack it from both sides. If they report, they must report accurately. They choose to use Metro2 software. They do not have to report and they do not have to report using Metro2 software. They can report in other ways if Metro2 does not give them the accuracy that they need to avoid inaccurate reporting.

What have you asked in discovery so far on this issue? Have you used all your rogs? Can you do more admissons?