[Cada]

In the State of Michigan a particular JBD is licensed as a collection agency yet they continue to report to CRA's as a "Factoring Company". It's my understanding JBD's/CA's are required to report information accurately and the CRA's are obligated to do the same.

Would this type of reporting by the JBD and the CRA's be considered a violation in which each could be held separately accountable since this type of reporting has a significant negative impact on ones credit score?

Would each month of reporting be a separate violation and after a long period of reporting be considered willful non-compliance?

I'm not looking for legal advice ... just fishing for an opinion from someone who has experience with the FCRA. I've been looking around some and haven't been able to find any case law regarding this specific issue.

[AlfRed]

Cada, on 21 July 2010 - 06:19 AM, said:

In the State of Michigan a particular JBD is licensed as a collection agency yet they continue to report to CRA's as a "Factoring Company". It's my understanding JBD's/CA's are required to report information accurately and the CRA's are obligated to do the same.

Would this type of reporting by the JBD and the CRA's be considered a violation in which each could be held separately accountable since this type of reporting has a significant negative impact on ones credit score?

Would each month of reporting be a separate violation and after a long period of reporting be considered willful non-compliance?

I'm not looking for legal advice ... just fishing for an opinion from someone who has experience with the FCRA. I've been looking around some and haven't been able to find any case law regarding this specific issue.

Forgive the ignorance, but what should a CA be reported as, and how does this "error" negatively impact your score beyond the Collection tag?

[Dare]

Brief version: you need to look at exactly how it's reporting, compare it to the CDIA guidelines for how to report, compare it to the factoring industry definition of "factoring company" and then compare all of that to the actual behavior of the company that's listing the trade line.

There are two main issues I remember right off the bat, but this is not a "cut-n-dry" problem to address by any means.

One is that the CDIA guidelines (last time I looked) lumped "factoring company" and "debt buyer" into one category. There IS a difference, in that factoring companies buy pre-charge-off debt while "debt buyers" buy it post charge-off. But what difference will it make on your credit report if it's inaccurately listed as "factoring company" instead of accurately listed as "debt buyer"? I doubt it makes a difference to your score. Note: this applies ONLY if the listing entity is a JDB, not if they're a CA. Remember, the difference is that the JDB supposedly "owns" the account whereas a CA is collecting an account that's "owned" by a different entity.

It may be a clearer case to prove inaccuracy if the entity listing the tradeline as "factoring company" is a CA rather than a JDB. See what I mean?

[Cada]

AlfRed, on 21 July 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

Forgive the ignorance, but what should a CA be reported as, and how does this "error" negatively impact your score beyond the Collection tag?

Sorry I wasn't too clear on my question. The JBD in question is Palisade Collections, LLC, part of Asta Funding. They allege to have purchased the debt from Chase.

It's my understanding being tagged as "in collection" would naturally reduce ones credit score but having an account listed as a factoring company effects your score as bad as having a bankruptcy.

I was looking at the angle of this particular JBD being licensed in the state as a collection agency, not as a factoring company. Since Michigan considers JBD's to be sort of the same as an OC, one would think they would have to be licensed as such before they could report as one.

[AlfRed]

Cada, on 21 July 2010 - 11:19 AM, said:

Sorry I wasn't too clear on my question. The JBD in question is Palisade Collections, LLC, part of Asta Funding. They allege to have purchased the debt from Chase.

It's my understanding being tagged as "in collection" would naturally reduce ones credit score but having an account listed as a factoring company effects your score as bad as having a bankruptcy.

I was looking at the angle of this particular JBD being licensed in the state as a collection agency, not as a factoring company. Since Michigan considers JBD's to be sort of the same as an OC, one would think they would have to be licensed as such before they could report as one.

You are referring to Michigan law with respect to JDB not but not to how they are represented on your CR nor how this impacts your score which is related to CRA which is bound by the FCRA? Is there as specific state law that credit reporting agencies I'm unaware of?
Am I missing something?

[Dare]

Cada, after all these years and watching the effect on my own scores of "factoring company" accounts as well regular "collection agency" accounts, I really think the big hullaballoo about factoring company listings wasn't worth the energy. Granted, the effect on my own scores is a minimal sample and YMMV, but it was nowhere near the effects of a BK. Wherever that info came from, what PROOF do they have to support that assertion?

The theory as I understood it was that a "factoring company" account hits your score harder than a CA because it's supposedly counted as an OC neg instead of a CA neg. That may well be but *in my own experience* those accounts seemed to have pretty much the same effect on my score: bad. But not tragic. Getting rid of them was GOOD either way.

I did manage to get rid of some with some well-aimed saber-rattling at the JDBs, but that was years ago so I don't know how well it works anymore. If you want to hassle the JDB about it with some disputes that's something you can try if you feel like picking a fight but I wouldn't take it to court without supporting case law.

[The Mod Father]

Cada, I went rounds with Linx and Dare trying to understand the factoring account stuff before...... Basically it boils down to a great theory, but does not work out as the theory suggests. A lot of consumer forums make it out to be this egregious violation that will slay any debt collector...... Not true.

I have spoke with my attorney about this before and he wouldn't take any of my cases based on the JDB reporting as a "factoring company account." So, even if your pursued the "violation" and push came to shove, you would have a hell of a time finding an attorney who would take the case.

My understanding is that it is a good "extra" to toss into a complaint, but should not be the basis of the complaint. The "factoring company account" is the carrots in the stew, not the beef.

Just my experience.

A good technique I found when dealing with JDBs is that if you call them out on one violation they will commit 3 more. That could even be as simple as writing a letter asking why they are allowed to report as a factoring company when the definition of a factoring company is far from their business practice. Try something like that, unless you are in a one party state (I would have a phone conversation with them). Any time a collector communicates it is a good thing, they are bound to screw up at some point...... I mean, you don't even have to bait them, just ask an honest question to something you truly don't understand.....

Dare and Linx have taught me that there is always another way to deal with these yahoos. I have been away for a while because I needed to shut my mouth and open my ears (and eyes) in order to reprogram my learning process while dealing with repair..... IM BAAAACCCCCKKKKK! But this time I'm only half as stupid!

[AlfRed]

The Mod Father, on 21 July 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

Dare and Linx have taught me that there is always another way to deal with these yahoos. I have been away for a while because I needed to shut my mouth and open my ears (and eyes) in order to reprogram my learning process while dealing with repair..... IM BAAAACCCCCKKKKK! But this time I'm only half as stupid!

We were created with two ears but only one mouth. Listen more, talk less. :rolleyes:
Cheers.

[Dare]

The Mod Father, on 21 July 2010 - 04:36 PM, said:

Cada, I went rounds with Linx and Dare trying to understand the factoring account stuff before...... Basically it boils down to a great theory, but does not work out as the theory suggests. A lot of consumer forums make it out to be this egregious violation that will slay any debt collector...... Not true.

I have spoke with my attorney about this before and he wouldn't take any of my cases based on the JDB reporting as a "factoring company account." So, even if your pursued the "violation" and push came to shove, you would have a hell of a time finding an attorney who would take the case.

My understanding is that it is a good "extra" to toss into a complaint, but should not be the basis of the complaint. The "factoring company account" is the carrots in the stew, not the beef.

Just my experience.

A good technique I found when dealing with JDBs is that if you call them out on one violation they will commit 3 more. That could even be as simple as writing a letter asking why they are allowed to report as a factoring company when the definition of a factoring company is far from their business practice. Try something like that, unless you are in a one party state (I would have a phone conversation with them). Any time a collector communicates it is a good thing, they are bound to screw up at some point...... I mean, you don't even have to bait them, just ask an honest question to something you truly don't understand.....

Dare and Linx have taught me that there is always another way to deal with these yahoos. I have been away for a while because I needed to shut my mouth and open my ears (and eyes) in order to reprogram my learning process while dealing with repair..... IM BAAAACCCCCKKKKK! But this time I'm only half as stupid!

Yesssssssssssssss :D

[Dare]

AlfRed, on 21 July 2010 - 04:47 PM, said:

We were created with two ears but only one mouth. Listen more, talk less. :rolleyes:
Cheers.

But at least some of us have mouths much bigger than our ears. I know mine is big enough to fit my own foot in. Had it in there more than once <_<

[The Mod Father]

Dare, on 21 July 2010 - 11:03 PM, said:

But at least some of us have mouths much bigger than our ears. I know mine is big enough to fit my own foot in. Had it in there more than once <_<

Call me when you can stick your ear in your mouth...... That would be interesting.

[Cada]

Thanks everyone ... I appreciate the time you're all taking to talk about this as it's pretty confusing to me. When it comes to this issue states, judges, lawyers and those who claim to be in the know, appear to have conflicting interpretations.

Through my own twisted sort of logic, the thought was if a company licensed itself in a state as a collection agency, it would be required to report itself and its activities accordingly with CRA's. If the company claimed to be a factoring company it would be required to be licensed as one otherwise in both situations it might be argued either is misrepresenting their businesses at the time of licensing and would be reporting inaccurate information. I've heard JBD's argue when they purchase accounts from an OC they are stepping into the OC's shoes and are entitled to be treated as such under both state and federal laws. If this is true, I would think Asta Funding would be the one to call themselves the factoring company and the one who could report this way to CRA's, not Palisades who is a collection agency owned by Asta.

Since I've never had a permissible purpose for viewing anyone's credit report/scores or worked for anyone who does, the only report I've ever seen is my own. As far as this type of reporting effecting ones credit score more unfavorably, I looked all over the place for actual data figures but was unable to find any so I was left to assume ... :blink: ... the so-called experts knew what they were talking about. When it comes to my credit score, bad is bad and a couple of points one way or the other isn't going to help.

Don't worry ... so long as the collector abides by my states laws and the FDCPA, I have no intention of sticking my finger into the fan blades. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but since my situation isn't going to change anytime soon I have no plans to start fights I will likely lose.

[AlfRed]

Cada, on 21 July 2010 - 11:19 AM, said:

Sorry I wasn't too clear on my question. The JBD in question is Palisade Collections, LLC, part of Asta Funding. They allege to have purchased the debt from Chase.

It's my understanding being tagged as "in collection" would naturally reduce ones credit score but having an account listed as a factoring company effects your score as bad as having a bankruptcy.

Interestingly I have the same issue with the same parties so we might want to take this offline to the PM part and compare notes.
The "factoring company is only listed on my TU report not on EX. I have to dig my EQ from the paper archive to check there.

[Cada]

AlfRed, on 22 July 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Interestingly I have the same issue with the same parties so we might want to take this offline to the PM part and compare notes.
The "factoring company is only listed on my TU report not on EX. I have to dig my EQ from the paper archive to check there.

Sure AlfRed... we can talk offline if you want.

I have limited experience with CA reporting and have only dealt with two companies thus far, Mann Bracken and Palisades. At the time, my best guess is Mann Bracken was collecting directly for Chase so Chase was doing the actual reporting. The accounts were then sold to Asta.

I do find it odd that Palisades would report differently to the CRA's. Unless there's a particular benefit for them to do so, you would think they would be consistent or maybe it just depends on which employee is the entering information.

[Dare]

Guys, from the documents I've seen related to FCRA lawsuits about how tradelines are reported, the CA uses the exact same electronic form to report to all the CRAs.

What the CRA reveals to you on your credit report is an entirely different story.

Consider this scenario: there's a box to check if the data furnisher is a "Third Party Collection Agency/Debt Purchaser/Factoring Company". It's all lumped together so the DF doesn't get to choose which one they specifically are - their only choice is to click that box indicated they're one of those 3. That's THEIR part of the reporting.

The CRAs get the exact same info on the same form from the DF. How and what each CRA chooses to report on your credit report MAY VARY. Some of them may report the entire line: "Third Party Collection Agency/Debt Purchaser/Factoring Company". Some may report only ONE part of the line, ie, Collection Agency. Or Factoring Company.

Sooooo... think about how this works if you want to sue over "factoring company" being shown on your credit report when it's actually a CA or a JDB (debt purchaser).

You'll need to prove who reported what, and that it's inaccurate, and that it's damaging your credit score.

In other words, figure on having to sue the CRA(s) too, because the JDB/CA is probably going to say, "We did NOT report as a factoring company. Take it up with the CRA."

Any of the sites that may be claiming this is a huge violation: do they have case law? Do they even have a case where someone has sued and successfully SETTLED this specific issue before going to trial?

Again, when I was messing with this subject it was like 5 years ago and a lot's happened since then...

[AlfRed]

Dare, on 22 July 2010 - 01:46 PM, said:

Guys, from the documents I've seen related to FCRA lawsuits about how tradelines are reported, the CA uses the exact same electronic form to report to all the CRAs.

What the CRA reveals to you on your credit report is an entirely different story.

I'd bet.
I find it weird that the same reporting entity will also be listed differently on the CRAs when it reports on the same date and on the same account (CO and CA).
And if that's the case, why would there be any difference in how the score is evaluated based on the same information.
BTW, one also needs to remember that the FICO score on each of the CRAs is on a slightly different scales.

This post has been edited by AlfRed: 22 July 2010 - 03:58 PM

[Dare]

Yep! All of this stuff varies with "proprietary processes" and unique formats for each CRA. Heck, there's even a difference in what you may see in an online report vs a hard copy report from the very same CRA. Which brings up another point: always get the hard copy of your CR if you have issues with the way something is reporting. It might be different. (And I think it's dead wrong that there may be a difference between the online vs the hard copy reports, but for now that's one of the stupid facts of life in dealing with these lazy buzzard CRAs...)

[AlfRed]

Dare, on 22 July 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

Yep! All of this stuff varies with "proprietary processes" and unique formats for each CRA. Heck, there's even a difference in what you may see in an online report vs a hard copy report from the very same CRA. Which brings up another point: always get the hard copy of your CR if you have issues with the way something is reporting. It might be different. (And I think it's dead wrong that there may be a difference between the online vs the hard copy reports, but for now that's one of the stupid facts of life in dealing with these lazy buzzard CRAs...)

Sadly enough: Can;t live with them. Certainly, can't live without them.

[Cada]

Dare, on 22 July 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

Yep! All of this stuff varies with "proprietary processes" and unique formats for each CRA.

I think "proprietary processes" is just a fancy way of saying "We're gonna do what we want without telling you so we can change the rules to work to our advantage" ... lol!

So far, I've run across more cases where the consumer lost the fight when it comes to suing over reporting issue. Not saying it can't be done but it does appear to be more difficult to prove.

[Cada]

AlfRed, on 22 July 2010 - 05:05 PM, said:

Sadly enough: Can;t live with them. Certainly, can't live without them.

LOL!