Consumer complaint received 2017-09-19
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: GA
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account status incorrect

Complaint:
This is a Consumer Complaint filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX against SPS Inc. and XXXX for intentional violations of ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), having been committed in order to facilitate continued non-compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( FCRA ) to wit, Re-aging and Re-opening a charge-off, closed and negative account solely for the purpose of establishing a new " DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY ''. 

[ A ]. Also be advised that this complaint is predicated upon violations of the ( FDCPA ) because it contains a specific provision applicable to debt collectors when they communicate with a CRA. This provision, is 1692e ( 8 ) which is directly applicable to the violations alleged herein. 

[ B ]. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. is, as of XX/XX/XXXX furnishing information to all three credit reporting agencies beyond the statutory period allowed by the FCRA, and in doing so, SPS Inc. has violated ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), by intentionally misrepresenting material facts and making deceptive statements to the CRA 's to evade the true application of law. SPS Inc. is continue its efforts to collect a purported debt that is beyond the statutory period allowed by federal and state statutes to collect. 

[ C ]. A representation was made by SPS Inc. that account # XXXX was legally reportable, but the representation was false. -- When the false statements was reported, SPS Inc. knew they were false but made it anyway with reckless abandon -- The fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that my spouse and I, and the public in general rely on it as true. Whereas, the Credit Reporting Agencies did in fact rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation and as a result, my family and I have suffered enormous harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation. 

[ D ]. ] Account # XXXX aka # XXXX should have been removed from my credit files 7.5 yrs. from the " Date Of First Delinquency '' i.e. ( XX/XX/XXXX ) according to all three credit reporting agencies. 

[ E ]. Please take note of the intentional misrepresentation of a critical material facts as well as deception at EXHIBIT-7, a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Report at highlighted text representing a fraudulent DOFD, then see EXHIBIT-1, & 2, which are XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Credit Report which shows the " DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY '' was already established and proffered as being XX/XX/XXXX, which occured prior to stated Charge-off and closure of the account. 

[ F ]. In support of all allegations Stated herein, see ( EXHIBIT-1, 2, & 3, XXXX 's Credit Reports for XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), also see ( EXHIBIT-4 & -5, XXXX XXXX Credit Report for XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) and ( EXHIBIT-6, & 7, XXXX Credit Report for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ). note that the " DATE OF FIRST DELINQUENCY '' is consistent amoung all reports i.e. ( XX/XX/XXXX ). 

[ G ]. Both the original creditor or a debt collector can not re-age or re-open a negative account. No matter how many times a delinquent account is transferred or sold from one debt collector to another, the date of first delinquency should not change. The ( date of first delinquency ) determines how long a negative account can remain on a credit report. 

[ H ]. ] Please note in EXHIBIT-1 the DOFD had already been reported as XX/XX/XXXX -- then note in  EXHIBIT-7 and EXHIBIT-8 that the credit furnisher SPS. Inc. is still furnishing information to the CFR 's as if account # XXXX is within the 7.5 year statutory reporting period allowed, all being in direct violation of ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( FCRA ), in that the intentional misrepresentation is specifically prohibited by the FDCPA. 

[ I ]. The FCRA effectively provides furnishers immunity from private enforcement for initially providing inaccurate information to a CRA. However, the full panoply of FDCPA remedies is available to redress this precise misconduct. The reason is that the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using any false or deceptive means to collect a debt and explicitly includes a credit reporting protocol that prohibits a collector from knowingly communicating false information to a CRA or failing to disclose to a CRA that a known disputed debt is disputed. Virtually every violation of the FCRA 's ( unenforceable ) requirement for initially accurate reporting may violate this part of the FDCPA when undertaken by a debt collector. 

[ J ]. As to the re-aging violations, Congress amended the FCRA in XX/XX/XXXX to provide explicit rules regarding how to determine the date of an account 's delinquency for credit reporting purposes. The FCRA now specifies how furnisher/collectors should designate the date to ensure that the date of delinquency precedes the date the creditor placed the account for collection. If no date can be determined by these procedures, then the furnisher must establish and follow reasonable procedures to ensure that the date reported precedes the date on which the account is placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation