Connect with us

Law/Judiciary

FCRA Prohibits Unfair Actions Of Settlement And Reporting Companies To Uphold Law And Your Rights

Published

on

There are a few actions that are prohibited by the FCRA when it comes to debt settlement or collection no matter whatever the type of debt or how small or big the debt is. As for you, the FCRA provides with a lot of assenting rights and actions that you can take if you feel there is an FCRA violation by any of the agencies, creditors or companies that deal with your credit history and debts.

All these prohibitions and regulatory measures are incorporated by the FCRA to ensure that you are not discriminated against, victimized or abused on the basis of your financial history, credit rating or the amount of outstanding debts.

The specific embargoes

The FCRA law also restricts the actions that the consumer reporting agencies can take. The specific provisions and impediments imposed on the credit reporting agencies include:

  • Outdated negative info: The law prohibits the credit reporting agencies to include in your report any negative information that is outdated. Usually, in most of the cases a credit reporting agency cannot include or let remain ant negative information in your report that is more than 7 years old for debt settlement and bankruptcies, or reports of civil judgments that is more than 10 years old. All these should be considered as obsolete and must be struck off from your report. However, you will have to proactive from your part to ensure that all old information are erased from your report as the credit reporting agencies usually have the tendency not to be proactive and remove any outdated information unless you bring it to their notice yourself.
  • Access to anyone: The law also prohibits the credit report agencies from offering access to your credit report and your financial life to just anyone and everyone. They must keep its confidential as you have the right to keep your financial history very private. However, such access can be given by the reporting agencies to other people and businesses under specific circumstances and also with a valid need to view it such as an employer, a landlord, a lender or insurer. Individuals or businesses may also be provided access to your credit history without an actual need only if you grant permission in writing or otherwise must be denied outright.

However, there is an exception made for the trucking industry when it comes to an employer or a potential employer seeking your history without permission.

Common FCRA violations

You are always suggested to work with reputed and experienced debt settlement companies as most of such relief providers violate the FCRA rule. Working with a reliable company will ensure that your rights are protected and at the same time you have your purpose fulfilled. You can click here to know more about debt settlement companies that are reliable and high in demand for their high rate of success. Choose one in your area and rest assured to see your debt reduced, managed and cleared off in a short period of time.

However, if you do not work with a reliable debt settlement company then you may run into the risk of FCRA rules being violated left, right and center. It is then you will have to contact an expert debt relief attorney right away to fight for your right and against the possible mistreatments by the debt settlement company you worked with. There are a few common types of FCRA violations that inferior debt settlement companies are known and found to make. If you experience any one of these following situations then report it to the attorney fight against the debt settlement companies or even the consumer reporting agencies. The violations include:

  • Reporting on a voluntarily closed account as active
  • Reporting on an account that is more than 7 years old
  • Failing to report a debt that has been discharged
  • Reporting a timely payment as late
  • Reporting bankruptcy that is more than 10 years old
  • Reporting an incorrect balance due
  • Failing to remove information due to identity theft
  • Reporting information that are derived from a history of any stranger that may have a similar Social Security Number or first or last names
  • Failing to remove information within 30 days after it has been verified
  • Failing to investigate a dispute reasonably and
  • Providing your credit report without your permission to a business or an individual who donot have a valid need.

As for the debt settlement companies the law prevents taking any advance fee from you without their debt relief service is complete or partially effective.

Ideally, a debt settlement company will portray that they are entitled to charge advance fees from you based on the total amount of debt that you want to want them to settle with your creditor through negotiation. This is a percentage that will usually range anywhere between 15 and 30% of the entire debt amount of your program. However, this is not the not the only fee that the debt settlement company will charge from you.

One of the several problems of such fees and its structure is that it will leave you in a worse position than before you sought their assistance in most of the times. There is a very common timeline of incident occurring when you deal with a debt settlement company. This includes:

  • When you signup with an debt settlement company charging advance fees and agree to pay it for a period of the first 12 months of your program,
  • When the entire or an extensive portion of your monthly payment is taken by the debt settlement company as its fees instead of creating a trust account to save for the lump sum settlement amount
  • When at some point within 36 to 60 months of the program you are sued by your creditor and you are left with very limited options with very little or no money in the savings account
  • When the company points at the provisions in the contract after hearing the complaints from you and denies representing you in the court.

In such situations you must find an attorney to defend your debt file bankruptcy in the worst case.

 

 

Continue Reading

Law/Judiciary

Travel Agent Charged With N1.3m Visa Fraud

Published

on

A 40-year-old travel agent, Eze Sunday, was on Monday arraigned at a Yaba Chief Magistrates’ Court in Lagos for allegedly obtaining N1.3 million from a client on the pretext of procuring a Turkey visa for her.
Sunday is facing a three-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing and obtaining by false pretences.
The defendant, who resides in Yaba, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The Prosecutor, Mr J.I. Eboseremen, told the court that the defendant committed the offences sometime in January on Association Avenue in Igando, Lagos.
He said that the defendant stole the N1.3 million from the complainant, Miss Charity Obeta, which she gave him through a United Bank of Africa electronic transfer, for her travel logistics.
According to him, the defendant promised to procure a Turkey visa, get a return flight ticket and hotel reservation for Obeta, but failed.
Eboseremen alleged that the defendant absconded with the money and refused to take the complainant’s calls.
“My lord, the complainant’s intended travel date was drawing close but she could not contact the defendant.
“His colleagues at workplace told her that the defendant travelled and did not intend to return to the office.
Obeta reported the case to the police, and the defendant was tracked and arrested,” the prosecutor said.
He said that the alleged offences contravened Sections 411, 314 and 287 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015 (Revised).
The Chief Magistrate, Mrs Oluwatoyin Oghere, released the defendant on bail in the sum of N2 million with two sureties each in like sum.
Oghere said that one of the sureties must be a blood relation of the defendant and reside within the court’s jurisdiction.
She ordered that the sureties must be gainfully employed and show evidence of three years’ tax payment to Lagos State Government.
Oghere adjourned the case until September 11 for trial.

Continue Reading

Law/Judiciary

Remove Nwosu’s Name As Guber Candidate, Court Orders INEC

Published

on

The Federal High Court, Abuja, last Monday, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to remove the name of Uche Nwosu as a governorship candidate in the last election held in Imo State.
Justice Inyang Ekwo voided Nwosu’s candidacy on the grounds of double nomination by two political parties, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Action Alliance (AA), in violation of section 37 of the Electoral Act.
The ruling came as Nwosu, a son-in-law to the immediate-past Governor of the state, Rochas Okorocha, is currently pursuing an election petition at the state’s Governorship Election Petition Tribunal as the candidate of AA, challenging the victory of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Emeka Ihedioha, in the March 11 poll.
In his judgment on Monday, Justice Ekwo upheld the case of the plaintiffs, the Action People’s Party (APP) and its Deputy National Chairman, Mr Uche Nnadi, to the effect that Nwosu’s governorship candidature was null and void on the grounds of multiplicity of nominations as a governorship candidate of both the APC and AA.
According to him, the nomination of Nwosu by AA as a governorship candidate is invalid, null and void, having been made at the pendency of similar nomination of the 2nd defendant (Nwosu) by the All Progressives Congress for the same position.
The judge noted that Nwosu affirmed to be the APC’s governorship candidate in his statement on oath sworn before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
The judge similarly declared that Nwosu “has not been validly nominated by the 3rd defendant (AA) as its governorship candidate for the state governorship election having been made at the pendency of the order of Justice Valentine Ashi of the Abuja High Court recognising the 2nd defendant as the candidate of the All Progressives Congress for the Imo 2019 governorship election.”
He noted that Nwosu participated in the APC’s primaries held on October 6, 2018 and was subsequently nominated as the party’s governorship candidate.
While laying claim to the APC’s governorship ticket, amidst stiff opposition from members of the party, he was said to have on October 9, 2018, obtained an order of Justice Valentine Ashi (now deceased) of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, recognising him as the valid candidate of the party.
In the midst of this, Nwosu was also offered the ticket of the AA.
In his judgment, Justice Ekwo said, “There is no controversy that, on October 6, 2018, the 2nd defendant (Nwosu) had himself nominated as the governorship candidate of the APC.

Continue Reading

Law/Judiciary

Enugu Police Nab Suspected Armed Robbers, Recover Pistol

Published

on

The Enugu State Police Command has nabbed two suspected armed robbers terrorising Abakpa Community in the outskirts of Enugu metropolis.
The police also recovered one locally made Beretta pistol from the suspects.
The Command’s Public Relations Officer, SP Ebere Amaraizu, said this in a statement made available to newsmen yesterday in Enugu.
Amaraizu said that the suspects were arrested on August 16 by Anti-Cult Unit of the command after a raid on a black spot in the community.
He said: “Following an attack on Abakpa Police Division operatives by hoodlums, the Anti-Cultism Unit of Command went on raid at Umuchigbo axis of Abakpa Community.
“The operatives arrested one Chekwube Igwe and one Teddy Otti both of Vikings confraternity, who have been terrorising Abakpa Community and its environs.
“The police operatives also recovered a local pistol from them.’’
The police spokesman said that the suspects had been helping police operatives in their investigation on their nefarious activities.
“They will be charged to court as soon as investigation is over,’’ he said.

Continue Reading

Trending