I sent out a validation #1 letter to CA and today received this letter from them Dear Holis: In reply to your letter of August 5, 2003 we are not required to furnish the information you request. If you are asking for an itemized statement we will be happy to obtain one for you upon your written request although that is not a requirement under the FDCPA.. If you are alleging that we are committing a mail fraud we will be forced to file suit against you for defamation as we cannor allow such groundless allegations to go unanswered. Please clarify your remarks in this regard. Very truly yours, Scumbag CA I was going to send out the 2nd validation letter today. Should I go ahead and send it or go to a different letter. Just wondering if any of you got a chuckle out of this also? Also even though there is only an account # and no amount of debt on letter - do they still have to put mini miranda on letter?
What we have here is the personification of Vince Lombardi's famous statement "The best defense is a good offense". How would I interpret this letter? I would read it as saying "we have no way of validating the debt, and we want you to think we will sue you for defamation if you ask again, so pay up now." Now, what they are missing is this little fact - one of the elements of defamation is that a deliberately false and libelous statement is published (communicated) to a third party. Last I heard, sending someone a letter, even if it says "I think you are a mean son-of-a-bitch and you drink the blood of babies for breakfast" does not qualify as publishing anything to any third party.
So what do i have them on so far ? I think i have : 1) Did not update CRA with "Consumer disputes" 2) No mini miranda anywhere on the letter 3) Verified with the cra while refusing to validate for me. Any other things i can nail them on ? Thanks!
Re: Re: CA not required to furnish info???? Give them some more time to rack up some more violations. Remember, your Validation request suspends all collection activity until it is complied with. Their letter basically says they will not validate. You can also add 4) Collection activity without complying with validation request. And if you want to play their game 5) Extortion (for threatening to sue you if you try to enforce your rights under law) 6) Abuse of process if they do sue you for defamation, since their attorney should know they haven't got a case on taht charge.
Re: Re: CA not required to furnish info???? Also look at 807 - False & misleading representations. Pick and choose in there!
