Ok, I'll make this as consice as possible here. This is a 1-2 punch I did with a CA in WI over a $350 account for a phone company that I figure some of that amount is mine but am not paying it until they prove it since I'm guessing a lot is "interest"...Here's the breakdown: July 04 Send first validation letter CRRR ---- no response August 25th Send follow up including reference to estopple and photocopy of original CRRR green card. ------ no response September 27th Sent ITS letter stating their violations of verifying the account with TU and not validating the debt with me in the meantime. Threatened to file with FTC,BBB and sue by 10/13/03. October 6th No response from them so I filed an official complaint with the FTC. October 13th came and went and I did not have time to file suit. I am a full time student and work full time... October 22nd Recieved a letter from them...finally!!!!! I am guessing they got the complaint with the FTC. Here's the letter: Dear Ms. XX We are in receipt of your dispute letters and have been actively pursuing obtaining the itemized statement to validate this debt. We have a request in to TDS Metrocom and are currently waiting for this to come in. I will put a rush on obtaining this for you so we may determine what is owed. The account was recieved in our office in February of 2002 and you were given 30 days to dispute per statute. The consumer notice printed on our initial letter to you on Feb 18,2002 states: Unless you notify this office with 30 days after recieving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion therof, this office will assume this debt is valid". As no dispute was recieved we assumed it to be valid. The first such dispute came via TU in April of this year, at which time your account was flagged as a dispute with them. Our company policy, however, is to look into all written disputes regardless of when they are received. Your first written dispute was recieved in July of this year and we are in process of obtaining the validation you are seeking. I apologize for it taking so long but I hope to have an answer to you by the end of this month. Sincerely, Stupid Moron Compliance and Inventory Manager. Couple points here: 1. The account has NEVER been flagged as in dispute on my TU report and I have copies since July to prove this. 2.I have NO recollection of recieving the initial letter...and they can't prove it since they didn't send it CRRR 3.If they have been activley pursuing this since July why the hell haven't they contacted me until now and after an estoppel and ITS letter? 4. The letter says it's company policy to look into disputes even after the 30 day notification..hmm, I thought that was the law! I've heard of a lawyer in town that deals with Collection Agencies...should I go for it? The worst that could happen is the CA shows up in court with the validation but at that point isn't it about the fact that I'm suing over their negligence to respond to my letters, mark the account in dispute and for verifying with TU when they admit in the letter that they haven't been able to validate it yet because they don't have the proof? Advice, pointers, please. I am 23, graduating next semester and could use a few thousand dollars!!
Is the lawyer willing to take the case on contigency? If it goes to court there is no gurantee you would win. My guess is there is a 30-60% chance you would.
I haven't contacted the lawyer yet...that will be the first thing I ask. May I ask why you say theres such small % that I will win in this matter? I feel like theres more of a 75-80% chance. Am I missing something completley? One other thing the account is still under SOL...for another 3 years or so.
Because Judges to tend rule in favor of businesses unless there is evidence of huge mistakes on their part. The judge is likely to see this as a company going after a debt and you trying to escape it. I certainly am not saying this attitude is right just they way it is, especially in small claims and State court.
FDCPA § 809. Validation of debts (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. Read also § 807. False or misleading representations , then read § 813. Civil liability ... It is my understanding that CA cannot be held responsible for not responding in 30 days. FCRA defines the 30-day period (§ 611 (a)(1)(A)), but it's about a response from CRA, not CA. FDCPA deals with CAs, but doesn't set any time period. I think the only "violation" is their assumption that the debt is valid, but in any case, read FCRA and FDCPA again. If I'm wrong, I beleve the Gurus will correct me ...
The CA verified it with TU, before (in May) or after (July), or both. The only way they've violated Section 809, is if the verification came after they received and signed for the dispute, and unfortunatly for you, that's only one violation. There's no requirement that they validate according to any time-table (in most states), theres no requirement that they validate at all (again in most states), they just can't engage in anything that is "Collection Activity" until after they do. Estepel is just your inverse of the 809 30-day policy... If they don't hear from you within 30 days, they have the right to assume that the debt is valid, by using estepel, you're argueing whats good for them is good for you, if they can't get back to you within 30 days, you have just as much right to assume that the debt never existed. That assumption ends the minute that they receive any type of writen notice that you disagree with that assumption. Some CAs argue, you have the 30 days, after that we don't have to validate, i've dealt with one company like that, but the clause that says that the assumption of validity is the only thing that happens on the 31st day is the golden ticket. It doesn't say that the law considers the debt valid, just that the CA may, until you say otherwise assume that it is valid. Now if they've updated the tradeline since July, then yes, its a violation, especially if there isn't a notice that the account is in dispute...
How about this: skdigital said "[color=0066FF]I have NO recollection of recieving the initial letter...and they can't prove it since they didn't send it CRRR[/color]". So, if they cannot prove when the 30 day period started (receiving the letter), they cannot prove when it ended. Therefore, they don't have even the option of assuming the debt is valid ... This is why I said "[color=0066FF]I think the only "violation" is their assumption that the debt is valid[/color] and this is why I think § 807. False or misleading representations is only applicable.
Remember though that the law does seem to have a double standard on communications. The CA if their records show that a letter was printed is allowed to assume that unless said letter is returned, that that letter was received within a reasonable amount of time. However, for us to invoke our 809 and other rights, we not only need to provide proof that we printed the letter, but that that letter was received by them. Yes, we can invoke our 809 rights without mailing it certified, however if we don't have proof that they received it, we don't have as much proof when they violate 809.
So if you send estoppel, do they then have to have the item deleted from CRs? I am dealing with a CA that has not send me validation (they just ignored me). Should I next send estoppel and if i do, do they legally have to remove the TL? i re-disputed with EX and asked them to reinvestigate ... thanks tboy
Re: Re: A goldmine 4 violations? PLS READ You're right Vg. [IMO] there is an 807 violation in here, but it's because they said your right is gone. I'm working on a response for this. I've been seeing this a lot lately. Amish has the same thing going on right now, from an atty. no less. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=382555#post382555 .
Re: Re: Re: A goldmine 4 violations? PLS READ thank you for the responses, as things are becoming clearer now. i think the more time passes, the more solid case i will have. ok, so from my understanding at this point I have (2) violations: 1.Verifying with CRA before validating with myself the debtor (Section § 809) since the tradeline WAS updated before they validated with myself. 2. § 807 - I did not recieve a letter from them, but I do agree that this is a weak violation because a judge will tend to think that I threw it out or am lying. Now, what about the fact that in their letter to me they said "The first such dispute came via TU in April of this year, at which time your account was flagged as a dispute with them." I have about three copies of my TU report since July, and not one have the account flagged as "disputed by consumer" as they stated in the letter. I know that TU puts this on because a different CA that I'm validating with DID put it on and the notation reflects on my report...this company has NEVER flagged it. Now, IHO that is ANOTHER misrepresentation,no? Also: FCRA § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. This refers to the fact that they have updated with TU since I requested validation.
Re: Re: Re: A goldmine 4 violations? PLS READ So, would no flagging the account as stated be a violation?
Re: Re: Re: A goldmine 4 violations? PLS READ The 807 violation isn't because you didn't get a letter from them... Its because they are using an incorrect interpretation of 809 to imply that you forfeited your rights to validation (and the validation induced end of collection activities) by not responding within 30 days of the letter that they allegedly sent earlier...
Re: Re: Re: Re: A goldmine 4 violations? PLS READ That's one too SK. Just not the 807 Jam's talking about. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: A goldmine 4 violations? PLS READ Here's what it looks like so far, BUTCH can correct me if I'm wrong... This is being nitpicky, some of them will carry more weight than others... FCRA (Section 623(a)(1) & 623(a)(3)) -- but if you disputed it after july and its still not updated to show that the account is in dispute, it would be a (b) sueable violation. FDCPA (Section 807) -- false & misleading representation that the cease of collection activities provision of Section 809 is forfeited after they claim they mail something, and it isn't disputed within 30 days of that alleged letters supposed recipt by the consumer. FDCPA (Section 807) -- false & misleading representation that they have marked the account in dispute with TU, when it is not marked as in dispute with TU. FDCPA (Section 809) -- continued collection activity following the receipt of the validation of debts request for verifying the account with TU after they received the validatin request. FDCPA (Section 807(8)) -- reporting of false credit information, including the fact that the account is in dispute.
