I sent a DV for a Collection to a JDB of one name, I know that the JDB operates as another JDB name in different locations. They send back an Account Verification Statement as JDB with the second name. Affected Consumer My Current Address My Last 4 SSN Re: A 3rd JDB Midland Account # 666......This NTL does not appear on my files at this moment. ( This letter response is not on Midlands letterhead) Account History: OC- Bank Guy Credit Card OC Account # 7777 Date Account Established July 4 2004 Bank Guy Credit Card Company Credit Card City, USA 92315 Charge Off Amount $3620 Charge Off Date 10/30/2008 Current Owner of Account: Midland Funding Current Owner Address: Same City as Original JDB Current Balance as of June 6, 2014 $4980 Customer Service Tel Number: 954-losers The Above amount represents goods or services purchased via credit account extended to the account holder by the Original Creditor listed above that has been duly assigned to Midland funding. This communication is from a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any info will be used only for these purposes. If you are under bankruptcy protection - This communication does not constitute an attempt to collect. End of page. The 2nd page is a Xerox copy of a statement from OC from 2008. Handwritten is the new Midland Funding Account # This statement does not detail any of the transactions or shows a signature. End of page The 3rd page is a copy of the Creditor Disclosure Statement that I included in my DV letter to JDB #1 This was filled in in blue pen by hand. It includes the Account # of the OC only. It show an address that is not mine. The space for: What are the terms of assignment for this account? Was left blank. The Disclosure statement states: Your claim cannot be considered if any portion of this form is not completed and returned with the required documents. Is this considered a Dunning Letter form Midland even though it is not addressed form them? How would I respond back to the the 1st and 2nd JDB's? Any violations here?
JDB #2 (their local name) has just called me and left me a message. I included this at the end of my DV letter: All calls are inconvenient at all times on all numbers. I revoke any express consent you think you may have to call my cell phone. How did they get my number?
#1, $1,000. Inconvenient communications. You were chaudry'ed a court ruling that the industry likes to abuse says that the concept of validation is nothing more than saying 'yep, you owe it.' Where the industry fails to continue is to READ beyond those four words. The case involved two situations and two situations ONLY! #1 expenses due by contract, not yet incurred. #2 legal expenses where revealing an invoice MAY violate attorney client privilege, or divulge legal strategies which they considered. Unless the debt included those the precedence doesn't apply. 7 years following charge off. Is it still in your state's SOL? If not, it's a false representation of the amount character and legal status of the debt.
They called and left a message again. Just to call them regarding an important matter. They list their phone number.
Ok, ignore the SOL part then. So the debt has a 'valid' legal status. Are the debt's amount and character 'valid'? Not with the documentation that they've provided. You still have them on multiple inconvenient messages. Now, the "DISCLOSURE FORM" in the templates, frankly it's rubbish. Validation serves TWO purposes, unless what you are requesting serves either and/or both of those purposes, it doesn't rise to being required for validation, and you would have a hard leg to stand on in court. 1) To verify that you are the correct debtor. 2) To verify that the amount, character, and legal status of the debt is valid; including the inclusions of any fees, interest, service charges, or miscellany charges not authorized by law and/or the contract creating the account. If you request an application, that goes to #1; if you request billing statements, that goes to #2; if you request the contract creating the debt, that goes to #2. If you are requesting proof that they've been referred or purchased the account, you are now going into where what you are requesting is not VALIDATION. I've only had one case where there was any argument that I could make where the possession of the hot potato was murky enough to be able to justify requesting proof of ownership of the hot potato. I will use that as an example. JDB 1 buys the account, sells the account the same day, no contact ever made, next week appears on my credit report. JDB 2 buys the account, sells the account the same day, no contact ever made. JDB 3 buys the account, sells the account the same day, no contact ever made. JDB 4 buys the account, sends a dunning letter that I receive the same day as JDB 1 appears on my credit report. Call JDB 1, we don't have the account, call JDB 2, we don't have the account, call JDB 3, we don't have the account, call JDB 4. Meanwhile, send JDB 1 a validation letter, by doing the 1:2 punch. Send JDB 4 a validation letter. Very rarely, will you see 4 JDBs essentially obtain the account at nearly the same time. BUT in that case, and in that case only, if JDB 1 would have verified the account, I would have been able to justify demanding proof of when they had purchased it and when they had sold it.
So I am pretty certain now that all 3 JDB are Midland funding now, with local presence. Whats my next letter to Midland? ITS C&D Limited? I wonder if they will call my telephone that I have demanded that they not call today? I shoul dignore there calls and just keep the recorded contact evidence, VM?
You already told them to limit communication, they refuse to oblige. I would ITS with a complaint drafted naming all three companies as codefendants.
Wow This is what I did with the first 2 JDB's. I wasn't sure If I should send one addressed to Midland. Even though they are all at the same fax numbers ;-)
