Thread: mini-miranda

I have a CA who is constantly sending me new info on the accounts that they are trying to validate. Does each letter have to include the mini-miranda?

Hi Demon,

Absolutely.

ALL correspondence must contain the Mini Miranda.

Although in some states an actual lawsuit may not have to.



:)

are you saying that any letter from a CA has to contain mini-miranda? What if it's a letter saying that that account was paid in full and no balance outstanding

Originally posted by zhenya
are you saying that any letter from a CA has to contain mini-miranda? What if it's a letter saying that that account was paid in full and no balance outstanding

Wow Zhenya, I'm a bit stumped on that one. I do believe it's required to be on there for ALL correspondence.

But what has me confused is why would you need the violation if this letter clears the account.

Or is it because you need a violation to push for a deletion? If this is the case do you have any other vioaltions?

???

I sent three validation requests to a CA and the only response I get from them is that this account was paid on such and such date and current balance is 0. Of course there is no mini-miranda in the letter.
Oh, and of course, they are cosistenly verifying with CRAs.

My cancellation letter even had a mini miranda on it.

So, if the CA has a violation, such as omitting the m-m, in order to get deletion, don't you have to contact the CA and explain the violation and have them delete it? Or do you go directly to the CRA with the info for them to delete? Still in a gray area over this.

One of my ca's had violation. Disputed it with them and CRA and it's off report...for now that is. Just wondering who initiated the deletion.

Nikki

Just found this from another poster:

FTC Staff Commentary

Section 807(11) requires the debt collector to "disclose clearly in all communications made to collect a debt or to obtain information about a consumer, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose," except where section 804 provides otherwise.

1. Oral communications. A debt collector must make the required disclosures in both oral and written communications.

2. Disclosure to consumers. When a debt collector contacts a consumer and clearly discloses that he is seeking payment of a debt, he need not state that all information will be used to collect a debt, since that should be apparent to the consumer. The debt collector need not repeat the required disclosure in subsequent contacts.

A debt collector may not send the consumer a note saying only "please call me right away" unless there has been prior contact between the parties and the collector is thus known to the consumer.

3. Disclosures to third parties. Except when seeking location information, the debt collector must state in the first communication with a third party that he is attempting to collect the debt and that information will be used for that purpose, but need not do so in subsequent communications with that party.

Yes sir.....that's the answer I needed.

Four20nik,

No, the CRA won't do anything. They don't care if the CA violated. They are on the CA's side.

Zhenya,

How many times have they verified w/out validating?You need to send an intent to sue to their VP of consumer affairs. Go to the BBB online site and look up the company's name and the info for the VP will be on there. If you have 4 violations, including no mini-miranda, than you have enough to go after them. They are WAY over due a good suing!

They have verified at least three times without validating.

Given that the CA in questions is GulfState Credit I think that everyone will agree that a trip to court is long overdue.

Now I'll be collecting information if I can sue for more than one violation, what is the maximum amount that I can sue for. (I know it's $1K per violatin, but I think I can go for more under the California Civil Code). Of course the purpose will not be to collect money (although I will not be saying no if they offer), but to get the deletion and to get people the ammo for future cases.

OK. Why would they state the communication is an attempt to collect the debt if all of the debt is paid? I think you would have a hard time proving the lack of the mini miranda is a violation in this kind of case. This whole situation is what the nutcase letter is all about, so I would suggest it.

Another thing that might work is disputing the tl with the CRA and including copies of the nutcase, validation requests, etc. I would not acknowledge whatever they sent you. Then of course the Intent to File Suit along with a copy of the suit you plan on filing would be persuasive.

Sorry if this seems litigous. I have be spending most of the day working on paperwork for a friendly little OC of mine. Good luck.