The letter you received sounds just like one of the canned replies that a number of consumers, who also sent timely validation requests on accounts that were not theirs, received in response to their FDCPA validation request letter. Did their reply say something along the lines of (as reported by several other consumers): "We have received your dispute but we are unable to investigate at this time. You have provided insufficient information to substantiate your claim. We will complete our investigation within 30 days of receipt of the following information: >Specific information you dispute >An explanation of the basis of your dispute >All supporting documentation to substantiate your claim. Examples may include but is not limited to, photocopy of your driver's license, the identification page of your passport, proof of residency at time of service, receipts, etc. >A valid phone number to contact you. Please call our office to resolve this matter..." In your dispute and validation request letter: Did you say in your letter that you disputed the debt? Did you say that this was not your account? Did you say that you have never had an Alltel account? Did you request validation of the debt? Did you send your letter CRRR, within 30 days of receiving their letter? Could you post the literal text of their initial letter (minus any account specific data), including any FDCPA required notification of your right to dispute and request validation? Could you post the literal text of their reply letter (minus any account specific data), including any FDCPA required verbiage along the lines of "this is an attempt to collect a debt..."?
Dealing with Afni Ontrack - here goes . . . Initial letter from Afni: This account has been acquired by our agency for collection. We believe it is in your best interest to resolve this account. We may report information about your account to credit bureaus. If you have questions, please contact our office . ... . Unless you nitify this office within 30 days afer receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt or any portion thereof, this office will asume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt or any portion there of, this office will: obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgement and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. This is an attempt to collect a debt. ANy info obtained will be used for the purpose. You have the right to inspect your credit. This letter is from a debt collector. Please see recerse for privacy statement and cc payment options. Dept if Insurance Permit # My Validation Request, sent immediately following receipt of this letter well within the 30 days by CMRR This alleged debt is disputed in its entirety. I am requesting proof imediately. I did not sign the letter. REsponse from AFNI We have received your dispute but we are unable to investigate at this time. You have provided insufficient information to substantiate your claim. We will complete our investigation within 30 days of receipt of the following information: >Specific information you dispute >An explanation of the basis of your dispute >All supporting documentation to substantiate your claim. Examples may include but is not limited to, photocopy of your driver's license, the identification page of your passport, proof of residency at time of service, receipts, etc. >A valid phone number to contact you. Please call our office to resolve this matter..." This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any infrmation obtained will be used for that purpose. You have the right to inspect your credit. This letter is from a debt collector. Dept of Ins #
Did their initial letter include, "This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any infrmation obtained will be used for that purpose. This letter is from a debt collector."
Interesting "weasel words". They admit receiving a "dispute", and throw it back on the consumer. They don't specifically admit receiving a request for validation, or that they have any obligation to provide it, although their own letter says they would send it if the consumer disputes the debt, the consumer clearly DID dispute the entire debt, and the consumer's "I am requesting proof" clearly does just that. Both letters state they are an attempt to collect a debt, and the information they are requesting is to do that. File written complaints with your state AG, Illinois state AG Lisa Madigan, FTC, and BBB. Since you cannot know which path, if any, will achieve a proper response, send your complaint to all. Realize that your end-game may be to sue, so you might as well lay out their actions clearly, since AFNI will probably receive a copy via one of your complaints, and you are also writing these complaint letters assuming they may end up in front of a judge. These complaint letters are to document AFNI's actions at this time, to clarify their legal obligations in the context of what they may do, or continue to do, in the future. Essentially, if they put negative information on your reports, make additional or repeated pulls of your credit reports, or engage in other illegal collection activity on the unvalidated debt, you want to support the position that their actions are "willfull", "intentional", and possibly even "malicious", against their probably defense that it was a "bona fide" error, and that they had systems in place to comply with the law. Your complaint is that you received this collection letter from AFNI, that this is not your account, you have no information on it, and you do not owe it, that you disputed and requested validation of the debt to AFNI within 30 days of receipt of their letter, and that they have not provided ANY proof of the alleged debt, or any information at all about the alleged debt, yet they are continuing to try to collect on it, in violation of FDCPA, and are also threatening to damage your credit for an alleged debt they have not validated. Include copies of their first letter, your reply, your Return Receipt, and their reply. At the bottom of your letter, itemize what you are including: "Enclosed: 1) Debt collection letter from AFNI, received xx/xx/xx 2) Dispute and validation request letter, sent Certified by me to AFNI on xx/xx/xx 3) Copy of Certified Receipt dated xx/xx/xx 4) Copy of Return Receipt, showing receipt of my letter by AFNI on xx/xx/xx 5) Copy of collection letter from AFNI, received xx/xx/xx. This is the total extent of their reply. No validation or documentation of the debt was included." Keep a file copy of what you send to each party, including your cover letter and all attachments.
Sorry it's not supposed to be all together, the..unless you notify this office is supposed to be a paragraph of itself.
In other words, to comply, it must stand out, per FTC or court decisions? Or are you drawing on recommended "boilerplate", from ACA or other sources?
I know ACA has something about that, but our attorney has also advised us the same thing that, it's not supposed to stand out more, i.e. no bolder or larger than the rest of the letter. But the validation paragraph, is supposed to be by itself.
Probably in response to some past FDCPA case where they buried it in fine print. There would probably be no compliance issue with using a larger font, but if you use the same font size, consumers' attorneys would argue it was obscurred if buried in other language. Courts have had little problem in recognizing that for legally required notification to be compliant, consumers must be aware it is there. That rules out hiding it, as well as overshadowing it with other conflicting statements. There is lots of old "truth in lending" case law and regulations on effective consumer disclosure.
Link to other thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/Discussions/credit-talk/t-afni-trouble-65742.html
Case involves an account included in bankruptcy, AFNI notified thru bankruptcy court, account still showing on credit reports as current collection account with current balance, repeated disputes thru CRAs with no correction, etc. Wesley v. AFNI: http://www.alabamaconsumer.com/CM/Custom/wesley v afni complaint 070302-0001.pdf "5. Plaintiff filed bankruptcy in or about January 31, 2006, with a case number of 06-295-TOM7. 6. On Schedule â??Fâ? â??CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMSâ? Plaintiff listed the following creditor: Afni, Inc. P.O. Box 3427 Bloomington, IL 61702 2 Opened 12/01/04 Collection Charter Communicatio[n] $139.00 Account Number xxxx5000 7. On March 2, 2006, the Court issued a â??Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlinesâ? which was sent to all creditors, including AFNI. 8. AFNI did not show up at the meeting of creditors, did not file any objection to discharge of Plaintiff, and did not file any request to determine whether its debt should be discharged. 9. On May 2, 2006, the bankruptcy court discharged the Plaintiff by written order that was sent to AFNI. 10. Despite the court order, AFNI continued to report Plaintiffâ??s account as having a balance owed." ... "23. It is a practice of AFNI to maliciously, willfully, recklessly, wantonly and/or negligently ignore and refuse to follow the requirements of the FCRA, the FDCPA, the bankruptcy courtâ??s discharge order, and state law. 24. All actions taken by employees, agents, servants, or representatives of any type for AFNI were taken in the line and scope of such individualâ??s (or entitiesâ??) employment, agency or representation. 25. All actions taken by AFNI were done with malice, were done willfully, and were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that its actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that its actions were taken in violation of the law. 26. AFNI has engaged in a pattern and practice of wrongful and unlawful behavior with respect to accounts and consumer reports and as such AFNI is subject to punitive damages and statutory damages and all other appropriate measures to punish and deter similar future conduct by AFNI and similar companies."
21 more BBB complaints closed since last updated 7 days ago, on 4-02-07. That makes 104 since 2-26-07, for 104 per 40 days, or 2.6 per day, a rate of about 78 per month. The rate may be rising. "The Bureau processed a total of 555 complaints about this company in the last 36 months, our standard reporting period. Of the total of 555 complaints closed in 36 months, 345 were closed in the last year."
Complaint update. According to consumer, Afni is claiming that an old GTE account is tied to address husband never lived at, but sister in law did live at. Although Afni sent a dunning letter to husband, they already knew SIL's name and association with the alleged account address, yet they were NOT dunning her. SIL claims did NOT open account, did not have that number, and that the account she did have there would not have been closed at the time this alleged account was closed, since she closed her account there a number of months later when she moved. Does NOT appear to be id theft. Appears to be Afni mis-tracing names, and using their access to relative names (presumably Accurint, not CRs) to imply that some relative they CAN locate owes it, or that that relative has an obligation to "voluntarily" pay, as there appears to be some confusion whether this is actually in the dunned party's name, or the relative's name, and this might be id theft, or just a mixup, but you don't want them to get in trouble, and we can settle this for a special price. Similar to other reports about Afni sending dunning letters to relatives (children of long dead parents, parents of children who moved out years ago, no bills from OC received in all that time), it appears that Afni is using its access to relative information to send dunning letters addressed to an alleged debtor, or even to relatives of a name match, but sent to current addresses of relatives not currently associated with the name match. They are also apparently willing to attempt to extract payment from the party they ARE dunning, thru such arguments as "You can settle this for only $xxx, and work it out with your (implied deadbeat relative/id thief, but we would never say that) later". Similar "settlement" offers have been made to others in response to their reply that this was not their account. Erroneous skip tracing and dunning, but "plausibly deniable" as a bona fide error. Third party disclosure, but again "plausibly deniable" as a bona fide error. Reminds me of the bible scam in "Paper Moon". http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Moon-Ryan-ONeal/dp/B00009RDGA Real slick! http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/3894/page/6 "17 hours 24 minutes ago by Karen P OK here is an update on my situation with AFNI. I sent a letter to AFNI to dispute the validity of the collections. They finally responded stating that they "are unable to investigate at this time" and that I provided insufficient information to substantiate my claim!? WHAT!? I again attempted to contact Verizon, they were already closed. I again, attempted to contact AFNI (866-857-7203), I actually spoke to a CSR named Carl, who was quite friendly. Anyway, he said that this debt was from an account possibly with GTE, who Verizon bought, from back in 1993. He pulled up some data base and gave an address associated with this phone bill, it was my husband's sister's address from back then. He said this account was closed in Feb. 1993. My husband never lived with his sister. He even gave me his sister's name!!! He was wanting me to commit to payment now and then work it out with his sister later. I said I did not want to do that. He said we could settle for $100.00. Give me a break!!! I spoke with my sister in law, and she never had that telephone number, not to mention, ever using my husband's info to open a phone bill. She stated that she would never even had terminated service at that time, she moved from that address in July of 1993. This is getting more and more ridiculous. "
A reply to the above consumer complaint on complaintsboard.com, apparently from an Afni employee. This is interesting, not for any accurate statement of law regarding who owes a debt, but from what this employee BELIEVES is the law, apparently from Afni's employee training. It illustrates an additional possiblity to why people are getting dunned for bills they are sure they do not owe. Afni may be dunning not only erroneously skip-traced similar name matches, but also any person with matching ADDRESS, regardless of name. They may simply create "accounts" in their system, with last for SSN digit "password", for ANY name that shows up at an address on a debt they buy, without regard to what original consumer name was on that debt. They then may be sending out their dunning letters to ALL such so-called "matches", and just wait to see who will pay. The legal "cover" is their claim that ANY resident can be billed for "utilities" provided to that residence. This mainly applies, under some state utility laws, to utilities such as electricity and gas, which in a sense all residents use by living there. But Afni is primarily billing for phone and cable. There are strong arguments based on regulatory and criminal law that these services are "owned" by the name on the account, not just some general service delivered to all residents of the address for which equity might argue that they all benefitted equally. In addition, their "matches" are against databases obtained perhaps from billing or post office information (perhaps Accurint), and will NOT have an accurate record of the dates of the comings and goings of different consumers sufficient to determine who lived at an address when. This could explain, for example, the consumer reporting that after selling his house, with Charter Cable service terminated, he got billed by Afni for service allegedly provided to that address AFTER the house was sold, but Charter did NOT have any record of such an unpaid account in HIS NAME. Contrary to Afni's frequent claim that many accounts are consumers who let others use their name, or they would have filed a police report for fraud, Afni's own collection practices may be to bill consumers based on a "match" that might not even include a name match, but only address and approximate date, and pull the "relative fraudulent account" tactic to get payment even from consumers who may know it isn't their debt. As this employee implies, Afni claims the consumer's alternatives are to: 1) Confront their relative, accuse them of fraud and theft apparently based on Afni's say-so without even any validation to document anything, turn their relative in to the police, or sue their relative in small claims court, on a debt that was probably NOT fraudulent, probably mis-billed due to Afni or the OC's errors, probably not even be the relative's; or: 2) Pay Afni. This may explain why, as reported by consumers in response to a validation request, Afni generally replies with an ambiguous letter implying the consumer must provide additional information before they can complete their "investigation", thus evading validation, or sends alleged "validation" printed on their own paper with nothing directly from the OC, leaving off the possibility of verifying the correct name on the original OC account. The original account name may be entirely different from the people they are dunning. Most such consumers billed erroneously will be pissed to receive a bill about which they have NO knowledge at all. Afni may be sending such bills to multiple parties, under different names, even on the same original alleged debt. http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/3894/page/6 "14 hours 46 minutes ago by Afni Employee I really am not trying to be rude to any of you. i am telling you honestly that these are true debts. A lot of these debts are from years ago.... and i mean years. some as far as 20yrs old. A lot of customers don't remember "phone #'s" from that long ago, or state that they didn't have service with "that" company. but a lot of things change in 20yrs. like everyone is saying, verizon use to be gte. I guarantee if you work with these collectors they will ask you all the right questions and figure out, or should i say, jog your memory as to where these debts have come from. i honestly doubt that my company could stay open for 70 years if all they were getting was "false" debts or fraud accounts. Important note to all of you. IF you know who the person is that took your name to open an account, i guarantee that this is NOT fraud. when someone has fraud committed against them, they file a police report and legally go after who ever did this to them. A lot of these debts are because of people allowing family members or friends to use there name and the bill never gets paid. --- so when you let your poor mother put her electricity in your name so she could walk through her house at night, but then she got behind on the bills and now you have a collection agency after YOU to pay, YOU now owe this, unless you want to file a police report on your own mother. -- legally you are held responsible, and you will be required to pay this bill. Test me on that, i dare you. also --- if you lived in the house that had the service or knew someone who lived in the house/address where this debt is showing to have come from... yep.. you owe that too. Please prove me wrong. Karen -- by you stating that this is your husbands sister... this is your debt. i suggest you pay it and take your sister to small claims court. but thats just how it legally works. "
Show me... I'd actually be happy to settle a debt that they could show was, in fact, my responsibility. I'd need more evidence than just a phone call from AFNI, of course. What a racket!
Their "logic" appears to be this: If you say you don't owe it, but you might know someone who "obviously" must have opened the account in your name, and you haven't called the police on them, or sued them, etc, then they "obviously" did it with your permission, so it must be your debt. It couldn't POSSIBLY be erroneous, wrong person, already paid, bad skip trace, so why should be validate? We looked up the name of one of your relatives, so we get to pull this crap. (Kind of a variant of the "all powerful" debt collector tactic where they pull your reports, go down the list of your accounts on it, and ask, as they "investigate", Is this your Macy's acount? Is this your Citi account? Did you live at this last address? Obviously this debt must be yours, since we have all this information on you! Great for unsophisticated consumers.) This is apparently what their employees are trained is allowed and legal. If so, it is no wonder that there is a mass proliferation of complaints from people who claim they owe NOTHING. They have apparently been taught to take the positions that: 1) All "debt" is actually owed by someone; (a small subset of the consumer complaints, the ones that don't claim they have no clue what debt this is, claim they paid the account years ago) 2) Their skip tracers couldn't have made a mistake in identification (an earlier employee reply on complaintsboards practically raved about how he/she knew the people who did the training in how to locate debtors, and he/she could see that everyone was really, really good at it...); 3) If Afni had made a mistake it is the consumer's problem to prove it, since after all, Afni asked for all the proof so they could "investigate", so any problems really weren't Afni's fault, the consumer cause it; 4) If the consumer still claims it isn't their debt, it must be an id theft, let's see, yes I see your mother/sister/uncle lives at this address I have (while I won't even send you any documentation on this alleged account). Obviously, your relative either fraudulently used your name, or you ALLOWED them to use it, and you owe it. You had better accuse them of theft, for which WE don't have to provide any proof of first, but you can take our word, TRUST us! Turn them into the police, or it must not be fraud, so pay us. (That was the line that started THIS thread.) This one is a great modification of the arrest threat tactic, illegal under FDCPA, but they sidestep that by aiming it at a relative. What is probably not even clear to the debt collectors handling any disputes/inquiries is what Afni's "skip tracers" have, or have not, actually done. What this reply points out is that, presumably based on their training, Afni employees believe that anyone that lived in a house owes unpaid debts for phone or cable charges even when they did not sign up for the service and their name is not on the account. We can only infer that their skip tracers are acting on this same premise, in which case the debt collectors may have in front of them information on other people who the skip tracers "linked" thru whatever searches they did, to whatever original name was on the account, treating it as if that were proof that these people owed the original creditor.
If in fact Afni is billing consumers based on address information matching and NOT even an erroneous name match, and they pull credit reports of those consumers, they may be legally vulnerable for violations of FCRA and state laws for pulling credit reports without permissible purpose.
I'm suing them next week along with the others Even though this is supposed to drop of my record at the end of this month (I'll believe it when I see it) on Experian and supposedly in August on TU and EQ (which is BS of course, why would it be different months). Has anyone had any luck getting them removed via the Illinois AG route? I filed that complaint about 3 weeks ago.
If you believe that the party you are dealing with is acting in bad faith, based on reports by others and their failure to correct in respond to your dispute letters, and their actions are costing you more the longer their damaging activities continue, you can conclude that it makes sense to pursue all possible avenues in parallel, as you cannot know up front which one will, or would have, resulted in the fastest resolution. That means filing complaints with all agencies that might produce results (IL AG, your state AG, FTC, CRA disputes), filing complaints that result in publicly visible records of the problem (BBB), and suing. If your dispute and validation letters alone have not resolved the problem, and your complaints have not resolved the problem, then you are led to suing, which might take months to get to court. Meanwhile, erroneous credit information is damaging and costing you. Thus for best results, you would want all of the other complaints filed regardless, because of the possibility that they MIGHT produce faster resolution, even though you file suit as a backup, and to recover damages.
