CA refused to pick up my certified letter.

See another similar post made today. Send another letter via FedEx, UPS or Express Mail. Enclose a copy of the notification of refusal to sign/pickup.

 

While I am not a friend of collection agencies, it is possible that your letter could not be delivered on time. Post office clerks are not necessarily the smartest people in the world and they sometimes mis-sort mail. Didn't you ever find someone else's mail in your mailbox?

 

Your point is well taken Greg1045 but these days you can send off a letter certified return receipt requested or any other mail which has a tracking number and then go home and go to http://www.usps.com and enter the tracking number in the tracking box and instruct the post office to email you every time your mail moves from one location and goes to another, when it arrives and it's disposition. Then you will know quickly when and where it was delivered and to whom.

 

And, you can do the same with an express parcel service as well....

 

This is the thread: CA didn't accept registered mail

 

It is legal for them to not pick up their mail, but as long as you have the unopened letter, you are in a strong position.

There is a legal principle involved that deals with this - it is called "avoidance of knowledge", and simply put they cannot rely on it. When you sue them for continued collection activity and they cry to the Judge "We were never notified not to contact him" your response is "I notified them, they refused to hear it. I rely on the Jewell principle (United States v. Jewell, 532 F2d 697 (9th Cir., cert denied 426 US 951) which dealt with the concept of willful blindness.

 

I dislike using criminal law cases when dealing with a civil matter even though the situation may seem to have similarities. Criminal law decisions can vary widely depending on which law and which agency is involved. What applies to IRS might not be the same as what is applicable in DEA cases or INS cases.

I only rely on what is found on Pacer in federal cases and on the actual court web site in state court cases. One cannot even rely on what is quoted by attorneys in their motions and briefs. They often incorrectly cite cases as their authority hoping that neither the judge nor their opponent will be sufficiently astute to actually go and read the cases or the law itself to see whether they are telling the truth or not and they usually get away with it and especially so when dealing with pro se litigants.

Every statement made by an attorney must be thoroughly examined and researched before accepting it and must be rebutted if at all possible.

Businesses such as financial institutions and debt collectors often have special addresses to which such mail must be directed or it is refused. They can easily claim that this is done so that such mail can be given the proper attention that such mailings must receive and so that lay employees don't get it and inadvertently open or handle it irresponsibly. By making such claims they can probably get around a complaint of willful ignorance.

They would probably get away with it even if no such address actually existed at the time the letter was mailed to them. They could easily get notice of your claim of willful ignorance on their part through the court system and run down to the post office and open a new P.O. Box and claim it was there all the time and the Pro Se would most likely be left so speechless that they wouldn't think to check it out to see when the box was opened even if they could.

 

Creditwren-we are dealing with a FDCPA Cease Comm letter here. It can be mailed to any address of the collector. No law - FDCPA or otherwise - gives the collector the right to designate to which address a certain type of letter may be sent. This is wise and correct. To allow that leeway, I can see some Collectors including the following on their letters:

Pursuant to Federal law, you are required to send any complaints, objections, FDCPA VOD demands, Cease Communication orders or other non-payment correspondance to this address and this address only:

First National Bottomfeeder Collection Agency
c/o Santa Claus
North Pole

FCBA specifically requires an address be provided where FCBA complaints can be sent to, but that applies to FCBA only. For all other intents and purposes, any address is as good as any other.

 

You are absolutely correct in what you have said, of course. But in the unlikely event that the bottom feeder is ever sued for it he will simply say something to the effect that the mail room employee was not supposed to have refused the letters but rather put them in a special mail box to be picked up by an employee having the knowledge and responsibility to deal with mail of such importance. The regular mail room employee was off that day and a substitute was taking his place. It was a simple inadvertent error and we have taken steps to insure that it won't happen again. We will be happy to pay the plaintiff his costs in bringing the suit since it was our error.

The chances are better than 50-50 that the judge will go along with the defendant and he will have escaped with very little out of pocket expense and you will end up with little or nothing for your time and trouble.

And yes, I will also agree in advance that the judge might not go along with it and make him pay more than that but as you are also probably aware of, these bottom feeders really don't care about such things as long as they can make a profit doing things the wrong way. They just pay the costs of doing business and keep on truckin. That point has been proven over and over again.

 

However, the process for delivery and notification of a Certified Mail article involves 2-3 attempts at delivery, and the statement "refuses to accept" means that someone was aware, but "refused" to sign. This is different than the "regular guy was out that day". In essesnce, the notation "refuses to accept" is documentation of "willful ignorance".

 

It is not important what exact excuse they might use for escaping the penalty for their wrong doing but rather that they will always attempt to dream up some sick excuse or other for their evil deeds and the fact remains that they really don't care if they have to buy some Flyingifr an airplane or not as long as it remains profitable for them to keep on doing things the way they have been. I f they can make a million or a few million doing things the wrong way what difference does a measly $20,000 or so make to them? None whatever.

My point is not whether Flyingifr is right or wrong or whether Joe has a better argument than Harry but rather that the penalties for violating the law are not nearly sufficient to deter them from committing the same violations over and over again so long as it is profitable for them to do so.

A much better and more effective penalty would be to put them out of business for a certain number of days for each complaint filed against them in federal courts. Maybe a mandatory penalty of closing their doors for say 5 or 10 days for failure to validate or 30 days for calling debtors on Sundays or abuse of debtors on the phone plus costs of bringing the suit and attorney fees would be a much better method of punishment for their evil tactics than the current system.

Anyway it seems to me that this topic, like so many others is getting way off point of the original posters question so let's just drop it.

 

Well, to add to your above comments, (and yes I'm continuing going off the topic), I have to fully agree! My reason for enthusiastic agreement is that this is the system I worked under when I owned an investment securities firm.

In the securities industry, if you "violate" an industry regulation (not even a law!) you pay a HUGE fine, and you are "put out of business" for a period, either as the broker and/or the business firm. So, yes, this is a great motivator for adhering to the rules and practices. And yes, in the securities business people go to jail as well. I don't think the collection industry has gotten there yet!

Your point is well taken, it is all about the economics of "action and reaction".

 

I also agree that the penalties need to be drastically increased. When the $1000 per action cap was put in place twenty years ago, it was not even made adjustable for inflation. $1000 now has the purchasing power of about $100 then. Given the ravages of inflation, the costs of filing a FDCPA action in Federal Court now exceed the purchasing power of what Congress deemed to be an adequate deterrent twenty years ago.

Here bin AZ we have a law that is going into effect on January 1 - the official name of the law is the Fair and Legal Employment Act. I refer to it as the Mexican-American Full Unemployment Act, since when it becomes effective I see many employers refusing to hire anyone who even looks like an illegal. Simply put, a first violation of knowingly hiring an illegal in Arizona gets the company a ten day "out of business" period followed by five years probation.

A second violation committed within the probation period, you are out of business - period, permanently.

If we can "protect" American workers like that, why can't we protect American debtors the same way?

 

Well put Flying but that simply illustrates the old joke which asks what do you call a Mexican without a lawnmower and the answer is UNEMPLYED. Now then, while some may think that a crude racial joke, it does have it's valid point which is that Mexican laborers come here, go to work for some small company for a while doing whatever and before you know it they are contractors and owners of companies all of their own. They lay bricks, do carpenter work, yes, mow lawns, and pour concrete, paint houses, do roofing, whatever they can. If the law starts breathing down their necks they simply move to some other city or state and start all over again.

I used to own a tree trimming business in Colorado and also in Kansas. Mexicans were doing that kind of work too. I was licensed and bonded and insured in both states and also did lots of jobs in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and even went into Canada doing it one time for a few days just to see what it was like up there. The Mexicans were in all those states and in every city I visited. The story was the same. They work awhile for someone else then start their own business. There is no stopping them. Even tall fences on the border don't stop them. Armed border patrol helicopters flying up and down the border don't stop them either. The Border Patrol has a large prison compound in El Paso out on Montana Street and it gets full every day and emptied at about the same rate. The Border Patrol calls up the local federal prison in New Mexico every day to see if they need more workers in their broom factory. If they do then the appropriate number is transferred to El Paso County Jail and taken through the court system and on out to the prison. If the prison don't need any more workers they simply haul the remainder back to the border and turn them loose. It is nothing more than a revolving door. Does any of it solve the problem? Of course not.

 

According to the calculator provided by the Bureau of Labor Statisitics at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ , it's actually $237.11. I wrote my Senator and suggested that it be raised to $10,000 because $1,000 in 1974 is like $4,217.38 these days and I added a little more so it would be meaningful for some time into the future.

I'm not holding my breath, but it's a start.

 

If memory serves me correctly a collection agency can only be fined a maximum of 1.5% of it's net worth. Whiile I personally think changing that to about 150% would be more to my liking we all know that isn't going to happen but 10% would still be a big step in the right direction.