I am pissed off..sending this off to Applied Card

Boy are they ever on the wrong page.

They mistook the request for validation to be a CRA dispute. Shame on them.

Scrap the letter. Does absolutely nothing.

Write a nice, polite letter to the hired guns saying that you received the letter from them (enclose a copy) and intimate that it does not rise to the level of proper validation as requested (enclose a copy of that letter, too). Send it via CMRRR.

Then sit back and wait. I would check the hard copy of my CR to make sure that nothing is reporting. If it is, I'd dispute it with the CRA.

You need to accumulate a bunch of evidence before you go sashaying into court.

 

I'd also write a nice, polite letter. If this goes to court, you wouldn't want something like you wrote here introduced into evidence. It could easily turn the case against you. After all, a lot of decisions are based on perception.

They do not have to send copies of the signed contracts, all agreements, etc. to you as part of the validation. They may be asked for under discovery if it goes to court, however.

 

No, it appears they acknowledge the request for validation by the first line of the second paragraph:

"We have received your request concerning validation of your debt."

The rest of the letter is an admission of refusal to validate, a "written admission" of violating the FDCPA (provided request was sent w/in 30 days of receipt of first notice). However, they do not state the request was received after that date, so an onlooker would presume it was sent, and received, in timely fashion.

I agree a business like tone is more appropriate. My advice, always wait at least 24 hours before sending any letter written in anger. Then read it again before sending...

I would "nicely" add that thier letter was an "admission of guilt", and that you are suprised they would send such a thing...

 

Actually, the OP's post indicates that the request for validation was sent to ACB. The FDCPA is not applicable to ACB insofar as they are an original creditor. They could have written back in crayon that they don't care about anything and there would be no cause of action against them under the FDCPA.

There may or may not be an FDCPA claim against the CA inasmuch as I'll presume that they sent off the OP's request to ACB. Clearly, what ACB doesn't suffice and moreover, the OP's post does not indicate that the CA forwarded it. However, it still remains open as to whether the CA will attempt any further collection activity or whether the OP's request was even timely.

So . . . we have nothing at this point.

My advice is to see whether ACB has notated the account as being in dispute per the OP's credit reports. If not, still nothing since the OP has not disputed it through the credit reporting agencies but, that would segway into that. Thereafter, if they fail to denote it . . . you have a FCRA violation.

Again, there is nothing here right now at all.

 

OP's post implies that the DV was sent to Powell, Rogers & Speaks. If so, they, PR&S, are governed by the FDCPA.

Of course Applied Bank acknowledged the receipt of some sort of validation request. They answered OP's DV request! But, they grossly misinterpreted it's nature, and, in doing so, admitted that there is a validation request on the table. Anyone can see that!

If that validation request was sent through the PR&S, it sort-of confirms PR&S as a third party, does it not?

This has all the appearances of the OC responding directly instead of providing the response to PR&S to then mail to the OP. That is not the FDCPA-required method for validation.

Not sure where the answer or the gross misinterpretation leaves the OC, legally, but it isn't the most advantageous position for them at this point.

 

It leaves them with no viable cause of action at this point.

The OP needs to send a FACTA verification to ACB and dispute the tradeline through the credit reporting agencies.

 

Good, so far you're following the required process.

Do you know if this is reporting on your credit reports? I think it is worth a look to find out? Per ACB's response letter, it sounds as if they are (language of dispute, etc.) So, dispute this with the Credit Reporting Agencies immediately. If they still have not sent proper validation, then they should not "verify" the tradeline. If they do, then thay have committed a violation.

Fight this if you truly believe this is not your account. The "spirit" of the validation process is exactly for these situations. You have a legitimate dispute over the "validity" of this debt.

Send another "Debt Validation Request" to the CA, stating the response from ACB was unacceptable. State you dispute this debt as being yours, and require evidence of it being yours.

 

Apex, please correct your post to show what are your comments to my post and what is my post. Your quotation of my material should clearly show what is yours and what is mine. Thank you.

You are correct, OP has no action against the OC at this point and could not under the FDCPA. Nor does the OP seem to have any action against the CA, at this time.

OP has more to do, and the place of attack is in the CA's allegations. A subsequent DV is appropriate with "not mine" at its core.

We are on the same page, your comments not withstanding.

 

Sorry, I can't figure that out. I am not that computer savvy. I think its easy enough to delineate what is yours and what is mine.

 

A quiet suggestion: Learn.

As a budding attorney, you should be cognizant of the proper etiquette in quoting.

We are dealing with the least sophisticated consumer, aren't we?

 

First, this is consumer message board, not a legal writing course. For future reference however, would you rather we use Bluebook or ALWD citation methods? In short, get off your high-horse.

Second, it was not a matter of quotation rather, the fact that I didn't know how to split up your post per quote using the means avaliable on this board. It was a technical ignorance, not a substantive one.

 

Your choice, Apex. I am merely offering that it be both common courtesy and proper internet etiquette to distinguish your words from mine, whether or not we are on a message board. You do wish to be courteous, don't you?

I fear that you may be climbing on to a horse instead of recognizing your error.

Once again, learning or asking for assistance might be a more appropriate answer than the shuck and jive. Improves the guru image that's being cultivated.

If you can't figure out how to do something one way, figure out how to do it another. Attorneys do this all the time.

Epitomee:

First, apologies for the apparent thread jacking.

A dispute of the trade line on your credit report under the FCRA might also be appropriate after you submit the FACTA complaint. Might as well get all of the statutes in play. As most here have suggested, you need to establish definitive causes of action before you can really start swinging.

Could this be an identity theft situation? They might begin to think so. You might get back a packet of papers to fill out and submit, so keep a pen handy.

One question, if I may. Of course it's not pleasant to have this going on, but is there a particular time frame that you are seeing that would require this to be resolved immediately? If so, it may mean other tactics to seek resolution. If not, you have time to let things play to your advantage.

While you may be "right" in your cause, you frequently need leverage to make the others see it. If you have the time, you can set this up so it can be resolved permanently. There is a lot of history that sees these issues resolved only to crop up again a few years down the road. Your objective should to nail it dead now.

 

Oracle:

This board is to promote good information. It is not a place to have a spelling bee or a place to correct syntax, sentence structure, or to teach anyone to learn how to quote per sentence. The readers here couldn't care less about that. They want substantive help grounded in the law or tactical strategy to remove items from their credit reports. As such, we are not going to take the time to "learn" how to quote your wisdow per sentence when we are only doing so to clear up the inaccurate and incomplete suggestions you've previously made.

From what I surmise, you do not offer either substantive advice under the CCPA or tactical strategy as to how one can remove items from their reports. You seem content to rebut anything we present but, only on ancillary issues such as whether or not we should learn to quote by sentence on a consumer message board.

Finally, I don't appreciate your thinly vieled innuedo and implications that we are somehow marketing ourselves here. As I've explained, and others have affirmed on our behalf, that is not the case. We post here in order to offer full, solid advice. We are not being paid by this board administration and while there have been a few members which have contacted us, we would have lost a great deal of earnings had we envisioned belonging here for profit.

In short, we've been a board contributor for well over a year. You've been here for a week or two.

 

To the OP, please implement the following actions to rid yourself of ACB:

1) Dispute the account through all three credit reporting agencies. If you do not believe it to be yours, a not mine dispute will hold up even under Johnson v. MBNA. Please be advised that it must not be yours in order to hook ACB under 1681s-2b.

ACB will verify this account whether it belongs to you or not. This is their mode of operation. The account will not be marked as in dispute. That will yield another FCRA violation per each credit reporting agency under 1681s-2b. This is supported by sufficient authority in virtually all federal circuits.

2) Send a FACTA request to:

ROCCO A. ABESSINIO
800 DELAWARE AVE.
WILMINGTON, DE 19801

This provides no cause of action under the FCRA however, it emboldens any potential claim.

3) File a Complaint with your State Attorney General's Office and the FTC. Doing the same with the BBB is not a bad idea either.

Again, this is not likely to provide a remedy but, it emboldens your ultimate claim.

4) Use the above to compel deletion. ACB usually deletes these as a "matter of courtesy." If they don't, institute a civil action. Do a search on Pacer for an applicable Complaint for ACB and file it in your local District Court. ACB will settle for 1k to 1.5k pre-Answer for allegations such as what you could prove up.

5) Finally, if you don't want to putter around with this . . . call ACB and ask to speak with Jason Weldon. He will delete the account from your reports upon partial payment.

Whew . . . I'm a sure hopin' I quoted and spelled everything good! Don't wanna be discourteous or nuthin'!

 

Only object to your marketing yourself and failing to allow your remarks to stand on your own so that people can judge them on their own merits.

Congratulations for being here for well over a year. I seem to remember you got chased off a couple of other boards for your self promotion. Is there a connection?

I have been around for quite a while...and much, much longer than just a year. Perhaps you haven't been looking? And by the way, I do not operate a Credit Repair Organization.

My posts speak for themselves. I am sorry you don't like what I say. But the judge of the efficacy of my advice is not you. Please don't put yourself on a pedestal yet, you'll disqualify yourself from the Team Player of the Year Award.

And you weren't discourteous, but do you always tell people what to do or would you rather help to educate them?

While removing a negative TL is an admirable goal, I think the true objective is to solve the underlying problem. That way it can't come back to haunt. Fix the symptom has its advocates. But fixing the problem is a much more effective goal.

Don't you think it's time to move on?

 

So now being involved in a Credit Service Organization is a bad thing? I don't understand your desire to make personal attacks.

With that said, we've never been "kicked off" a message board. We've been asked to remove our signature link from debtorboards and CIC. We stopped posting on creditboards because the admins had no idea what they were talking about by and large concerning issues involving the FCRA/FDCPA, played favorites with certain posters while ignoring correct advice, and allowed their favoritism to override the need to disseminate correct informaiton. That is dangerous and defeats the purpose of consumer boards. They also allowed personal attacks (such as you seem to be inclined to lodge). Anyone here can go do a search on posts we contributed to on those boards and find that to be true. In fact, the admins at creditboards actually cursed at us within a post concerning debt validation. Search it if you like and draw your own conclusions.

In any event, those boards were not worth our time in light of the circumstances, much like taking the time to learn how to quote per each and every sentence on a consumer message board because someone doesn't like to be corrected and amplified.

On this board, there are no favorites. There are no personal attacks allowed. This is a free exchange of "good" ideas. The admins here allow us to post our signature link because we give sound, well-reasoned advice. Otherwise, they would not. This is not the only board to which we post or who allows our signature link. So does infinitecredit and a few other consumer boards.

Now, its not that I don't like what you say, its that its misplaced and incomplete in this post. That is why we attempted to correct it via our poor quoting technique. What advice we offer here is indeed telling people what to do because that is what people here want to know. They would not post otherwise. What we suggest works and it is applicable to their situations. In short, people come here for answers and if we know how to provide those via telling them exactly what to do, we will. Now, if dispelling bad information is placing our agency on a "pedestal" . . . so be it. Just because we correct something you are wrong about does not mean we perceive ourselves as Gurus. It just means that you are wrong and that should not be given to someone who comes here for sound advice. The law is the law and authority is authority until changed. It is not a matter of "how you say it."

No, I don't think its time to move on simply because you ask us to do so. You've come on this board and personally attacked me, our company and imply that we have an agenda yet, you now want us to move on? Why? Just because you have requested it? Don't you contemplate that some fashion of apology is called for here?

Finally, I did suggest a tried and true method of resolving the underlying debt for the OP (if there is one.) I suggested several ways to accomplish that. It would not be a temporary fix. However, you came in after that post and rehashed everything once more. That is not indicative of wanting to "move on?"

 

Apex is correct that he has not been kicked off of Infinite Credit, nor has he been asked to remove his signature. When he contributes there, it is welcome advice.