I had sent a DV letter to a CA with the folling: What the money you say I owe is for; â?¢ Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe; â?¢ Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe; â?¢ Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable; â?¢ Identify the original creditor; â?¢ Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account â?¢ Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state â?¢ Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent Provide a copy of any and all documents and associated materials related to this debt The only response that I got from the CA was duplicate copies of several years statements from the original creditor (AMEX). They did not provide any proof that I agreed to pay not only AMEX, but them having any right to own the debt now. Is only duplicate copies of statement considered a true validation of the debt with them ?
What you got is probably sufficient to meet the validation requirements of the FDCPA so they can continue collection activity. Whether that's enough to convince you to pay them or to convince a judge to tell you to pay them are separate matters.
The envelope that the statements came in on doesnt even identify that it was sent from the CA.The return address on the envelope is not from the same state that I sent the DV letter to and does not have a company name. There is nothing in the envelope either that indicates that it came from the CA . The only thing inside the envelope is duplicate copies of statements, nothing more. The CA is mentioned nowhere.
No indication of where the statements came from? That's interesting indeed. FDCPA states that when a debt collector receives a demand for validation from a consumer they must forward the demand to the original creditor who will provide the demanded validation to the debt collector who must then forward it to the consumer. It would seem to me that the required process has not happened. It would appear that the original creditor in your case short circuited the above described routine by sending the statements directly to you or having them sent to you by someone other than the debt collector. So is that actionable against the debt collector? It might be but without actual proof of where those statements came from I don't think I'd rush to file any federal case against the debt collector. Now then, if you have a set of circumstances such as those provided by Sharon Whitney of Asset Acceptance LLC then you might have a much better cause of action not only against the employee (Sharon Whitney in this case) but against the debt collector (Asset Acceptance in this case) as well. A person whom I know demanded validation both verbally and in writing. Asset Acceptance sent what they called a debt validation to the consumer in response to the demand but that so called validation was in clear violation of 809(a)(4) because they did not obtain the required documentation of the debt from the original creditor but rather generated their so called validation from their own computer system. Sharon Whitney is not in violation because of how the so called validation was generated but because in her telephonic conversation with the consumer she provided false and misleading information by claiming that the consumer had received proper validation from Asset Acceptance LLC. As an employee of a debt collection agency she had the personal duty to know and obey the law. People who work for any company and deal directly with the public have the duty to know what the law requires of them while in the performance of their jobs. If their job requires them to do things which they know or should know is clearly in violation of the law then they are personally liable for their actions. They should understand that they have a personal duty to know and obey the law at all times both in their personal lives and while in the employment of another. It is also the duty of the employer to ensure that the employee does nothing which would place the company in jeopardy. At the beginning of the recorded call the consumer was advised that the call was being recorded so the company should be reviewing at least some of her conversations to be sure she is not violating the law. Since it must be assumed that they do so at least from time to time then it must also be assumed that they are well aware of what is being said and their complicity is further evidenced by the fact that they didn't obey the law either when they generated the validation from their own records instead of obtaining it from the original creditor. Sharon Whitney will most likely end up getting sued personally and then once that is over Asset Acceptance LLC will probably be sued for the same violations as well. Right now the total violations exceed $8,000 and that figure will most likely become even greater as time goes on. Both the validation letter and the recorded conversation are documented in my links page which you can access by clicking on the link in my signature line. I will probably be adding more and more to this episode as new recordings and information become available. At the end of the conversation Sharon Whitney said she was going to turn the account over to their legal department. The consumer told her to do just that and the conversation ends there. Following this episode with Asset Acceptance and Sharon Whitney should be interesting and informative indeed.
Thats is correct. I sent the DV letter to Nationwide in Atlanta Georgia. I only assume what was sent back to be was from Nationwide. It is a brown envelope, with a return address that is in Arizona and only contains an address. No company name. Inside the envelope is only duplicate copied of several years of my AMEX statements. There is no letter to explain who sent these and why they sent these. This is my question. Is this a valid response to a Debt Validation ?
Its more than good enough for government work. (LOL) So now they have handed you your head on a platter (so to speak) so now the ball is in your court. What they sent you is plenty good enough to convince any court of law that judgment should be entered in their favor. What are you going to do about it? How are you going to respond to their summons and complaint? How are you going to defeat a motion for summary judgment? You can bet your boots that a summons and complaint will be coming to your front door within a rather short period of time. A few months at best. How are you going to prevent that from happening if you can? How are you going to win if you do get served? Those are questions you will be well advised to prepare for now, not after it happens. The trick is to short stop them now before it happens but in any case you need to know almost immediately if it does happen. In order to do that you need to contact the clerk of the court to see if the court records are available on line and if so you should check them every day to see if a case has been filed against you. If your court records are not available on line then you need to go to the clerk's office at least once a week and check to see whether a case has been filed against you or not. If you want to win you have to get active now.
In addition to this, although I had sent them a Debt Validation letter that was signed for on 11/09 with a cease and desist request, the CA continued to send letters, most recently on 11/24. Seems that I have them on a platter. I dont see how sending copies of duplicate bills with no indication as to who had sent them would constitute that they have my head on a platter. The debt is a valid debt yes, but they cannot prove that they are now the owner of the debt. They have not supplied to me any signature from me accepting this debt with them or even American express. They also continued to send settlement letter requests to me using AMEX letterhead and envelopes. So, knowing that they are using AMEX letter head, there is nothing to say that the duplicate copies of bills are also directly from them.
So what you are saying is that there was absolutely no indication of any kind that would identify whose statements they purported to be. No logos, no names, no identifiable account numbers, not even one visible word that would identify what they were relating to? Just numbers and nothing more? Is that what you are trying to tell us? If that is what you are trying to have us believe (which I doubt) then how is it that you are referring to Amex as having been the source of the statements? Somebody sent them to you and that means that somebody has the proof of something and probably intends to sue. Then, somehow you tell us you are contemplating a federal lawsuit for illegal continued collection agency simply because some unknown party sent you some statements, identifiable or not? The hinge point here would be whether or not a demand for payment to some identifiable entity was also included. You have ostensibly told us no identifiable information whatever was apparent anywhere on the material and if there were no names or no demand for payment then all you got was information and not even much of that. Just a package of statements from somewhere out of the blue. Now then, if that is true then you have no cause of action against anybody. If the sender was not identifiable then who are you going to sue? Certainly not any original creditor such as Amex. You say you sent 'Them' a demand for validation. Who then is "THEM' ? I'm not criticizing you here, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you are trying to tell us and establish a firm foundation upon which to set foot and I'm not getting that.
no offense taken and I appreciate the help; What I mean is, the original creditor IS AMEX, the CA is Nationwide Credit. I had sent Nationwide Credit a typical DV letter. It was sent to their address in Georgia as indicated by the latter they had sent to me after first contact. What I had received in the mail, was a large brown envelope that for an return address that has no company name whatsoever and a return address in Arizona. There is nothing that indicates to me that this is even a response to my DV letter. Inside the envelope is only several years of duplicate statements from my closed AMEX account. These copies have the look and feel of the actual AMEX statements. Except, the detachable portion of the payment slip is not detachable, so quite possibly a photo copy. The account numbers are correct and cleary states the AMEX account. What I am getting at, is, there is nothing in this envelope that indicates that this comes as a response from Nationwide Credit as a reply to my DV request. If this does come from Nationwide, they did not indicate this. They also did not provide a copy of the contract that I had entered into with AMEX and did not provide proof that they (Nationwide) legally ownes this debt now. They did not provide evidence that they (Nationwide) can legally collect in my state (NH) nor that the statue of limitations has not past ( which it has not) . Simply put, if these statement duplicates come as a result of my DV letter to Nationwide, they did not indicate that and only provided duplicate copies of AMEX statement, nothing else. No demand of payment to anybody, not Nationwide, not AMEX, simply ONLY a few years of Duplicate copies of bills. Im not looking to sue anyone, just get the CA off my back
Was there a demand for payment included? What law requires them to tell you where it came from or who sent it if there was no demand for payment included? What law requires them to prove that they own or do not own the debt now? Again, what law requires them to provide that information? If you can find one please quote it. So, with no demand for payment all you got was information. Providing you with information is not a violation of any law. Your statement here is a bit of an oxymoron. You say you are not looking to sue anyone but are only looking for a way to keep the CA from suing you. No matter what you do it is unlikely that you can keep them from filing a lawsuit on you and that is obviously what they intend to do if all else fails to get the bucks out of you. So if you don't want to face one reality then you will most likely end up having to face the other. It quickly boils down to a sue or be sued situation. That is the reality of the matter. Let us assume that you not only don't want to sue them and they sue you. Will you also refuse to go to court and fight back in a realistic way? If that is how you feel then you need to be prepared to get a judgment and garnishment against you. Once that happens it is all downhill from there. Bank accounts frozen, wages garnished, lien on your home or other property you may own, seizure of vehicles, boats or any other titled property and maybe even a sheriff knocking on your door one day with a truck out in the street to see if you have any goodies they can load up and take away to sell for a few bucks at auction then tack the cost of the sheriff and his helpers, the truck and the costs of the auction on to your already huge debt. The sheriff don't work for free. Somebody has got to pay him and all his expenses. Any or all of the above can be the consequence(s) of refusing to fight. Now then, I can assure you that it is better to be a plaintiff in a federal court than it is to be a defendant in any court. So you have two choices. (1) Stand up and go to court and fight in the reasonably near future or (2) Prepare to get whipped like a naughty puppy. Its your choice. Which would you rather do? Of course, I guess there is at least one other option. Get you a tent and a backpack and go live at the rescue mission or out in the woods somewhere, homeless and jobless. It is my understanding that you can actually eat fairly good out of the dumpsters at places like Winchell's Donuts or McDonalds or maybe Carl Jr's. (LOL)
Doesnt the FDCPA require a Collection Agent to provide proof in 30 days. If they do not, they cannot continue any collection process ? By means of not responding, or identifying that they are the ones that responded within the 30 days, wouldnt that give them no right to continue the collection process ?
NO! True No, you just answered your own question above. If they don't provide validation then they can't continue to attempt to collect. Until they do something to attempt to collect you can't claim an injury. If they attempt to collect you demand validation and see if they claim they already sent you the validation. If by phone and you are recording then you know who sent it to you so you can't claim illegal continued collection activity. What they sent you is more than enough to hang you with. If you get sued then demand validation from the attorney and make the attorney come up with validation even though you already have it. That's your right under the law.
So under FDCPA a CA is NOT required to provide proof in 30 days but it is True that if they do not provide proof in 30 days the CA has no right to collect ? Also, are you agreeing that (assuming) the CA did send the statement duplicates, that I can claim ignorance since they did not identify themselves in the mailing if they attempt to collect again ? If they attempt to collect again, I can request proof again via Debt validation or verbal to see if they claim they sent it to me already via these statements ? Wouldnt a legal process indicate that if these statements were in response to a DV, they the response be clearly drawn out who sent it and why ? If not, it would be null and void and not a valid attempt to validate the debt ? Under the same reasons why a computer print out not be a valid Debt Validation.
30 days has nothing to do with it. The 30 days factor only applies to consumers, not collection agencies. You can assume anything you want until somebody disagrees with your assumptions. After that it is all over for assumptions. Why not? Seems like it. Seems reasonable Because the law says it isn't, that's why.
I cannot post a URL since I am a new member, but got this from another credit site...... Under the FDCPA, even if "Joe" hires a lawyer or law firm to collect a debt from you, the lawyer or law firm is still considered a collector and must adhere to the FDCPA. What does a debt collector need to provide as debt validation? Proof that the collection company owns the debt/or has been assigned the debt. (Bob is legally entitled to collect this particular debt from you.) This is basic contract law. It is very difficult to get a judgment without a direct contract between collection agency and the original creditor.
While you cannot post a clickable link as a new member you can always do a http://www(dod)mysite(dot)com type of thing and we can take care of it from there. That is correct That is pretty well defined in the case of fields vs Wilburlawfirm which you can find with a simple google web search. That doesn't seem to be true in most courts.
