First letter (and contact ever) from a CA had, among other things, the following in it: Over the past month, CA has made numerous attempts to contact you over the phone to resolve your account with OC. Since you have not made an arrangement to satisfy this debt, we have no alternative but to inform you that your account has been placed with our legal department. This will be our final attempt to collect this debt. IF need be, your account may be assigned to an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your state. Over the next 30 days our investigation into your personal assets will be completed. These findings, along with a prepared affidavit ready for signature, will be forwarded to expedite authorization of your account to an attorney of our choice. This letter was sent from a douchebag debt collection agency...blah blah blah. OKAY ..... is it legal for them to be making these statements in writing? looking at: § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e] (4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action. ....i looked them up and found a lawsuit against them in another state that was filed late last year and called the clerks office of that district court and am awaiting copies of the complaint and other doc's to be sent, on the phone the clerk told me that the defendant (the CA) failed to respond to service back in Nov last year and plantiffs attorney filed something (can't recall name at the moment) against them for not responding. So....feeling that their bark is bigger than their bite and doubt they have any intention of doing what they say....
Motion for Summary Judgement (basically, the equivalent of a default judgement). Ok. #1) If this is the first contact they've ever made, did it have the notice that you have 30 days to request validation of the debt? #2) Even if this is the first contact they've ever made, and it does contain the validation notice, it could still be an instance of over-shadowing unless they specifically explain how their investigation into your assets and possible referral to a third-party lawyer is affected by your request of validation. #3) The reference to the 'prepared affidavit' sounds like they're only 'validation' will be what is referred to as a Chaudry affidavit. "Yep, you owe it, so and so said so, so you owe it." #4) The caveat of 807(4) is unless that action is lawful, and they intend to follow through with that action; unfortunately, the only way to know if they intend to follow through with that action is to wait to see if they do, which risks putting you in the defendant's chair, instead of the plaintiff's chair. If it were me, I would personally send them a letter that simply says that I have no idea what they are referring to, and that I request thorough documentation to support their allegations. Emphasizing that their letter on date was the first time that they've contacted you in regards to the matter. (Oh, and I would also personally include that it is inconvenient for them to communicate with me by phone, or in any other way except for written communications to the above address.) You'll want to write it in a way that sounds like you. The bolded part I would include verbatim since it is a direct reference to the inconvenient times and places of communication clause in the FDCPA.
No, it did not say anything about that. LTR dated 1/11/13, received regular postal mail 1/25/13 (took 14 days from a city 500 miles away!?) and specifically gave me until 1/30 before they determined to file suit against me It is very first contact from them, ever. They made claim of making numerous attempts to contact me over the phone to resolve. ..... they NEVER said anything about previous letters being sent. I can pull phone records to confirm no incoming calls from them whatsoever. they make no statement in reference to what you said about specifically explaining how their investigation into your assets and possible referral to a third-party lawyer is affected by your request of validation Thank you Jam, once again. I'm in the process of writing this up.
I would want to memorialize in the validation letter the date sent (date postmarked if the envelope was postmarked, and not just using a business reply mail envelope, that doesn't get postmarked), and date received. I would also want to demonstrate that their claims of previous attempts to contact you being false (it'd be a violation of 807(10) "general false and misleading representation"), if they didn't include the validation notice or otherwise over-shadowed it (it'd be a violation of 809), I would specifically mention how their threat of the immediate referral to an outside legal representation less than 19 days after their letter was drafted (not to mention only 5 days after it was received) is an absurd violation of the FDCPA's prohibition of over-shadowing the validation notice; and that I will have the pleasure of seeing them in court, long before they even consider seeing me in court.
It was a business reply envelope, so no postmark -- I feel they use that to their advantage, allowing them to get a letter to someone 14 days after the date on the letter itself, and still looking 'innocent'. 807(10) -- good call. would love to call them out on it in front of a judge to produce their phone records showing an outbound call to my number This one going out shortly.
Update/Question: Do the following: “we have no alternative but to inform you that your account has been placed with our legal department.” “If need be, your account may be assigned to an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your state.” “Over the next 30 days our investigation into your personal assets will be complete. These findings, along with a prepared affidavit ready for signature, will be forwarded to expedite authorization of your account to an attorney of our choice. A determination to file suit will be made on x/x/xx” That are contained within a written communication from CA to consumer, violate provisions of the FDCPA: 15 USC § 1692e (2) (A) 15 USC § 1692e (5) 15 USC § 1692e (10)
