I want to be sure not to mess this up, so I'd appreciate any guidance any of you guys can give me. I've got a $45 CA account on all 3 CRAs for an old water bill. The address is one I moved out of almost 5 years ago. The SOL here is 3 years. The account is properly aged even though the CA didn't get it until 3/2001. I never received any notification from the CA. I sent an unsigned offer for payment in full for deletion with a 15 day expiration. (To me it was well worth the $45 to get the deletions quickly and without further hassle. I did not acknowledge responsibility for the debt in the offer.) There was no response, so I then contacted the 3 CRAs to verify, but the 30 days aren't up yet. All of this was done CRRR. Today I received a form letter from the CA. It reads in part: "Recently it was brought to our attention that you may not have received our notices regarding the account (s) listed above. "If paid in full to this office, all collection activity will be stopped. "This is an attempt to collect a debt etc........." Here are my questions : 1. Should I wait until the 30 days are up on the CRA verifications before I send a validation letter to this CA? 2. Does the fact that the SOL has expired impact how I should proceed in any way? I mentioned it in the offer I sent, should I mention it in the validation letter? 3. Is there any potential "end run" in contacting the OC and paying directly to them? My goal is DELETION, not getting out of paying the $45. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
It's generally not a good idea to make any offer of payment on an item that is time-barred. If the offer isn't worded correctly, you may have created a NOVATION and reset the clock on the SOL.
Thanks for the response. I believe I covered that in the offer I sent. I followed the examples provided by others on the board for just the reason you stated. So what is the proper NEXT step?
1. Since the CA admits that "you may not have received our notices" (which you didn't right?), did they include the FDCPA language about your rights to dispute the debt in this INITIAL COMMUNICATION. If not, they just violated the FDCPA. 2. I'd NOT mention the SOL in my letter to them at this point. Keep that in reserve for later use. 3. I'd send the validation letter to them immediately. They probably won't add the required "consumer disputes account" language to your CRA reports. More violations. Once you have a few violations, send them a CRRR letter detailing the same. Remind them them that the debt is uncollectible. Demand collection or threaten to sue for $1K per violation. I know that sounds like a lot of effort for a $45 collection, but it definitely affects your score and these CA don't seem particularly bright in taking some easy $$ for a deletion. Greg
He already sent a offer to pay the $45 dollars for full deletion, why send a validation letter after he already admitting to owe the debt? I would call and document the conversation, get names, numbers, etc. Keep the times. Offer the money for full deletion and have them fax the agreement to you. If they don't. Don't pay. Its not worth paying if they won't delete.
No, I specifically stated in the offer that I did NOT acknowledge that the debt was mine. I DID offer payment for full deletion but they did not respond to the offer. So I think validation would still be the next step, wouldn't it?
Greg, They did put the proper language in the notification, but you are correct, this is the first notice I've gotten from them. And I'd say you're right, they probably won't note the accounts as in dispute which will be at least 3 violations. Maybe that will give me a little bargaining power. Just to make sure, the accounts currently DO say they are in dispute because I have contacted the CRA's for verification. Should I wait for those notations to drop off (assuming the CA verifies) BEFORE I send the validation request. (I'll still be well within the 30 days.) Thanks much!
nquisitive, http://www.friran.com/topics/NewsletterLAS/3.1debt.htm Collection of an old debt violates FDCPA. A debtor had a $1,200 outstanding balance on a credit card account that she had not used in 13 years. The collection agency bought the debt and sent her a letter stating: "This is an opportunity to resolve your account with no further collection action be taken against you". The debtor sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claiming that the debt was time-barred because the statute of limitations is only ten years. The debtor claimed deceptive practices in violation of the FDCPA, premised on the debt collector's knowing attempts to collect time-barred debts. The dispositive fact is that a debt collector could not legally prevail on such a lawsuit and for the debt collector to represent otherwise is fraudulent. The collection agency attempted to distinguish its letter--which did not mention a lawsuit--from the letters at issue in earlier cases where collection agencies had either threatened to sue or actually sued on a time-barred debt. But the court refused to draw that distinction. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) Sassy
nquisitive, Sorry that wasn't as clear as I wanted it to read, even for a cut and paste. Point was or is, if SOL for enforcement has expired, it's time-barred. Sassy
Thanks Sassy! This is good stuff! Sounds like if I don't have 3 deletions in a week or so this is going to be perfect grounds to go after them full tilt. I really do appreciate your input.
Anyone have the name of plaintiff or defendant? I am on the NI Dist Ct. website but it does not let you search by FDCPA.
He already sent a offer to pay the $45 dollars for full deletion, why send a validation letter after he already admitting to owe the debt? I would call and document the conversation, get names, numbers, etc. Keep the times. Offer the money for full deletion and have them fax the agreement to you. If they don't. Don't pay. Its not worth paying if they won't delete. Kiyi ================== Read their last post again .They didn't admit the debt!
The debtor claimed deceptive practices in violation of the FDCPA Sassy ===================== Here is another law to use .
