I got a letter from a CA that already deleted their info from Equifax and Experian but not TU. They are not licensed to collect debt in NC. In addition, they have not provided me with proper proof of debt. They have sent me a computer printout on Ameritech letterhead, but no signatures, no detailed statements as to how they came up with this amount. The thing that's wild is that this chick signed this letter personally. She's been sending standard form letters up to now. The letter says, "We were notified by a credit reporting agency about this debt. We show that there remains an unpaid balance. Please remit payment today and improve your credit profile." Are they going to delete it if I pay them? Can they prove this is the correct amount? At the bottom, "This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose". My question is...what do I do next? I've sent validation, estoppel, pre intent-to-sue. Should I send intent to sue? I sent them a settlement "payment for deletion" letter back in March. They said nothing. I want them go away, but I want proof of the amount owed and a printout that can clearly be forged is not good enough for me. Thanks in advance
Huh? The credit bureau had to notify them about the debt? Are they saying they had no idea what they were reporting to the CRAs? No that does not mean they will delete. From their point of view, having a debt marked as paid/collection is better for your credit that unpaid/collection. However, in the real world, they both drive down your score. Have you also included the FTC opinion letter Wollman? This is the letter which spells out what is considered proper valdiation (not just some computer print out). Also, have they marked the account in dispute on your TU report? I bet it wasn't. You could also send the FTC opinion leter CASS, which spells out what is considered continued collection activity. CA's seem to be under the impression that they do not have to validate, and at the same time, leave a derog. account on your report. I suggest you send your final letter, with copies of the two FTC letters I mentioned. Also make reference in your letter that you have proof that they did not mark the collection account as in dispute and are in violation of the FCRA for not doing so.
"No that does not mean they will delete. From their point of view, having a debt marked as paid/collection is better for your credit that unpaid/collection. However, in the real world, they both drive down your score." ------------------------- What is said above is an outright LIE, this is against the law, this does NOT improve credit rating whatsoever, I would sue just for this response.
Yes Mindcrime, If they say something that is not correct to force or coerce someone into paying for a debt. Thats illegal. For example: Its basically saying, If you kill Someone cause you know he murdered someone else but you have no proof he did it, Are you correct in doing so?
Mindcrime, They were notified by TU that the account was in dispute. No, it is not listed as in dispute on any credit report. I will formulate a letter with the FTC Opinion letters and send again. I did send them a letter and tell them I would not pay them nada. They keep trying to get me to pay them, but they've already deleted the account from Equifax and Experian. Nana, If they don't delete from TU, I'll contact my AG with the letters they have sent me and let the AG take care of them. And I know they aren't going to delete because I sent a letter and offered to pay for deletion...I was being sarcastic. ;-)
Yes,you have them...that should take care of it as they have violated the state..bad thing to do..LOL And, should you have to go to suit, imagine having the state info to do them in completely. Love it!
Sweet- If you've sent out all the validation letters CRRR, and they sent you a "pay now" letter, that is continued collection activity, which they are required to STOP doing once a validation letter is received. So if you have your green cards, this letter is worth $1k. Seeing as you've sent the intent to sue letter, I say it's time to follow through. How much is this debt and is the SOL up on it?
Dear Sweet, Very interesting case you have here. Am I correct in that the CA notified AT&T and then AT&T took over the process? If so they probably did that because the CA is not licensed in NC. However that is NOT compliance with the FDCPA, which states; § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (5) (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Please note that the last sentence says that validation is to be obtained from the OC and then "mailed to the consumer by the debt collector". One of the opinions states this is to prevent the CA from dunning the wrong person. In any case the Wollman opinion is great in your case as per MindCrimes comment because it does state that a computer printout is not enough. Unfortunately it is dead silent on what DOES constitute proper val. You are entittled to validation from the person who did the reporting, the furnisher, that's who your argument is with, in this case the CA. You don't have to accept anything from AT&T. Let us know if this is right that AT&T is sending this stuff directly and bypassing the CA. Please Advise,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Division of Credit Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection March 10, 1993 Jeffrey S. Wollman Vice President and Controller Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. 1261 Broadway New York, New York 10001 Dear Mr. Wollman: This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .â? in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer. The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer. Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney Division of Credit Practices I didn't mean it refers to everything single piece of validation information which would add up to total and true validation, just that it refers to the fact that a simple computer print out is not enough.
I know I know. I actually hit my send button too soon. Just goes to show how frustrated I am as we don't have any real clear direction on what IS proper Val. Spears V Brennan is about it.
KHM, I have the CRRR for every letter I've sent them. The amount is $600 and the SOL is not up. But when I sent the last letter, I urged them to sue me. They have done nothing. They actually deleted after my estoppel letter.
Butch, No, the phone company isn't sending anything directly. I'm getting all coorespondence from the CA. What they sent was a bill on the phone company's letterhead but it is clearly printed out by a desktop printer and not standard. It only says, "Final Bill". And gives them amount. That's it.
