Hasn't the CA/CEO commited another violation? In your original letter, did you include a ceast and desist when stating only to contact you in writing via fax? His/Her phone call could be considered *Continued Collection Activity*. In your next communication, which should be via fax, I would mention this and increase the amount you are sueing for by $1000. jus my 2 cents
I don't know if it would be considered a cease and desist, but I did tell him to please respond via fax. Anyway, he called, and this is what he said. First, let me give you a little background. Sent validation, no response. sent estoppel. received via fed ex quite a bit of paperwork. I'm satisfied w/ the validation, personally. Anyway, trying to gain some leverage, I sent them a demand letter, stating that they didn't put the account in dispute, and verified during validation. It has been deleted from TU--seemed like they just didn't respond. Ok, so, he called. He was very nice, even though I know he'd probably run me over to get to my check book. He said that he wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. He said that a CSR gathered the info. during the validation process, and dropped the ball, essentially. When they received the estoppel, they mailed the info right out. Yes, they did. He said that in the demand letter, I stated that we never received any information. That's incorrect, I stated that we didn't get any during the validation 30 days. I was basing the demand letter on the initial 30 days, nothing that happened afterwards. So, his defense is that we got the validation papers--saying nothing about verifying and not noting in dispute. He then says that he has spoken to the utility co., and they aren't going away. I knew that! He also said that they have put 2 and 2 together, and know that we are married, and have tagged my account. Whatever. They can't do anything to me. Unless they put his account on mine, which would be ok too. He said that they had already put in a udf to have the TL deleted, and it already was on TU. It was deleted so fast because **ding ding** they are an affiliate of TU. So, it should be deleted from the other CR's soon. Now, I know we need to pay this. We can't this week, but hopefully next week. The utility co is not going to go away on this one. I knew it. It's ok, I just don't want it on his reports! Any suggestions???
Well I wasn't going to respond in this thread anymore but I am curious, what do you mean "tag" your account?
"That's incorrect, I stated that we didn't get any during the validation 30 days. I was basing the demand letter on the initial 30 days, nothing that happened afterwards. " There is no such thing as a validation 30 days for CA's. There is no time limit for them to send validation...its just a time frame out of the air basically. The law doesn't require them to send it within the 30 days...just thought I"d mention this. L
I think he meant that they know we are now married, so if we decided to not pay, they may apply his debt to mine. I'm not sure if that's what he meant, but that's how I took it. I told him that we weren't married when this alleged debt incurred, and he backpeddled a bit. I think I confused him there for a minute. I can't imagine what they can do to my account, other than add his debt to mine. I actually did know this, but I think I was mistakenly under the impression that there was a timeframe to mark the account in dispute. It's also still a violation to verify during validation, right? That would be in the 30 day time frame. I got the validation, that wasn't a problem. But when I got it, then where did I have to go? I was trying to get this deleted from the reports. Maybe I shouldn't have sent the demand letter. You have me second guessing myself now. The letter I sent him only listen those 2 violations, verifying the account, and not marking in dispute.
unfortunately, whyspers is correct. you have 30 days to request validation from a CA but they don't have a time limit to give you that validation. But they still must mark it in dispute and cannot verify it until they validate. --- side note: They aren't 'required' to send validation via CRRR so even if you never receive it they can still SAY that they sent it (hanging on a thread though). I'm not 100% sure what constitutes 'proof of mailing' during a lawsuit, any comments on that? end side note (and sorry).
whyspers, let me clarify. I just reread what I posted. When I talked to him, he said that the letter we sent stated that I never received the validation papers. That's wrong. I never said that. I wrote that it got verified before I had received anything. that's all. Am I making any sense?
