Searching for a CA validation letr

Here it is: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=282682#post282682

Its in the sample letter forum, and is called "subsequent CA strategy"

 

That is a fair letter but it has a few things in it that one needs to be careful of before using it. So let's examine it a bit to see where the dangers might lie. The start of it is excellent indeed.

So on to the next clause.

What the author, whoever it may have been, probably either didn't stop to think that the above statement would only hold true if he had sent the preceeding collector(s) demand for validation within the 30 days following his receipt of each collector's initialcontact with the debtor. In the vast majority of cases that didn't happen and most debt buyers would know that and immediately realize they were probably being flim-flammed.

While that part is ok, in my way of thinking it is never a wise idea to teach the other guy how smart you are. I'm long since sick and tired of proving how smart I am to collectors for free. What I want to know is how smart he is.

Thats pretty cute to say the least. Only problem is that once again it pretends to teach the other fellow how smart the sender is and even goes much further and presumes to tell him how to run his business. The sender usually has enough problems running his own life without running around trying to tell others how to run their business. If that were not so then the sender would have no need of such letters.

Incorrect information? Well, that may or may not be true. Either way, that statement brings up a new allegation. First of all we start off alleging by omission that we always demanded validation in a timely manner which is highly unlikely, then run off into trying to teach him the law then compound the issue by trying to tell him how to run his business and now we claim its false information. Now that's what I call a real "rambling rose" letter.

SEZ WHO?Most of us here know full well that credit bureaus often take 90 days or more to get a deletion done. One cannot force another to do that which is likely impossible for him to do. Unreasonable demands are almost always ignored except by the uninformed person who is fearful to start off with and most assuredly cannot be enforced in a court of law. Of course, the author is attempting to bluff the purchaser into submission. Thats fine. But what if he don't fall for it? Were I a collector I'd frame that letter and hang it up in the break room for all to laugh at.

Don't get me wrong here. The thinking behind the suggested letter is brilliant indeed and if the few circumstances where it happens to be applicable do occur then the idea would be great. It just needs to be totally rewritten to make it a mean weapon indeed.

Butch was smart enough to realize that fact too. After all he point that out when he said "Obviously you'll want to customize it to fit your situation."

 

Hi Bill,
Butch was actually the author of the letter. When it was originally posted for me, that is exactly what had happened. I had asked for validation within the 30 day period (1 yr before), and had never heard another peep. Odessa trimmed the post to just the letter, with LKH's comment for posting in the sample letter forum.

I kept this part in my letter. IMHO, I disputed/requested validation with the first CA, and am now restating that fact to CA #2. Since I never received proper validation, I at this point, can only assume I was billed incorrectly.

So far, RMA (CA #2), has sent me validation, but with missing payments. I sent RMA a letter to that fact. I then sent OC a copy of the letter along w/copies of the cancelled checks. So far, nothing has appeared on my cr's and I have heard nothing from CA #2, or OC. Thats really my ultimate goal. Pay what I owe/if I owe, and nothing appear on my report.

 

As you probably know by now, they had to respond with proper validation within a reasonable time and a year is hardly a reasonable time. So you pretty well lost your advantage when you failed to follow up.

I'm sure you realize that I would reach a far different conclusion than that. (LOL)

Of course you would. Thats the proper course of action in my way of thinking too.

I think the westcap endorsement may be the best way to accomplish that.

The concept and the thinking behind the letter is very typical of Butch. Excellent thinking to say the least and with his usual flair for quoting the law as well. Nothing wrong with that either when the setting is proper and called for. While its imperative to know the law and know it well it is quite often to one's disadvantage to flaunt that knowledge too much. Everything has it's time and place and quite often it pays to appear to be dense, dumb and ignorant.

I often think we tend to reveal too much at times when its not really appropriate to do so. Usually when we write (invent) some of our letters we are angry and we really want to show them who is boss in these parts and that we are not as stupid as they seem to portray us to be. So we let go with both barrels.

I think the validation letter is a good example of that. At least some of them are. Two pages full of "junk" to do what one or two sentences might very well accomplish is going overboard to say the least. It is well proven that just about any validation letter will work just about as well as any other one will almost regardless of what they say. Apparently there isn't any such thing as "the best letter" and all work about the same.

So two sentences is probably almost as effective as two pages of horse puckey. But what the heck, we all have to learn such things through hard experience.

Regardless of any faults that might be found Butch came up with a brilliant idea and the fact that it needs polishing and revision should not detract from the credit Butch deserves for having come up with the idea.

And revising it isn't going to be all that easy to do either. Its going to take some real head scratching to improve it.

Just because something has errors or faults in it don't mean it should trashed out of hand. This one is a jewel in the rough and just needs polishing.

 

Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

Well, I've seen you mention this before, and I have to disagree with you. I don't see anything in the FDCPA that says that MUST respond to validation. If you dispute within the 30 days, they are only mandated to cease collection until they do. Nothing I read puts any responsibility on the consumer to continue pursuing validation to protect their own interests. Have you read the Cass Opinion letter?

III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992).

 

Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

If your statement above had any validity then there would not be a 1 year time limit in which the consumer must bring civil action against the collector for violation of FDCPA. If what you say were even remotely true the SOL to bring action would wipe out any possibility that a consumer would ever be able to get a hearing before a court of law to address his grieviances.
Since it is a requirement that a citizen must bring suit within 1 year of the violation he obviously must be afforded a definition of the term "reasonable period of time" within which the collector must provide validation or no equitable relief before the courts would ever be able to proceed.
Therefore even if I have been unable to find the case I saw, your statement does not hold water.

 

Re: Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

If the collector ceases collection activity after validation receipt, what grievance could there possibly be, that would start the SOL clock?

I'm sorry you don't think my statement holds water. Please feel free to point to the Section of the FDCPA that says a collector must validate upon request. I will be happy to change my thoughts.

 

Re: Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

What if he don't validate? How would the debtor be able to exercise his right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof? Obviously he must have the information that only the creditor and possibly the collector can provide. There is no other way. The collector must validate or he must give up and follow the section of FDCPA that you quote and rely on. And he obviously must do one or the other within some reasonable period of time although he can escape his obligations under FDCPA at any time. So under one set of conditions it should be obvious that your quote of the law is absolutely correct but under the other scenario in which he does not give up it does not.

Obviously your statement is half correct. He does not have to validate but if he does not do so then at some reasonable point in time he is either going to have to do it or give up and notify the debtor and any CRA of his decision and return to the debtor. Again, obviously there has to do one or the other or become potentially liable to the debtor for violation of FDCPA which says he has to validate or give up.

The debtor can, of course do as you apparently have chosen to do which is just to forget the whole thing and live with the adverse report until it falls off of old age. But if you decide at some point in time that you want to do something about it then your only option that I can see is to bring suit to force him to do something.

In that event there must be some standard period of time that the court would need in order to reach a decision that the collector either had or had not complied with the law.

So I do hope that you will be able to see that your statement can be correct under one set of conditions but not under another.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

The debtor has exercised his right to dispute by virtue of requesting validation! So if he doesn't respond, any and all notations are removed from CR's, everybody's a happy camper.

In the spirit of Bill Bauer, the collector can't provide it the OC must via the collector I can't remember who it is at the moment Wollman, Chase, Spears...LOL this comment was just for fun.

Now in the scenario in which I used Butch's letter, and which was the subject of this post - CA #1 has gone quiet, never validated, and deleted the TL's from my CR. My beef, if any, will be with CA #2. The clock has been reset.

AHA!!!!!! We have been miscommunicating....see my previous comment.

I think we are almost on the same page!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

Can't agree with that. The reason I can't agree with that is because the law says he has the right to dispute the entire bill or any portion thereof. Only two entities can possibly have all of the information that the debtor would need to exercise that right. The first entity is, of course, the debtor and the second entity is the collector if he has added any additonal charges to the debt. The debtor never has all of the information until it is provided to him. Demand for validation is not a dispute. A demand for validation is a demand for information sufficient to allow the debtor to dispute the entire bill or any portion thereof.

Under the condition you stipulate everybody is not a happy camper and the creditor and or his agent the collector may be expected to prove they are not happy campers at any time. Assuming that everybody is a happy camper is a very dangerous thing to do. Far too many people have followed that line of thinking and found out the hard way that what I have just said is true.

Wrong again. Remember that Congress mandated that the "clock" (DOLA)is a date certain as if set in stone and may not be changed by anyone for any reason whatever. The debt changing hands does not reset the clock.

Yes, but to simply assume that the whole thing has been forgotten about invites a lawsuit which does anything but make for happy campers.

 

.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Searching for a CA validation letr

The significant differences between the two are worthy of a new thread. How about it Bill? Butch?
I have seen the lines blurred many times and I think it has caused a lot of confusion for some and should be clarified.

 

YEOW !!!


Where do I start. LOL

EVERYONE has great points. We're all pretty close to being in full agreement.

The situation Kellie describes does contain the elements for the "Subsequent CA Strategy Letter".

• It was never posted on her report
  
• She did send a demand for validation
  
• The validation demand was ignored. This is not a violation, because;
  
• We "never to be heard from them again"
  
• "Well apparently it was sold to Calvary." Herein lies the violation, (in my opinion).

Bill brings up a lot of good points and I think the convo here is healthy. This letter was very carefully considered tho Bill. Let me just prove a few of the elements. Please be kind enough to spare me from having to prove them all. I'm just too sleepy.


First, the SOL which expired long ago (2 years in KHM's case) was renewed because CA#1 sold the debt to CA#2 (notwithstanding the fact that is was never an issue anyway, no violation occured). This is continued collection activity. YES, I admit that this might be arguable. But I can't see how reasonable people would not agree.

We know that ALL collection of a debt must cease until val. is forthcoming. Assigning/selling the debt to a subsequent CA could be construed for one purpose ONLY, continued collection, thus a violation.

This also is what starts the SOL clock to which Jodi was referring, not the obsolescence period.


§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]

(12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value.

If a representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value IS a violation, how could one arrive at the conclusion that actually doing it would be any less a violation?

CA#2 is probably an innocent purchaser and blissfully unaware that val. has been demanded. It is my considered opinion that CA#1, upon realizing they would get nothing for this account "screws" CA#2 out of some money. I can hear it now; "since we can't validate, at least we'll get SOMETHING out of this". Yes these people eat each other just like rats eat half their litter, which is another reason I designed the letter the way I did, (more later).

You guys know how much I've written about Prima Facie evidence and the 30 day time frame.

In our dunning notices it states; "If you haven't disputed in 30 days we have the right to assume the debt to be valid". If you demand val. and they ignore it, YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT THE DEBT IS NOT VALID. The door swings both ways. This is the logic behind why the CA must cease collection activity. It's not because the debt isn't valid, it's because you now have every right to assume that it isn't. And you're entitled to that assumption until they prove otherwise. Remember the scenario of the 2 of us arguing in the midst of a crowd and how the weight of evidence MUST escalate until somebody wins?

Thus, a violation on the part of CA#1, but probably not #2.


Second; The letter contains; "You have 5 days to cure."

Bill Said: "SEZ WHO?Most of us here know full well that credit bureaus often take 90 days or more to get a deletion done. One cannot force another to do that which is likely impossible for him to do. Unreasonable demands are almost always ignored except by the uninformed person who is fearful to start off with and most assuredly cannot be enforced in a court of law."

I said, dammit! (Just Kidden) LOL


The issue here is between the consumer and the CA's, not the CRA's. Hell, you're right, that's a whole nuther problem.

The concept of what constitutes a "reasonable time" takes many factors into consideration. The pertinent factor here is what it is that needs to be done. 5 days is NOT Unreasonably short when one considers that all they have to do is take 5 minutes out of their "busy" schedule and fill out a UDF. Thus, the FTC has already developed a sound, well thought out position on this issue. Although I'll grant you, it's not spelled out in law. I personally think the following release is strong enough that on the 6th day, I'd fax them a copy of it and tell them I'm about to sue their sorry butt's off until the cows come home. It's the product of a "Consent Decree", not a lawsuit. But the "reasonable time" conclusion, in my opinion, is unmistakable.


http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/08/performance.htm

For Release: August 24, 2000
California Debt Collection Agency Settles FTC Charges Of Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations

The agreement also mandates the proper investigation of disputes. Where PCM learns during an investigation that account records no longer exist for a disputed debt, the company must delete the information from credit bureau files within five days.

Besides, the fact that 5 days isn't very much time for them to comply simply is NOT my problem.


You're also right to suggest that we should wait until the proper time to let our adversay know that we know what we're doing. If this ain't the time I can't figure out when it would be. We want to prevent CA#2 from posting the collection. When we inform them that we are not stupid pushovers, they're less likely to violate. This situation is not where we're trying to elicit violations, (which IS a good time to play dumb) we're trying to prevent one, namely posting the derog.

Third; I designed this letter to take advantage of the fact that CA's do "eat each other". Unless I miss my guess this whole situation would cause a good deal of consternation between CA#1 and 2. If we can get them to eat each other all the better.

There really is a provision in these contracts which allows a CA to return a bad account to the seller for a refund, and it is called the "qualifying RECOURSE accounts provisions". In other words what recourse do I have if you sell me a crappy account? And, a debt FROZEN by an ignored demand for validation does "qualify" for recourse.


But I do want to stress that Bill is also right about "not everyone is happy". Granted YOU are happy, but they are NOT. We see this a lot. Just because you get a derog taken off the report does not mean that "all is well". Nothing could be farther from the truth. You MUST deal with the problem and resolve the CA's claim that you owe money or it may come back to haunt you later. Exactly how that gets done is the product of a never ending struggle.

But now that I have defended my work (at least in part) let me say that I have learned much since that letter was designed. Also numerous people have weighed in on it's effectiveness with excellent results. I do believe it could be made better tho, and perhaps even some throw-offs that would apply to different situations might be in order.

I wholeheartedly welcome Bill's input on how we might do so.

 

You and Kathy make good points. I understand that I still have the right to dispute, once they send me something to dispute with, but I have seen this area blurred many times, and I was quite blurry in my response.

I think Butch clarified this for me, I was referring to the one year FDCPA SOL for violations rather than the reporting period clock. When the debt moved on to CA #2, CA #2's violation clock started.

 

Now that we can agree on and yes, if that is the SOL you were talking about then you were right and I was wrong.

And that brings up a point which applies to a whole range of applications and starts new "fights" over and over and over ad infinitium, ad nauseum.

There are so many different definitions of SOL even one that refers to the subject of luck that confusion is bound to occur. There is no end of the silly things and each applies to a different situation and with my well known background on this and other boards there quite provably are one or more individuals who will jump my case at almost every opportunity. Be that as it may, a goodly portion of those problems may have been generated by the fact that I am a stickler for using the proper terminology because I know from hard experience just how important it is.

SOL is not the only area by a long shot. The differences between validation, dispute and verification are also very important. Each is an entirely separate and well defined term and it does make a difference which word we use when and where.

Accord & Satisfaction, restrictive endorsement and contractual endorsement are all very different things. Again each is an entirely separate and well defined term and it does make a big difference which word we use when and where.

Those are just the first ones that roll off the tip of our tongues. There are many more that are bantied about and misused daily.

And if you want to really get yourself into a jam just go read UCC on top of consumer law and start trying to force UCC law into consumer law just because there are similiarities and those who are argueing that Notarial Protest is a valid new way to go that nobody ever thought of it until now is just one example of the "nutcase" things people try to do to resolve their problem.
And sorry about that usage of Doc's great NUTCASE letters because Doc's are great and the idea of trying to drag back ancient law which has long since been discarded in most states isn't anywhere near the genius quality of Doc's letters.

In our world today people are getting desparate in dealing with IRS problems, collections problems, the political arena which has changed from our being perceived around the world as a peace loving nation whose only desire is to be left alone to one where we are an eagle soaring above their heads looking for every opportuninty to go to war on any pretext.

On the home front, so many people are so desperate they will try anything and will spend all they have and all they can beg, bum buy or steal and even kill to try to find answers to their problems. On the world level they are so desparate to get rid of that eagle up there waiting for any opportunity to peck out their very eyeballs that they will send people over here to fly fuel laden bombs full of passengers into tall buildings or unleash horrible gasses and diseases upon us, any mad dream they can come up with to rid themselves of our hated presence.

But on the home front where we have to deal with a court system that has in many ways also gone mad, corrupt and drunken with power and no longer serves the common man but rather those with the money and the power to buy it's services we have no choice but to fight back and fight back hard. Obviously such mad schemes as civil disobedience, armed mobs, blowing up federal buildings ala Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols and others isn't the way to fight back. In order to do that we have to work within the system each doing what little we can to make the changes needed to bring our courts and our political system back to at least some samll resemblance of what our forefathers envisioned that it should be.

If we are going to resolve our problems by working within the system rather than merely continually railing against it then we have to learn how it works, use it's language, it's terms and it's methods to do so. So we have to learn to use the right words and the right terms and not just fluff it off and say "Oh Well, you know what I meant so don't come trying to pick fights with me." (LOL)

And just curing the symptoms of the problems isn't going to get the job done either. The problem of abusive collectors is so bad that the only possible way we can change the system as it operates today is go learn what our rights are, what the law is, get mad clear to the bone when our rights and our laws are disobeyed, trampled on and we are abused. We know full well that our government has no intention of doing anything but slapping a few wrists of the most abusive lawbreakers. That isn't going to change anything by very much.

But enough educated people bringing enough pro se lawsuits against them to break a few of them and putting a few of them out of business, "killing" them and putting them "out of their misery" will get the job done over time. Putting bandaids on the problem isn't going to get the job done even though it may be successful about half the time.

Thats why I rail against credit repair tactics. That's only putting a bandaid on the problem. I teach people how to go to the source of the problem every time and slay the beast once and for all.

I've strayed a bit as usual but I hope I have explained why it is so important to learn to use the proper terms at the proper time.

 

Yes, you have made your point well. I hope you did not think I was jumping on your case, rather I hope you see I was merely engaging in a friendly debate, one which has successfully pointed out some problems that we all need to become clearer on, specifically dispute vs. validate.

Have a nice day!

 

I just hope we somehow helped Kellie.

 

LOL Butch, somewhere in this thread, buried between mine and Bill's long-winded quotathons she chimed in that she got what she needed.