Just because your company allegedly placed something on my credit report for this alleged debt, doesn't mean that said alleged entry is complete, accurate and verifiable, as is required under federal law. I am demanding that you immediately provide COMPLETE, ACCURATE, and VERIFIABLE validation of this account, as is required under federal law. I am demanding that said validation come from the alleged original creditor in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's Wollman Opinion. Anything less is not acceptable.
I'd try a bit of a different approach Jam. I'd demand deletion since they obviously CANNOT provide val. Include a copy of the FTC v. PCM case, (deletion in 5 days). Whatcha think?
PCM FTC Press Release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/08/performance.htm PCM FTC Complaint http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/08/performcomp.htm PCM FTC Consent Decree http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/08/performconsent.htm
Butch would be able to come up with a really good sample to reference the PCM case. But basically here is my shot at it... Since your company has proven by its extremely inadequite attempt at validation of this alleged debt, that your company does not have account records for this alleged account, your company must delete this account within five days, under FTC vs. Performance Capital Management, copies enclosed. "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." Failure to delete said unverifiable tradeline within five days, and to provide to me a copy of said UDF form demanding said deletion of said unverifiable tradeline will result in immediate legal actions to enforce my rights under the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
While I was thinking in PCM mode, I made a longer sample letter that you may at least be able to take a look at, and find useful in modeling your own. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=433855#post433855 Butch: Could you take a gander at this letter as well, and let me know if you think this may be able to apply to that situation. As hiding90/ca0me15 would say, know your opponent's defense beforehand, and in my case they may be able to pull something with the OC and CA being two hats of their own company using the "nor is the matter referred to the original creditor for the original creditor to verify the accuracy of the information" section, although the Consent Decree, covers this as well by saying "In any situation where the defendant either knows that no original records exist, or is informed by the original creditor that no records exist", but there still could be the loophole of them as CA, just not asking themselves as OC whether the physical records actually exist.
Well, in my case, they CA is cureently refusing to provide validation, claiming that they already provided someone with validation, but they're claiming that the company which is the OC is another one of their company names. Since one of the PCM stances was that the CA didn't attempt to contact the OC to validate, I'm a little hesitent about it in that case, since they could try to claim that they can just talk to themselves as the two separate roles are concerned, and say that "yes, they as CA talked to the OC, and the OC verified the information", and vice versa.
Is the "OC" the original provider of the goods, services, or credit, that produced the original debt, and the "CA" is an in house collection department? Or are they just claiming that the OC purchased the debt so they are the owner, and not a CA, arguing they don't have to "validate"? Since, in �§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], FDCPA requires the CA to provide "the name of the original creditor", which is distinct from the current debt owner, if they are saying their current owner is the original creditor, when it is not, they are running into �§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e] (6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to -- (A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or (B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title. ...
