Unbelievable Phone call to CA

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by CaliGirl, Jul 29, 2002.

  1. CaliGirl

    CaliGirl Well-Known Member

    Ok, because I am sick and tired of seeing this one account double listed on my report, I just went out on a limb and called the CA.

    A little background. The DOLA is 2/97 so SOL is expired - I am not worried about that. I called and the woman who answered the phone was very pleasant. I explained to her that they verified this last month with EX but I am still disputing. I asked her for a fax number to send a validation letter to her. She gave it to me without any hassles.

    Here is the kicker. She dug through the account notes, and told me that it was a loan for either an appliance, electrical equipment, or furniture. She explained that is was through a company called either Trans South, Kentucky Finance, or First Family. I explained to her that I have NEVER financed furniture through anyone in my life. And that I will send the letter, and in return I want written documentation (as in SIGNATURE) that I purchased this.

    She said not a problem, she would order the "docs" but that it would take 2 - 3 months!!! I explained to her that if they wanted to take two or three months, that was fine, but according to the law, they will have to delete this entry from my report if they cannot produce the "docs" within 30 days. She sounded shocked at first, but then explained to me (LOL) that the thirty day rule only applies when they first contact you about the debt - not when the consumer contacts them about the debt! I told her that EVEN IF that were the truth, they were supposedly billing me at an address I was not at. I have proof that I lived on the other side of the country so I was never billed by them.

    She then proceeded to ask me if I thought this was obtained fraudulently? If maybe someone I know opened this account. (Since she said it was opened with my FL address, but at the time it was opened, I didn't even live there!) She almost sounded like she wanted me to say it was opened fraudulently. Like it was some sort of set up.

    In any case, I thought it was hilarious - her bit about the thirty day rule. Time will tell as far as what "docs" she can produce concerning this account.
     
  2. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    The CA's do NOT have to validate within 30 days, we extend them the same "30 day courtesy" they extend us. However, IF the item is not noted as "in dispute" or completely removed off your report once they recieve the validation letter THEN you have them violating laws.

    WE, the consumer, have 30 days from the first notice we receive to dispute the account, however it does not waive any rights if we dispute later.

    Just thought I'd clear that up :)
     
  3. mitchra

    mitchra Well-Known Member

    sorry about the double post - computer slowed down.
     
  4. mitchra

    mitchra Well-Known Member

    You open an interesting subject that has concerned me for some time now. What about the 30 day from receipt notice rule? I have studied the FDCPA and it does seem to limit a consumer's time to request validation to 30 days from the receipt of the first letter. Of course if you never received a letter then your 30 days begins from the date you first became aware of the negative trade line. Will some of the experts respond to this issue. Specifically, if you received a letter from a CA and fail to request validation within the 30 days, do they still have to provide validation if you request it after the 30 days? The FDCPA seems to indicate that they do not, but many of the posts I've read indicate you can. If you can, expalin the rule that allows it, so we can site this to collectors that use the 30 day rule as a defense not to validate.
     
  5. CaliGirl

    CaliGirl Well-Known Member

    ******I tried to edit my earlier post, but the time limit has expired.*******


    You are right. I guess I was too flabbergasted by her 2 - 3 month response. In any case, she caved when I told her that, so she must not really know either!

    As an aside, the ONLY reason I called is because the SOL is up and I don't have to worry. You know what, let me correct that - one of the reasons. The other is because I am SURE this is not even my debt. I know they cannot provide sufficient documentation that this is my debt.

    But, thanks for straightening me out. I would hate for anyone to read my post and take my words as gospel.

    Then there would be another (shhhhhhh) issue here that would be the fault of posters and not just our own fault!
     
  6. Nave

    Nave Well-Known Member

    Kellie is correct, I always believed it was from the 30 days that ANY creditor listing an entry on your report is given to provide the CRA's verification:

    (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

    But I can also see where it may be derived from the 30 days they extend us for the first contact validation.

    What they can NOT do is continue collection activity...which consists of verification...so dispute after you begin the validation.

    -Peace, Dave
     
  7. CaliGirl

    CaliGirl Well-Known Member

    I have done so, so this should turn out good.

    I mean either way, it will. They can't sue me, so I am not worried about that. Also, as stated earlier I know this is not mine. They will not be able to produce anything with my signature.
     
  8. mitchra

    mitchra Well-Known Member

    Let me pose the question again. If you request validation and the CA says they don't have to validate because you didn't exercise your rights within the 30 day period allowed under FCDPA, then you dispute with the CRAs and the CA verifies. How have they violated the law? Please cite applicable rule that would allow one to prevail in court.
     
  9. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Here it is:

    (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.

    (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

    If they cant validate i with you how can they realistically validate with the CRA's. Once you have sent a validation letter, even if it's 3 year after the first letter, the can not continue collection activity until the validate with you. FTC opinion CASS letter states placing it on a CR is continued collection activity, BUT if it's after the 30 days (for you) they dont have to REMOVE it, just place in dispute. If it IS within the 30 days they MUST delete.

    Hope I answered this for you.
     
  10. mitchra

    mitchra Well-Known Member

    I see your argument, and I don't mean to seem dense, but this section bothers me;

    "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..."

    This would seem to limit the collectors legal requirement to provide the consumer with validation at the consumers request to the 30 days from notification.

    The section reading;

    "The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer."

    just seems to indicate that a consumer's failure to request validation within the 30 days is not an admission that the debt is the consumers and hence could not be used by the CA to establish that the consumer owes the debt in a court.

    It would seem theoretically possible that if you fail to request validation within the 30 day time limit under the FDCPA, but request it after the 30 days and dispute it with the CRA, if the CA actually did have proof it was yours but decided not to send it to you simply because they don't believe they have to, then they could verify it all they want. If you tried to sue them on violations, they would simply show up at court with the validation, and say they were under no requirement to provide it to you at the time you requested it since you did not ask for it with in the 30 day period.

    Please forgive these long sentences. I really am not trying to be obtuse, I just dont see the logic behind getting this to work outside of the 30 days yet. I have a very similar situation with CAP1, and I don't want them to be able to worm their way out of it.
     
  11. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Mitchra-
    I think you're trying to make it harder than it really is.

    CA's think you are guilty until proven innocent, meaning 9 out of ten of them will put it on your credit report THEN send you a letter. Some CA's dont even send letters, but they will tell you otherwise.

    EXAMPLE:
    My hubby had a doctors bill, it got sent to a CA, we received bills from the doctor but NEVER the CA. How do I know this, we lived at that address for 4 years, and he incurred the debt there.

    The way we found the bill? We pulled his CR. So technically there was never a 30 day oppourtunity for us. There are many loopholes that CA's create by not doing their jobs. I believe that is why the FTC put that in there.

    You shouldnt be forced to pay a bill when you dont know if it belongs to you or not.
     
  12. Nave

    Nave Well-Known Member

    .
     
  13. Nave

    Nave Well-Known Member

    Forget needing to "read between the lines" ...You can make it very easy.

    Does the CA have proof that YOU received the first contact letter? Did they send it CRRR and you signed for it? If not, then "How can they prove the 30 days has begun/elapsed?".

    -Peace, Dave
     
  14. Kiyi

    Kiyi Well-Known Member

    Again they need to make the first communication letter a law to be sent CRRR, so they CA has proof it sent it and/or it will be a violation if they don't. That way there is indistinguishable evidence on either side. Or it just turns into a he said she said contest in court.

    If you have that law in place, it would solve a ton of problems, But the question is, would the CAs pay $4 to send it? Hell no they are bottomfeeders.
     
  15. mitchra

    mitchra Well-Known Member

    Really I am not trying to make it harder than it is. I expect to have to sue a CA in order to get them to remove or correct an item from my credit report that has been re-aged. I requested validation way after the 30 days and don't expect to receive anything from them. I fully expect them to verify with the CRA, and I want to be sure when I show up at court to plea my case that they don't come back and say, "your honor, we don't even know why we are here, we don't have to provide him with his request becasue he didn't make it in accordance with the law and here is the proof of the debt - he's paying it".

    In my particular case they can prove that I received the notice. Further, I have been making payments on it and I did not request validation within the time allowed. I can't stop making the payments either, or I will suffer an interest rate increase as they put the old debt on a credit card they gave me.

    So I think technically they don't have to provide me anything, except out of the good will of their hearts. I need the validation to prove the re-aging of the debt. So I am at their mercy, unless I subpeona the validation - which I have no idea how to do.
     
  16. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Mitchra-
    You are talking about an collection agency and not the original creditor RIIIIIIIIIIGHT???
     
  17. mitchra

    mitchra Well-Known Member

    secondary purchaser (actually third purchaser). same as CA in eyes of FDCPA.
     
  18. mitchra

    mitchra Well-Known Member

    P.S. I did not mean to steal Caligirl's post here. I know this is not good etiquette - I hope she will forgive me.
     
  19. CaliGirl

    CaliGirl Well-Known Member

    :)


    She does!

    I am fascinated by this.
     
  20. mitchra

    mitchra Well-Known Member

    Well, I guess I stumped the experts...
     

Share This Page