For everyone who is new or who hasn't been to this website, I vote you go. They peek in on us, so peek in on them. There are several interesting threads right now such as what states don't allow third party collections, lawyers buying debts, and this especially entertaining one regarding validation. Go here to read through all the text: http://www.collectionindustry.com/templates/content/discussion/discussion.cfm Here is the conversation on that thread so far. It's easy to see why they can't validate. They don't even know how or what is required! Cherub wrote: ------------------------------- if a debtor sends and requests validation on an account what type of validation is sent to the debtor? I realize the FDCPA says we are required to send name of original creditor, address and such, but this debtor is asking for a contractual agreement along with itemization of the account. Thanks fred wrote: ------------------------------- If a debtor request for any supporting documentation related to the validation of a debt, the FDCPA requires that the original creditor must validate it's claim with supporting documentation to support the validity of the debt; this would include any contractual instruments, copies of any signed contracts, etc Anthony wrote: ------------------------------- Exactly. If it's a credit card debt, just ask for the last statement, that pretty much covers it. If it's bank paper (loans) you can get the original finance contract and a statement of payments. Debra wrote: ------------------------------- There is differing advice on this one. Most recently the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999 said that "Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the debt being demanded is what the creditr is claiming is owed. The debt collector is not required to keep or provide detailed evidence of the alleged debt." Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo 174 F.3d 394. However, Congress when passing this legislation said in its committee report: "the committee believes that compliance would be achieved by a debt collector if the debt collector obtained from the creditor a statment which includes in itemization of the amount of the debt, the name of the consumer, a statement that the debt has not been paid and a statement that the creditor. . .,in consideration of the consumer's debt, had either delivered a merchantable product or property or rendered a service." H.R. Report No.131, 95th Congress, 1st sess. 5(1977). Not legal advice. My reference is A Gui....
Look at a post I found in there just now. Very interesting! Author: Jason Trowbridge Date: 5/12/2002 7:42 pm EDT You must use care in your collection of the out of statute accounts not to threaten litigation. Doing so is a violation of the FDCPA. A good strategy with accounts which are out of statute is to convince debtors to make a small good-faith payment. The moment they pay the statute starts all over again and you may consider litigation. J. Trowbridge
Yeppers we've been watching that board. RBlues' post just goes to show how hopelessly LOST they are when it comes to proper validation. If they ARE watching this board they're not learning a thing, which also doesn't surprise me. Let's keep it that way. lol
Hey everyone check out the resource they are using http://www.directdebtcollections.com/state_list.html
I clicked on the link, and I noticed that in California, they say no bond no license. Does that mean they don't need one to try and collect in this state?
What a great site! Loved that bill bauer was attacking them. hee hee! Look at this line in one of the postings: "By making him believe you truly want to help him resolve his credit problems he will freely give up valuable information that you will need in the event legal action later becomes necessary. " This should be required reading for us all!
I'll tell you I had to really control myself when I was reading their board. I wanted to get in there and tell that one poster who was suggesting tricking a debtor to send a good faith payment so they could sue that he was the lowest form of life. I really am in shock....
Yep, Thats some very pathetic information - it's goes to show how low CA actually are. I'm sure they would take money from they're own elderly parents to repay a debt. As far as I'm concerned the fight has just begun - and I NEVER lose a fight. -Sal
I read through some of the posts and realized a couple of things: 1)I found it amusing that some of them have less knowledge of the law than a newbie like me. 2)They seem to be afraid of "informed consumers" **back to that old saying- " Knowledge is power " 3)They hate the fact that we use the law agianist them. 4) They feel threatened by us. They know we are fighting them & winning in many cases..... (they should be feel threatened....hehe) 5)maybe they should be less concerned with learning new unlawfull collections tatics & learn about the laws they are bound by. (and maybe take a lesson in morales while they are at it...) It also reminds me that as long as CA's hire people like this,we have a fighting chance........ **This is just my 2 cents......
From the first thread: **************************** Subject: RE: Validation Author: Jane (mailtouppers57@yahoo.com?subject=RE: Validation) Date: 8/1/2002 9:44 am EDT Be careful here. If a consumer is asking for validation of the debt, they know more about the FDCPA and the FCRA than you are giving them credit for. The case cited is typical and can be successful with the less learned consumer, however, one must not discount the following: The FTC ( www.ftc.gov ) regularly answers questions like yours. On their site, they have what is called the "Wollman" letter which states that a computer printout was not sufficient. In addition, knowledgeable consumers may quote Spears V. Brennan. "Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he â??sent adequate verification of the debt [to Spears] in the October 30, 1996 notice of claim.â? Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). We cannot agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spearsâ?? loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least $350.00 more than the original loan amount. Therefore, Brennan violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against Spears after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that he was disputing the debt but before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears." * Although there are many issues dealt with here, you can easily see that some states will hold the collector to a higher standard of what constitutes adequate validation ************************* So yeah, to them and informed debtor is....DANGEROUS
Author: Jason Trowbridge Date: 7/16/2002 8:54 pm EDT AMEX is currently using a program with their agencies who collect on Optima accounts. If the debtor pays the balance in full, AMEX will re-issue them an Optima card with a credit limit equal to one-half of the balance paid the agency. All agencies participating in the program have written materials they can provide the debtor that spell the terms out in writing as well as give the Reg. Z disclosures. Macy's has been using a program like this for over a year with great success. Yours truly, J. Trowbridge
Hey folks.... <snicker> I am acting like I am being "helpful" and feeding them information we use against them (valid stuff). If they think that they can rely on another case to send us inadequate info, "Jane" (=SCMomof5) is warning them otherwise! tee hee. They got very hostile to their version of trolls. I want to undermine them, all the while, they think that I am one of them!
seems like they have their own fight too.. CA # 1: You better tread carefully. A lawsuit IS continued collection activity. I don't know who gave you information otherwise! If the court rules that REPORTING a collection account to the CRAs, what the heck do you think that they will say a lawsuit constitutes?! Besides, lets face it. The client "states" yep, this belongs to that person. YOU sue. You get to court. (1) you will have to provide a contract with signature and a payment history to prove to the court that this person is the one who owes the debt and the history proves the amount. Then you will deal with the counter suit of FDCPA violations. If the account is less than $1000, you have just lost more than you would gain!! That does nothing for YOUR bottom line or the clients CA#2 You may wish to check with the FTC as well as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals before you make such a blanket statement. I've rung the cash register in court plenty of times without a contract. A few copies of checks and statements from a creditor showing the acount in default can be plenty CA#1 You seem to have a hostility issue. Do you treat everyone so nastily or is this a result of treating debtors this way for too long. This type of hostility has a tendency to put off debtors (which is why you have been in court so often) and is what gives this industry such a bad name with the public. May I suggest a little light reading,"How to Win Friends and Influence People." CA#3 I forgot to add. Someday you are going to try and screw a debtor that knows the FCRA and FDCPA by heard and you will be burned badly. I have seen on some forums where debtors are hiring one of the 'BIG 3' consumer protection attorneys and they are destroying little jerkoffs like yourself .......
