OK... I just got my first validation response from a CA.. They basically sent a printout "Collection data Sheet" itemizing what they say I owe. from reading the FAQ and other threads I know for a FACT that this isn't considered proper validation... Now I am going to send a response.. an elstoppel "ELSTOPPO" letter and a copy of the wollman letter right? I am bit confused about the Elstoppo letter. the first paragraph reads.. ....As I have not heard back from you in over 60 days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date>, and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists. ..... this doesn't apply to my case because the CA responded well within 30 days.. do I need to wait the full 30 days or can I shoot something off to them now? if so how can I modify this to make this work for me.. Thanks...
I think it does still work for you due to the fact they did not give you proof that the debt is yours. so you could just take out the sentance about the never heard from in 60 days and use the rest of the letter. This is how I understand it anyway.
Does anyone know: should I wait for the 30 days to pass or can I shoot the letter to them now? My trigger finger is itching SO BADLY...
just send them another letter saying they failed to validate the debt...that a computer printout is not considered validation by FTC opinion...i would include copies of the wollman letter and cass vs. lefevre...tell them they must now stop reporting the invalidated debt to the CRAs because it is considered collection activity(FTC opinion)...if they failed to mark the account as "in dispute" to the CRA's mention that they have already broken federal law...FDCPA briana
As I have not heard back from you in over 60 days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date>, and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists. ..... this doesn't apply to my case because the CA responded well within 30 days.. do I need to wait the full 30 days or can I shoot something off to them now? if so how can I modify this to make this work for me.. cibomatto ================= Send the letter now just like it is ~~~~Just change the 60 days to what ever the No. of days it has been.