Had sent them a request for validation (for wife), they responded with a 'Affidavit of Indebtednss'. I sent another letter stating that this was not validation and stated the account is not mine. They responded with the letter below: Dear Ms. X, This letter is sent to you in repsonse to the above-referenced correspondence forwarded t our office and received Feb. 23, 2004. In repsonse to your resquest for validation of the debt, this office forwarded onto you an affidavit of indebtedness, which meets the requirements under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for verification of the debt. Under recent case law, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. The debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of he alleged debt. Verification is only intended to eliminate the problem of a debt collector pursuing the wrong person or attempting to collect debts, which the consumer has already paid. There is no concomitant obligation to forward other documentation. Therefore, this office complied with all of the requirements under the act. Since this office is in compliance with the act, we must decline your office of settlement. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Very Truly Yours, Schrieber & Associates, PC For the Firm Peter Sack END. Any input or advice would greatly be appreciated.
They're only licensed in 5 states...is yours one of them? That letter is B.S. They think that you'll fold because they're a law firm. The FDCPA applies to them. http://www.schreiblaw.com/main.htm Click the "Legal Services" link on the right. Then click "Collection Law" right above the paragraph. You see the 5 states they're allowed to collect in (but find out about your states Reciprocity laws). I don't know your situation but hope this is a start. Don't let them B.S. you with that letter. They HAVE to validate.
From where did this Affidavit originate? The Law firm, CA or OC? What is the date? How much is at stake? ??? /
-Ummmm collection agencies DO NOT HAVE TO BE LICENSED to operate in some states. -IF this is from an attorney, HE MAY BE RIGHT! -There are A LOT of cases about "validation." THERE IS NO clear definition of "validation", in fact it is ONLY used 1 TIME in the statutes. -The purpose of "validation" IS TO ENSURE THE COLLECTION AGENCY IS CONTACTING THE RIGHT CONSUMER AND THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT IS CORRECT. (case cite avail) -As I have said before, "validation" is a WEAK argument. IT TAKES little to "verify" an account. -THE BEST way to think about "verification", is to imagine yourself in court and the collection agency showing the "validation" to the judge. WOULD the judge be able to determine, BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, that you owe this debt?
Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb Well, yeah, ... sorta. ~ In a case where, say for example you wrote 500 checks throughout the years to pay the balances down on a CC, it would be VERY difficult to prevail in court solely because the original contract could not be located. True. But in an instance where there have been no payments, no transactions, no communications, like in a REAL case of ID theft, for example, you can very darn well win your case for "lack of validation". But we're getting off track. These nitwits quoted the CHAUDHRY case, in that" At Issue: Contrary to Appellants' contention, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. See Azar v. Hayter, 874 F.Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Fla.), aff'd, 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1048 (1996). Con- sistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." Item: OP disputed the debt proclaiming they are attempting collection from the wrong person, ie. NOT MINE!!! Item: What has to be the STUPIDEST atty. on the planet he cites [irrelevent] case law which says; Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person DUNNING THE WRONG FREAKIN PERSON IS EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT OP IS TRYING TO ADVANCE. I think outright lying to a consumer to collect an alleged debt should be illegal ... HOLY CRAP!!!!! IT IS!!!! § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. (Sorry Hiding - not mad at you - JUST MAD - in general!!!!) lol . OH - As for the fact that a CA is not required to keep detailed records? No SH1T Sherlock. Nobody ever said they did!!! Quote the opposite! They are required to go to the OC and "OBTAIN" validation, and then forward to the consumer. BTW - This cute little ditty in Chaudhry has been labeled, "unfortunate", as it had NOTHING to do with the instant case. An argument over atty. fees which were determined to be "work product". I'm lookin.
Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb Ummmm...Exactly my point. His state may be one that they do have to be licensed in...
Ya know JEB, I have to honestly say that I would not complete that Affidavit. In the one situation I was asked to complete a Fraud Affidavit, I responded by informing the agency that unless they removed the item immediately (10 days actually), I would sue. Now, I don't know your situation with this debt but in my case I know I didn't owe any $$$. Now, despite what someone else says about the weight that validation holds or state licensing, the fact of the matter is "Shreiber hasn't validated the account and they may be illegally contacting you". Use this to your advantage. For now, let's replace the word "validation" with "proof". What is proof? As someone else mention, "what would a judge consider to be proof?". Whatever proof is (or isn't), completing an affidavit isn't going to change that. In my opinion, the affidavit is a smoke screen. They're trying to distract you from the main objective...which is proving you owe this $$$. I'm not specifically saying that you shouldn't complete the affidavit, I'm just saying "to who's benefit is it that you do?...you or them? Their first scare tactic is using the "Attorney" credentials to intimidate the consumer into thinking they're more than just a CA. The second tactic is using an "Affidavit" to intimidate you more. It's all smoke screens and the FDCPA (and FCRA if it's on your report), apply to them just the same as your everyday CA.
Hi Sloy, uummmm ... Jeb said an Affidavit of Indebtedness. Not a Fraud Affidavit. Affidavit of Indebtedness THEY signed an affidavit stating that he owes the money. Still waiting to find out from whence it came. The OC, or the Atty. .
Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb Well that's right. Their A of I is signed under penalty of perjury and notarized. This is alleged to be sufficient "proof" that the debt is owed. I KNOW WHERE THIS CRAP IS COMING FROM!!! Look at this newsletter recently written by the lead council for ACA: Verification & Validation http://www.acainternational.org/intcontent.aspx?cid=2887 Consumer credit Web sites spread misinformation about the FDCPA and FCRA A growing number of consumer self-help Web sites are advocating positions concerning consumer rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that are unsupported by law. This puts creditors and collection agencies in a difficult position, as consumers following the advice found at such sites are often sorely disappointed when the expected results do not materialize. This, in turn, leads many consumers to procrastinate paying their debts and to file complaints with their attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the ACA Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee. Verification and validation Many of the misconceptions spread over the Internet concern debt verification. Consumers are often led to believe that the FDCPA allows them to request verification at any time, even after paying the debt. Furthermore, they are often told that a collection agency has 30 days to respond to the request, not that they have 30 days to make the request. Even the definition of verification is twisted. Consumers are told that debt validation and debt verification are different things, that they should request validation and that the following items are required for proper validation: A copy of the collection agency's agreement with the creditor granting authority to collect the debt. A copy of a contract signed by the consumer agreeing to pay the debt. Notification of any insurance claims made by the creditor concerning the account. The date the collection agency obtained the account. An explanation of the products or service for which the consumer owes the agency. The names of the consumer reporting agencies to which the collection agency furnished information. Evidence that the collector is licensed in the consumer's state, whether or not that state requires such licensing. The above material is not required to validate a debt, but consumers are lead to believe that failure to provide such information frees them from their obligation to pay the debt. The FDCPA requires that a collection agency cease collection activity until it provides verification of a debt upon written request received during the validation period. While the FDCPA does not, unfortunately, define verification:, the FTC and the courts have. The FTC, in its official commentary to the FDCPA, states that the validation is intended to assist the consumer when a debt collector inadvertently contacts the wrong consumer at the start of his collection efforts. The courts have adopted a similar interpretation, stating [V]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is that the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to Ë?eliminate the â?¦problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of debts. â??Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denies, 528 U.S. 891 (1999). Debt verification is intended, therefore, to be a straightforward process in which the debt collector certifies that the agency is attempting to collect the right amount of money from the proper party. Debt collectors need not furnish other information, as the FDCPA imposes no such obligation. Confusion over the dispute process Further confusion is caused because several Web sites confuse the FDCPAâ??s 30-day validation period with the FCRAâ??s requirement that a data furnisher investigate disputes after receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency pursuant to FCRA under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i(a)(1). To trigger a 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i(a)(1) investigation, the consumers must lodge a dispute directly with the consumer reporting agency. Within five days, the consumer reporting agency must notify the data furnisher of the dispute. The data furnisher must conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information with 30 days of receiving notice of the dispute. A dispute from a consumer sent directly to a data furnisher, such as a collection agency, does not trigger this requirement. A collection agency that received a dispute directly from a consumer must, if the collection agency has reported the debt to a consumer reporting agency, provide the consumer reporting agency notice that the debt has been disputed. This duty is separate from, and should not be confused with, the collection agencyâ??s duty to verify the debt upon receipt of a written request to do so during the FDCPAâ??s validation period and the FCRAâ??s investigation period. If the collection agency does not respond to a request for validation made pursuant to the FDCPA within 30 days, or if the agency refuses to remove negative information from a credit report, several Web sites encourage consumers to threaten to sue. Addressing the problem Collection agencies can avoid legal troubles and ethics complaints by complying with existing law and letting consumers know what it is that the law actually requires. Every collection agency should have written policies and procedures in place and follow them. Members with question concerning FDCPA and FCRA requirements may consult ACAâ??s Fastfax system and ACA's compliance officers on consult their own attorney. .
Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb Now compare the language in the newsletter with the language in REB's reply from the Atty. Basically they just sent a form letter with the basic language in Chaudhry. Didn't even bother to address Reb's assertion that it's not his. I'd sue these ba$tards by noon tomorrow. See? .
Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb UNFORTUNETLY, the "newsletter" IS RIGHT ON! It is right out of statue, case law, and FTC opinions. But I think we all make WAY TO MUCH out of "verification" Verification (validation) WAS NEVER intended to "prove" the liability or responsibility of a debt. It was created to "eliminate the â?¦problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid" That is a quote str8 from the legislators. There is NO "standard" or "requirement" of the verification response above what is was intended, which is a straightforward process in which the debt collector certifies that the agency is attempting to collect the right amount of money from the proper party. Debt collectors need not furnish other information, as the FDCPA imposes no such obligation. But, where there is room for arguement is WHAT constitutes identifying the right consumer, and WHAT constitutes evidence of the amount of the debt? IT DOES NOT TAKE MUCH TO VERIFY A DEBT. UNLESS you act fast (within the first 30 days) the verification process does a consumer little good. Ill be posting full "validation" references soon
Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb But does verifying it prove it's legit and that you owe it. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb Jeb, is this really a genuine mistake? or were you just claiming it wasnt yours (or your wife's) to see what the CA's response was? if this IS a bonafide case of a CA trying to collect from the wrong person, you definitely have a case. this is exactly what the laws were created for. again, how much are we talking?
Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb Maybe you should read the Wollman opinion. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm "The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer."
Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb Hiding also needs to read the rest of the validation clause. He keeps claiming (as does ACA) that all the consumers rights disappear on the 31st date after the date of alleged receipt of the alleged correspondence from a CA. However part (c) says that the only thing that happens on the 31st date is that the CA IS ENTITLED TO ASSUME that the debt is valid. NO ONE ELSE, NOR ANY COURT IS ENTITLED TO THAT ASSUMPTION. They are only entitled to that assumption as so long as they are not notified contrary to that assumption, that the consumer questions the account. The second they receive a VD disputing the validity of that assumption, they are no longer entitled to that assumption.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion on This Letter from Schrieb =============== """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" However part (c) says that the only thing that happens on the 31st day is that the CA IS ENTITLED TO ASSUME that the debt is valid. NO ONE ELSE, NOR ANY COURT IS ENTITLED TO THAT ASSUMPTION. They are only entitled to that assumption as so long as they are not notified contrary to that assumption, that the consumer questions the account. The second they receive a VD disputing the validity of that assumption, they are no longer entitled to that assumption. jam237 ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> What I can't figure out is why hiding 90 is oblivious to this fact. Only thing I can surmise is he accepts the Cas and the CAA opinion as fact.
