Another day, another collection agency/attorney who is anxious to send me a check... Let's see, false & misleading representation that it's from an attorney (not even a facsimile signature), continued collection activity, false & misleading representation that the transfer of the account subjects me to activity prohibited by the act (namely, the continued collection activity)... All on their first communication... I am so loved...
Oh, it gets better... The "law firm" is listed as FDCPA/FCRA Defense... Guess they should start practicing what they want to preach, huh...
I want to sincerely thank you for your law firms communication dated 08/01/13. It is greatly appreciated. Since your law firm specializes in FDCPA defense, you should really be aware that said letter is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and like your predecessor, I intend to file suit against your firm in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Division. 15 USC 1692e(3) “The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.” It is well established legal precedent that unless a letter from an attorney or law firm is physically hand-signed by an attorney who has personally reviewed the case and made a legal determination that legal remedies are just and proper, it is a false and misleading representation prohibited by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 15 USC 1692e(6)(B) “The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to—become subject to any practice prohibited by this subchapter.” This account has been subject to a cease of collection activity since April 25, 2013 when your predecessor received via facsimile a demand to provide validation for the alleged debt, again, had a competent attorney have reviewed said file they would have known that. 15 USC 1692g(b) "If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section 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 a 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. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor." I realize that you probably receive letters all the time where the consumer tells you that they intend to file suit, your predecessor probably thought that I wasn’t serious about filing the suit that I filed against them, unfortunately, they were mistaken. Should you not take the gracious opportunity that I am affording you to resolve this matter amicably, I will sue. Please note that I am once again restating the demand for validation of this alleged debt that I made with your predecessor on April 25, 2013, and restating the demands that all communications be in writing, as all other forms of communication are inconvenient.
Would like help to draft a letter to Transunion. I would like to file suite against them for failing to conduct lawful investigations into my credit file disputes. On July 1, 2014 I received a response from a cellular provider after sending a goodwill letter requesting deletion of the NTL. The letter goes like this: We are writing in response to your request for a letter confirming the status of your account. Our records indicate that the account balance is now at $0.00. If the debt was reported to the Credit Bureaus, Cell Company will have any negative reports removed. Sincerely, Cell Company. Now on January 1, 2015 I sent a letter to CRA stating I was disputing Cell Company Account. I also stated that I had sent a validation letter which was received, Cell Company must provide CRA with correct data. CRA, you must correct the inaccurate info or delete the incorrect info from my credit files. I have a letter form Cell Company that they removed this tradeline from my credit files in June 2014. On Jan 30,2015 CRA sends me an updated CR with Cell Company in the adverse section. Pay Status: Account paid in full, was a charge off. Date updated: 1/30/2015. I am wondering if I have a case here. Cell Company said in their letter that they would have any negative reports removed if the debt was reported to CRA. The debt was only $384 but it will cost me thousands in unfavorable credit offers. Am I out in left field? Should I just send the Cell Company Letter and ask CRA to remove the NTL based on letter, or do I have a valid case to file suit against. CRA and or Cell Company?
First, a validation letter doesn't apply to an ORIGINAL CREDITOR, only a COLLECTION AGENCY. The CRA has to verify the information, but the process LEGALLY is "Hey, Cell Company, this is what you've told us, is this right" Cell Company says "Yep, that's what we told you!" For a suit, you would need to sue both the DATA FURNISHER and the CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY, the CRA (if you sue them alone), will place the blame solely on the DATA FURNISHER, if they aren't a party to your case, you lose. If you sue both, they'll both argue that it's the other one's fault, then it's left for the judge to decide whose fault it really is. Also, according to published news reports, and not based on any personal experience, expect to wrangle at least a year before the CRA would even want to think about settling. The actuality is it appears the data on the credit report is accurate. It would actually be a breach of contract suit against Cell Company for violating their letter of July 1, 2014 that they were going to be deleting the tradelines. You have as the breech, that between July 1, and January 1, they did not delete the tradelines as their letter indicated (i.e. contract), and that they specifically verified the tradeline on January 30, 2015 in furtherance of the breech. So, if it was me, I would write a letter to the Cell Phone Company, saying You'll want to make it sound like you would say it, but you have the idea. You promised, I'm holding you to it, and if you don't keep your promise, I'm gonna make you pay!
