I just got the first response from First Collect Inc. They just sent a print out from their computers. All it says is Physician Care & Treatment with a balance of $440. There is the name of the hospital and it says to send payment to the CA's address. Also included is a copy of a newsletter that they have with an article written by Matthew Johnson titled Verification & Vaildation. It basically says that consumer credit web sites spread misinformation about the FDCPA and FCRA. '....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 requst. Even the definition of verification is twisted. Consumers are told that debt verficiation and debt vaildation are different things, that they should request vaildation and that the following item are required for proper vaildiation: 1. A copy of the CA's agreement with the creditior granting authority to collect a debt. 2. A copy of a contract signed by the consumer agreeing to pay the debt. 3. Notification of any insurance claims made by the creditor concerning the account. 4. The date the CA obtained the account. 5. An explanation of the product or service for which the owes the agency. 6. The names of the CRA's to which the CA furnished informtation. 7. Evidence that the collector is licensed. The above material is not required to vaildate a debt, but consumers are lead to believe that failure to provide such information frees them from their obligation to pay the debt.'' That paragraph was highlighted. "......There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo 174 F.3d394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S 891 (1999)." "Debt verification is intended, therefore, to be straightforward process in which the debt collector verifies 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.'' "If a CA does not respond to a request for vaildation made pursuant to the FDCPA within 30 days, or if the agency refuses to remove negative information form a credit report, several web sites encourage consumers to threaten to sue." This newsletter is dated Feb 2004. Their letter to me said that if I want a detailed bill to contact the service provider. It also says that any agreement we have with our client is privileged information. What should I do from this point?
LOL...that is TOOO funny. Matthew Johnson is a lackey of these guys who is trying to twist the law to fit thier distorted world view. 1) The FDCPA states in section 809 "(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. What part of "the debt collector shall cease collection...until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or copy of a judgement...and a copy of such verification or judgement IS MAILED TO THE CONSUMER BY THE DEBT COLLECTOR" They DO have to provide verification of the debt and the amounts owed. 2) If the damned CA is not liscensed and bonded in a state that requires it, it is ILLEGAL for it to pursue collection activities within that state. Period. 3) Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo 174 F.3d394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999) being cited here is bullshit. The court has said that the bills didn't need to be provided not because the FDCPA didn't mandate it, but because they were covered by ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVELEGE and WORK PRODUCT Exemptions. The defendant, a lawyer, didn't want his legal fees to become record in the court...he only wanted to declare the amount he thought he was due instead of itemizing it. Furthermore, he KNEW that the OC was guilty of FDCPA violations, among others, and had a memo of research produced. When the memo verified the defendants liability, he had it protected under the work product exemption. THerefore, the plaintiff's couldn't subpoena that memo to learn of the culpability of the defendant. LOL...where he got his reading is out of the crapper. 3) Yes. If the CA doesn't follow the FDCPA in validating a debt and continues to try to collect, they are in violation and SHOULD have thier asses sued. Period. Good luck with this chief!
Hi Toni. Ronda's right! What you've posted fails even the laughable test. As you know I'm quite interested in the validation issue. I'd be happy to help you but one thing I do request, a copy of this mysterious "newsletter" by Mr. Johnson. Would that be ok? email me. .
