30 day Rule. I have some questions and thoughts on the 30 day rule. When we get the first Dunning Letter the Mini Miranda on the bottom should state the FDCPA part of the code giving us 30 days to respond before the CA can assume debt is valid and continue with their SO-CALLED Collection Activity. Now what happens when some CAs come back with So-Called Validation BEFORE THE 30 DAYS has PASSED!!!! (some goofy printout of bill) and they know and we know it ain't validation. But now the CA makes statements like this to us: 1. Hey we validated> see the bill we sent you or the printout!!! 2. And now we can continue our Collection Activity!!! 3. We can now report our account to the CRA but hey we are going to wait because we are a nice little OLE CAs BUT....... 4. Pay NOW you deadbeat!!!!! I have had a CA just do this to me. Yes they sent me the validation BEFORE the 30 days passed. And it is not validation what-so-ever. They know it and I know it. Now here is the violation that I think has occurred. EVEN IF THEY have validated it seems to me they have to wait the 30 days. By sending the second letter they basically are making a statement of indent............. We have done this (which they have not ie validated) so now you have to do this!!! PAY NOW. It seems that any CA wanting to play it safe would send the proof of claim AFTER the 30 days then ask for your response FROM THE CONSUMER to their"proof of claim documentation" State that they THE CA awaits your written response and if they do not hear from you in a timely matter then they CA will assume the debt is valid. And I think the CA DOES NOT ASK US FOR WRITTEN response because they do not want us possibly writing back and ASSERTING OUR CONSUMER RIGHTS The CA is trying to get payment QUICKLY BEFORE the consumer gets even alittle smart about the whole process!!! Also if it was me ie I was the CA I would put the Mini Miranda right on the bottom of the page AGAIN!!!!! The CA DID NOT include the mini Miranda on the second letter they sent me that was on the first letter. This would be very confusing to a uninformed consumer!! Do I not have the right of the 30 day time frame or not??? PLUS the CA is collecting from me here in California and after I talked to 2 California Lawyers they told me to look carefully at the second letter the CA sends IT MUST have another Mini Miranda warning that California Law NOW requires.... it is basically a statement of the consumers rights not to be harassed by a CA and what to do concerning the CA to stop harassment like calling, writing, threatening ect ect. This is a clear violation by this CA and also I think the second letter is also......... The second letter sent to me by this CA I believe violates the 30 day rule AND also FDCPA Section 1692e (5 and 10) Threat of Unintended Action Usually the above arises from a CA sending a consumer a second or third letter stating pay this OR we will litigate when the CA has no intentions of litigation or MAY NOT LITIGATE. However I think the principle applies to any CA that uses a THREAT TO PAY in ANY MATTER WITHIN the consumers 30 day "dispute period" The CA is trying to get their money QUICKLY as time passes ......consumers gets smarter by reading up and the consumer law. Ok comments FOLKS............ SKI
Nope. Read the FDCPA. You have 30 days from receipt to dispute, they can respond at any time to that dispute. You have the 1st 30 days. There is no clear cut definition of what IS validation. If you don't think what you have received, you need to re-dispute, but up until that moment, they can assume they satisfied your request and continue collection activity. Did they use the word will? They can collect in the first 30 days up to the moment they receive a dispute letter from you, and as long as their attempts to collect do not overshadow your right to dispute.
Thanks for the reply. I have heard though that they need to give you the first 30 days to dispute and any other letter asking for payment within the first 30 days is a violation UNLESS they send back validation but of course the CA will say it is validation. SKI
No, the 30 days is not a grace period. They can collect by any means up until the point they hear from you. Here's some reading for ya: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/fdcpaadvisoryopinion.htm
Hello Flynn yep got that and read the creditboards Validation thread if you know of that one> waht a long thread...........lot of argument on what occurs or should during validation. I agree some got the faxt that CA can still have collection activity UNITL you disput. But I think there is something very interesting about the 30 day rule once yo dispute it then it is "IN FORCE" until the CA validates AND a consumer can argue all day long that validation has not occured by the CA and the threshold is very high to validate I believe. Oh the can put it on your CRA but if you sue then they have got another violation IF they did not fully validate it is their risk to take. SKI
Whether the threshold is high or low is in the eye of the beholder. You want one level of "proof"; the CA wants to send you whatever the OC sent them; the judge makes his own decision. You can all argue all day long until you get it in court for a final decision. If you have a bill stating the OC did "X", and wants to be paid for it, and you have the job site where a picture would show "X" was not done, or a tenant will state the OC never did "X", that refutes the legitimacy of the bill. If there is an original estimate saying "I will do "X" for Y dollars", and he billed for Y, it implies he is billing for doing "X", which should have been done.
Quite correct Ontrac If I was in the middle of this and the CA is I would throw the debt back the the OC And I would throw it quickly and immediately. Why would the stupid un-licensed contractor do work without a contract BECAUSE it nails him in writing It is bad enuf the silly fool is gettting a CA to try to collect on this crap. Yes and I did the UNTHINKABLE and major NO NO I talked to the CA on the phone. They had no idea of what was going on they just thougth the bill was legit Will see what happens now but the head of the CA now knows there is alot more to this than a typical bill owed. SKI
I've known several contractors who did smaller jobs until they got their licenses, typically moonlighting while working for some licensed contractor. Although there might have been some argument about whether a license was needed for each job they did, the basic rule was "choose your job carefully, and keep your customer happy." Actually not bad policy if you are licensed either.
Yes Ontrack the bill is $155.00 I have sent now 3 DV letters and the One letter that you suggested ie here is the check I paid the guy in Full he cashed it ect ect.......... I also had someone (Friend) go to the CA for inpspection of all records they have concerning the debt and the lady was just signing for one of my letters when My friend came by..................... She said her name was BLAH BLAH and when I got the CMRRR back her name was NOT BLAH BLAH but GOOFY GOOFY In other words the name she is signing on her Validation response is not her but a made up name. SKI
Is this not misrepresentation?? The CA does not have a bond or license The CAs Frim names corporate Charter was revoked. The lady who is signing her name to the letters is not her real name. In other words this CA does not operate with any legal or REAL name whatsoever. I find it silly sending letters to this CA quoting legal satutes it does not mean a thing to them. SKI
At some CAs, it is common for employees to use aliases. You have the signature green card showing delivery, even if it was totally illegible, and you can print out a confirmation of delivery from the post office web site, based on the Certified number. That's your proof of delivery, and they would look like fools to claim otherwise. It looks like your line in the sand with the CA is at the point they put their TL on your reports.
I may be mistaken but I believe that may be a prosecutable offense of document forgery. File a complaint with the USPS and tell them you have a witness to it. I'm sure they'd love to hear it. Cheers, WH
Are they denying receiving it? Are they claiming that the signature on your green card is not their employee? That would be a lame excuse since your Certified receipt shows you put it into the mail system for delivery to them, and the green card referencing that certified number shows the postal mail deliverer presented it at the designated address and obtained a signature from a person accepting that letter. We have this funny concept in common law that your name is whatever you choose to be called by. Nicknames, or whatever, whether it is on your driver's license, or birth certificate is irrelevant. However you sign your name, if you represent it as your signature, then it is your signature. You might even have different signatures you use for different purposes, and they might all be equally unreadable. You have no obligation to sign green cards in exactly the same way you endorse your checks.
