If I am going to tell them that they violated, I will attach a draft of the suit with the letter. There are times that it is beneficial to be knowledgeable, and there are times that it is beneficial to play dumb. Unfortunately, there may be no legal basis for the documentation that they PURCHASED the account, there have been many long discussions on here about whether there is or there isn't. The only one that I could see is if there is a clouded chain of custody of the account, where at any time, there appears to have been at least two companies each claiming possession of the account, and the documentation of assignment and purchase would provide clarity as to who owned the account on any particular point in time. The Wollman opinion provides the direction that they must OBTAIN from the OC, and PROVIDE to the CONSUMER documentation to validate the debt. I have sent a copy of the Wollman opinion, with a few key lines highlighted. You'd want to do this with the actual copy from the FTC web site.
Thanks for the info, I looked that up. That's exactly what this CA has done. Instead of providing me any verification of debt from the OC, they just sent me a letter, printed on their computer based on the info provided by previous creditor to them. I'll DV them again for a proper verification of debt as required by the law. Is there a way I can request the CRA's the method they used to verify the collection accounts with CA's?
As per my last post, I did send DVL2 to this CA. (CA replied back to the first DVL with just a letter, printed on their computer based on the info provided by previous creditor to them i.e. My name, Last 4 SSN. Also, they sent me that letter, a day after verifying with CRA ). Just recently, I received their reply to my DVL2. This time it says (not verbatim): --- We reviewed the info you provided, as well as our account notes, and info provided by the OC. We are unable to determine the nature of your dispute. We will report your account as disputed to the CRA's. Your account balance may be periodically increased due to the addition of accrued interest or other charges as provided in the agreement with the oc or as otherwise provided by state law. Also, they have asked me to contact their office, with documentation, if I still believe this information is incorrect. ---- I am really not sure what they're trying to do by sending this letter. In my two DVL's, I made it clear that I require competent documentation, from the original creditor, that I have any legal obligation to pay them for any debt, including any interest, late fees or other charges that they are claiming. I also sent them a small form questionnaire to fill out containing all that info. 1. As per their letter, it looks like they need documentation from me to prove that info they have is incorrect. However, I just need them to prove that I have any legal obligation to pay them for any debt, including any interest, late fees or other charges that they are claiming. Could somebody suggest as to what should be the next step from my side as I do want to reply to them within 30 days. 2. There's a small difference that I saw in their letter format this time. At the bottom of the letter they have mentioned that I can tell them to stop contacting me. Also, they have posted a link for FTC in case I believe they have violated FDCPA. Last time when they replied to my DVL1, they didn't mention any of that. Does that mean anything or is it just a standard verbiage used by the CAs?
They're trying to say that they can't figure out what your disputing, so they're just marking it in dispute on your credit reports. 1) The law requires that they provide you with the documentation to prove that what they have is right, not the other way around. 2) Depending on the CA involved, I know that SOME CA's have been ordered by the FTC to provide clear and prominent notices that you can demand that they cease communications, and provide information on how consumers who feel that they've violated the FDCPA can contact the FTC. Ironically, the first link I got from Google popped up an excellent example of #2... See the "Notice Requirements" on Page 5 of the Consent Decree. Houston-based Debt Collector Agrees to Pay $240,000 to Settle Charges of Violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Another settlement which includes the FTC notation. See the "Notice Requirements" on pages 9-10 of the Consent Decree. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823207/101021alliedinterstatedecree.pdf Another settlement which includes the FTC notation. See the "Notice Requirements" on Page 12-13 of the Stipulated Final Judgement. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/wam.shtm If you find out that the CA that you are dealing with is directly effected by an FTC settlement for previous violations, you can have a leg up on them.
Thanks for the quick reply. It looks like, there's a chance, that this CA doesn't have enough documentation. In their first reply to my DVL1, they just mentioned that they have purchased the account and the previous creditor indicated that the account was associated with a consumer with the name 'My Name', and 'My Last 4 SSN'. In their second reply to my DVL2, they just stated that they are not sure what I am disputing. To be on the safer side, shall I send them a DVL3 (within 30 days) which would be pretty much the same thing I sent to them in DVL1 & DVL2 OR is there a better response that I could send to them?
I personally would respond directly from their letter. (This is the 'bad' thing about form letters, they're not a coherent chain of communication.) Point out that in their letter they claimed to have reviewed the documentation provided by the OC, guess what, PROVIDING ME WITH THAT DOCUMENTATION IS WHAT VALIDATION IS! Did you send a copy of the Wollman Opinion with the second DV letter, with the bolded section highlighted? I would point out that the law requires that they provide validation of the debt, not just "yep, we say you owe it", and the law most certainly doesn't say, "if you have documentation to prove that you aren't the debtor, please provide it." You can't prove a negative, if you aren't the debtor, you don't have access to the 'evidence' that you're not the debtor, because you're not the debtor.
Thanks for the info. I am not able to figure out how to best deal with these two CA's as it's like playing hide and seek. CA1: Dec 2011 - I sent them DVL1. Jan 2012 - Disputed the entry with CRA as well. CA replied back to CRA within a week stating that it's a collection account. They also updated the latest amount due. Feb 2012 - CA sent me a letter. They sent me this letter, a day after, validating account with CRA. In the letter they mentioned: ---The account has been purchased by 'Name Of CA'. The previous creditor indicated that the account was associated with a consumer with the name 'My Name', and a Social Security Number of 'Last 4 Digits'. --- They also mentioned Original creditor account #, their internal account #, current balance. Mar 2012: I sent them a DVL2 stating that their reply does not meet the FTC guidelines of what constitutes proper debt validation. Mar 2012: CA replied back saying that: --- We reviewed the info you provided, as well as our account notes, and info provided by the OC. We are unable to determine the nature of your dispute. We will report your account as disputed to the CRA's. Your account balance may be periodically increased due to the addition of accrued interest or other charges as provided in the agreement with the oc or as otherwise provided by state law. ---- April 2012: I sent them a DVL 3 stating that I haven't yet received any legal validation of the debt in question and thus sending them another notice pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) that their claim is disputed and validation is once again being requested. April 2012: CA replied back with the exact copy of the letter they sent to me on Feb 2012: ---The account has been purchased by 'Name Of CA'. The previous creditor indicated that the account was associated with a consumer with the name 'My Name', and a Social Security Number of 'Last 4 Digits'. --- They have also mentioned Original creditor account #, their internal account #, current balance. What should be the next best reply for this CA? CA2: Dec 2011-I sent them DVL1. Jan 2012 - Disputed the entry with CRA as well. CA replied back to CRA within a week stating that it's a collection account. They also updated the latest amount due. Mar 2012 - Sent them DVL2 mentioning that I haven't received any reply from them for the DVL I sent in Dec 2011. April 2012 - CA replied stating that: --- We have not received sufficient information to investigate your dispute as required by the FCRA. We submitted a request to CRA to update status as "Disputed." We need detailed information to identify the basis f your dispute. --- So, pretty much, this CA is also following the same thing as it was done by CA1. I am afraid that if I send them a DVL3 stating that their reply does not meet the FTC guidelines of what constitutes proper debt validation, they're probably gonna do the same thing as CA1 did. Is there something else I could do? Also, when sending a copy of the Wollman Opinion with the DVL, do I need to mention that in my DVL that I have attached that? Later on, they might say that they never got it.
