I'm about to sue a CA, and through the knowledge that I have learned here I know that I will win. I have heard all the great positive results in suing, but I don't remember ever seeing anyone saying that they have lost. I know that while most people don't sue unless they "have 'em by the ying, yang" hasn't there been someone that made a tactical error or that they were pressed by a good attorney? Just wonderin... Charlie
Charlie, Keep this in mind. The vast majority of success stories seem to be that the cases were settled out of court. If you can prove this isn't your debt, you should be OK. But, if the CA makes a fight out of it and crossfiles and does prove it is your debt expect this argument to counter any FDCPA violations. "Judge, Charlie is not the injured party now. The injured party is the creditor that had the misfortune to cross paths with Charlie years ago and is poorer for trusting Charlie. We would suggest any violations of the FDCPA were harmless erors that never would have occured had Charlie paid his bills". {Remember Docs post about "unclean hands" a few weeks back?} I'm not trying to bust your chops or discourage you but, I believe that small claims court judges are biased against debtors in general. I'm just trying to help you flesh out a response now as opposed to being hit with it right out of the blue. One more hint. If you do end up in court, and one of the first questions is, is this your debt. You got problems. They won't ask unless they know.
keepmine. Thanks for the info. I understand exactly what you are saying. I must of missed Doc's post. Do you know how long ago it was posted. The past thread list is crazy to look through without knowing how long ago it was. thanks again for the info. Charlie
Let "Chatty Cathy" make a couple of comments here. . . You MUST play Devil's Advocate. . .this makes you prepared. First . . . In most cases, we are not sueing because we are disputing the fact that we may or may not owe the debt. We are sueing because they have violated our rights. Just because I may owe a debt, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO BREAK THE LAW. I would incorporate the answer to the "Is this your debt" by the judge into my complaint. The entire reason that I pursued validation in the first place is because I do not recall this debt and have no records showing that I owe this debt. I initially did some research on this company and found that they have forfeited their franchise August 25, 2000 and are not in good standing with the Secretary of States Office. I also found many complaints alleging deceptive business practices with their local BBB. I have tried contacting this company to resolve this matter. Considering their reputation, I was not going to send them money without proof that I owe it, which I do not believe that I do. They would not respond to any of the certified letters I sent them, and they continued to report the alleged debt without including the required dispute notation on my Credit Reports, all of which violated my rights as a consumer under the FDCPA and the FCRA. I have had to pay higher interest rates, I have been denied credit, I have had to spend much time away from work on this because of their continued willfull noncompliance. The humiliation this has caused me is unspeakable (here's where punitive damages comes in). I was asked to produce a copy of my credit report to a perspective employer because I needed a part-time job. I was not hired and have a letter stating from the perspective employer that their decision to choose the other person they interviewed, and not me, was due to this negativity on my credit report. I would have made a total of $800 to this date had I gotten the job. **you realize that part of the above story is fiction. I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY JUDGES OUT THERE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE COLLECTION BUSINESS INDUSTRY. I WASN'T UNTIL JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO. I HAVE FOUND THAT MOST OF THEM ARE MEAN AND UGLY AND BASICALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ABOVE OUR LAWS. WHY NOT. . .IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT AND STILL SLEEP AT NIGHT. HERE IS WHERE IT IS YOUR DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ENLIGHTEN THEM. YOU CAN DO IT. I am merely a consumer, not an attorney. These are just my thoughts and opinions at this point in my understanding of the law and how I might approach a situation. Keller )
I want them to come!! My overabundnace of evidence and trails of paperwork for their lack of following the law will burn them everytime. It doesn't matter if I say the debt is mine. I actually did take a CA who is in my city to court over a claim the stated on my credit report that they said I owed them all this money but despite my 4 letters and disputes with the CRA's they always came back verified and the CA could not prove the debt to me. I was asked in court as was stated "Is the debt yours?" I answered I had knowlegdge of the account but could not say for sure since the CA failed to show me that I owed them what they are stating, so my answer is "no" I do not owe them this debt they are stating. I stated to the judge that this isn't a case of my disputing whether or not I had this account but rather the information which is being reported to be true and accurate as the CA has furnished. My proof of their obvious violations left them baffled, amazed and speechless. They did not bring one shred of proof except a stupid printout, which my Wollman letter nullified and my letters requesting validation which only proved to the judge that they received them and ignored proving the debt to me. I was awarded $2000.00 for a $100.00 dentist bill they say I owed but couldn't prove! They also deleted it from my credit reports. Good Luck! Tac
TAC, WHERE WERE YOU YESTERDAY?!! YOU COULD HAVE ANSWERED MY POST! :O) Would you post the complaint you filed and what you took to court with you? How much did you sue for and how much were you awarded? How did the judge proceed when you were called for your case to be heard? Did you get the cost of your filing fees, etc? How and when did you get paid? What court did you file in? Justice? Small Claims? Will you post the link to the Wollman letter? Thanks. Keller
Jeffrey S. Wollman Vice President and Controller Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. 1261 Broadway New York, New York 10001 Dear Mr. Wollman: This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .â? in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer. 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. Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney Division of Credit Practices
This is the LeFevre-Cass letter (FTC opinion ltr): UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Federal Trade Commission December 23, 1997 Robert G. Cass Compliance Counsel Commercial Financial Services, Inc. 2448 E. 81st Street, Suite 5500 Tulsa, OK 74137-4248 Dear Mr. Cass: Mr. Medine has asked me to reply to your letter of October 28, 1997, concerning the circumstances under which a debt collector may report a "charged-off debt" to a consumer reporting agency under the enclosed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In that letter, you pose four questions, which I set out below with our answers. I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g. II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992). IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8). I hope this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, John F. LeFevre Attorney
