I requested a second validation from a CA on July 8. The first validation went out on June 10. On July 12 I get a letter from them saying they don't have to provide anything other than itemizations. Tonight I pull my CR online and I see they pulled an inquiry! WTF? I thought this was illegal! To make matters worse, it's on a CR that already deleted the account prior to the inquiry! I've already counted about 5 violations on these bozos; no mini miranda, no in dispute, continued collection and NOW THIS! I'm thinking this needs to go to Superior Court, but I'm wondering if I need to put the demand on this B**** first. How can I get rid of this? Or am I stuck with it?
Did they send the itemizations?...or just say "that itemizations are enough proof" (also what itemizations are they talking about...like a list of balances claimed you owe?). It has only been 30+ days, did you send a second copy of the same validation as the first time? Send Estoppel quoting Wollman and other relevant validation FTC opinion letters (do search). Include that they must remove the unauthorized inquiries. -Peace, Dave
You're certainly not stuck. Yes it is illegal for a CA pull an inquiry on your report after they have received a request for validation, but have not actually produced it (validation). It's considered continuted collection activity. Not to mention that they've now become recepients of sensative personal information, which was contained within your report. Did you send the FTC Wollman opinion letter with your first or second val. request? If not, send it with your final letter, your intent to sue letter. Also make sure they're aware that you've documenting every violation they've committed, and it's either delete all, or face a lawsuit. Send everything CRRR.
They did send itemizations from some computer ledger, but there were no entries regarding insurance pays, co-pays or ANY pays for that matter. That is all they sent me. Violations to date (if I'm correct): No validation - just itemizations. No Mini-Miranda. Continued collection. Inquiry without permissible purpose. Did not put it "in dispute". Verified while in dispute. and ... I'm still looking/counting. I was planning to send letter #3 tomorrow citing Wollman. I want to send it Monday, but I need to calm down and make ALL my points in a CALM, COHESIVE and PROFESSIONAL manner.
Smog, Who are these people? No validation - just itemizations is not a violation. § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f] A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any[b/] debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any[b/] amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Let us know what happens. I would wish you luck but you already have it.
Let me try that again; Smog, Who are these people? No validation - just itemizations is not a violation. Ca's are not required by law to validate. § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f] A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Let us know what happens. I would wish you luck but you already have it.
Sure, that's one way to look at it. However, on the other hand, by producing a letter from the FTC showing that the CA is wrong in thinking mere itemization qualifies as validation, helps (sometimes) push the CA in the direction of deleting their tradeline and/or inquiries, and simply going away. I'd rather have the CA just admit defeat and walk, rather than going through the process of filing a lawsuit. Of course, if you're looking to make some $'s off the violations and such, then filing is the way to go.
