Spoke with a Asset Acceptance Collector today and he know's about Creditnet. Said that our letters are so alike that he knows where we are getting them from. Told me to stop playing musical certified letters game. All I get is printouts from the validating the debt. I sent the CRA this and the sided with Asset Acceptance. Scum Scum Scum By the way they have a system called CreditWatch. It tells them when new info is placed on your file. So they can skiptrace with the new creditor on your file to get updated info..... Scum.............
While it is annoying that they may read the boards and that form letters might be used, It is IRRELEVENT to the law. They are still required to validate. It is not up to the collector to decide to what is considered proper validation. FTC takes care of that. Send him the Wollman letter and <joke> tell him to read the boards some more as he might learn something </joke> pb112239
I send the Wollman, I then spoke to their legal guy, I don't have the name on me , but he said that the letter is just a "Staff Opinion" letter and let the judge decide. BTW I do not wantto go to court yet I am under the SOL still.......
The legal guy said in his "opinion" the letter does not stand up. BTW ... They reaged my account with them after that. I have a copy of a old Credit Report to prove it. It now is re-aged and says Located Consumer. Before it said Cannot locate Consumer. I will use this against them , but I have to wait until SOL is up.
Well, who cares if they read the board? I mean, if they stick around long enough they may actually learn something about validating within 30 days, the time specified by LAW. He's right, let a judge decide. You have far more ammo than them. If I were them, I would start reading this board too. But it still doesn't change the fact that we are more knowledgeable than the average consumer and they hate that they can't walk all over us. Can I give you one word of advice pulse? NEVER EVER EVER talk to a CA on the phone. Good rarely comes from these conversations. Get it in writing. Let Michael tell you his opinions in writing. Remember, if it isn't in writing, it doesn't exist.
Bottom line is they know you are doing the credit repair process by yourself and they simply don't see your case as a real threat. A small claims lawsuit is the only thing that will get their attention. Don't be afraid to file a lawsuit and use that to manipulate them into seeing things your way. If they have reaged your accounts, then go through the process and sue them if you must. Good luck. Calmest_LA
Re: Asset Acceptance knows Creditne Ditto everybody (of course)... By the way, you don't have to wait until the SOL is up to seriously threaten a credible lawsuit. Who cares if they've seen any of the intent-to-sue documents? They hold water. Your next step is an inexpensive small claims lawsuit which will cost them more money to deal with in court irrespective of whether or not they anticipate winning. The cool thing about the tactics discussed on this board is that they are legal and quite irritating. Doc
Re: Asset Acceptance knows Creditne My update on Asset is they called me at work today demanding full payment and nothing less. I told them to go to hell. They said talk to you tommorow then....
Re: Asset Acceptance knows Creditne Have you sent a c&d letter to have them stop calling you at work?
Re: Asset Acceptance knows Creditne Sending the C&D today. After that I know they will go for the judgement.
Re: Asset Acceptance knows Creditne Just because they "go for a judgement" does not mean they will get one. Of course, they will if you just roll over and let them run the show. But that's not going to happen now, is it? You've already said they've failed to validate the account, correct? I don't care what some collector or Michael Beach has to say about whether or not the FTC opinion letter "holds water". He's not a judge, nor will he ever be. Whether it holds water or not is for the judge to decide. And even though it may only be an opinion letter from the FTC, the FTC is certainly held in much higher regard than some legal counsel for some CA. Also, they're reporting on your reports correct? If so, did they place the account in dispute? If not, do you have proof they didn't? Did you dispute with the CRA, and has it come back verified? If so (on both counts) that's yet another violation. Did you send a procedure request to the CRA(s)? (this would be more for use against the CRA, but good to do never-the-less). You have options. If the above is going on (not validating, not marking in dispute, verifing back to CRA) then you have them on violations, and they NEED to be held accountable. Another thing, after you sent your request for validation, did they continue collection acitivty? I'm willing to bet they did since they're already claiming they "validated".
They assume they validated the debt with the printout. Their attorney Michael Beech told me that. I really want to kill this thread because Mr. Beech told me he has seen this type of wolman letter before. He said it was sent out by people over the internet. A credit repair site. So Beech is looking at this site and I don't want him to know my next move. These collectors types have a conventioon meeting in Las Vegas every year and I bet they will be talking about Creditnet this year as a site to monitor........
