I received an initial letter from Asset dated 3/14/02 - received it on 3/20/02. I immediately sent off a valadation letter (CRRR) on the 28th of March. They signed for the letter on 4/2/02 and today I receive a letter from a lawyer's office (dated 4/9/02) for the same account. Asset never responded to my valadation letter they immediately sent my file to a lawyer. Can they do this when I'm still within the 30-day window? I thought that they had to cease collection activity until they supplied me with the requested information. Who do I go after now (Asset, the Lawyer or both?) I appreciate your help.
What exactly does the letter from the attorney say? Is it a demand for payment? Is it somewhat of an attempt at validation? Does it have the "mini-miranda" on the bottom as all CA's are required to have? If it's anything short of proper validation, I believe that is count 1 you have them on. I suggest you wait out the 30 day time frame, then send the estoppel letter to both Asset and the attorney (cover your bases) pointing out that they have not validated this debt, and furthermore they have violated your rights under the FDCPA by not ceasing collection activity until they validate this debt as being yours.
Dear Mindcrime2: Thanks for your input. Yes, it is a demand for payment in full or call to discuss payment arrangements. Again, Yes, the mini-miranda appears at the bottom of the letter. "This communication is from a debt collector...notify this office within 30 days after receipt to dispute the validity of this debt, etc., etc.
Debbie, From the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act section 809: [ pay particular attention to subsection (b) ] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. -------->(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. Just as subsection 809 (b) states, the debt collector must cease collection of the debt until they can validate it. From the FDCPA section § 813. Civil liability [15 USC 1692k] (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this title with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of -- (1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure; (2) (A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000 Or in other words, you have them on 1 violation so far, potentially worth $1,000. Now did you say this collection account is or is not reporting to the CRA(s)? If not - then good. If it is, and Asset did not note the account as being disputed by consumer that is another violation you have them on. From the FCRA: Pay particular attention to section 623 (a) (1) (B) and 623 (a) (3). § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. (C) No address requirement. A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address. (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. (4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed. (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action. (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. (c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s]. (d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section. So, if they're reporting this on your reports, and it has not been noted as such, that's violation #2. So far that's potentially $2,000 in damages you have against them. Now if the debt is smaller than $2k, or even if it's close to it, most CA's will just drop the account and run. They don't want a legal battle, especially one they know they won't win. P.S. Sorry this is so long, just wanted to make sure you understood everything.
Mindcrime: I will pull my credit report today and see if Asset added a tradeline. Who is held accountable for the violation (Asset, attorney or both)? Should I contact the Attorney (in writing, of course) and provide copies of the initial dispute with Asset or as you suggested let it ride the 30-days? You have been a great help, thank you! I'd like to provide you with some additional information from my area of expertise... There is a new tracking system that collection agencies are using. It's called Mail.Trak - this system uses plant codes on outbound and inbound mail. This code has the look and feel of a postal barcode. Should anyone receive mail that has TWO barcodes in the addressing area...be warned.. your inbound mail is being tracked by the sender to your door and the same applies to your outbound mail. So, the "I never received your letter" line will soon become obsolete.
Are the bar codes place side by side or on top of each other. I have an envelope from Asset that is pretty long...looks like it could be two bar codes.
Dear Rblues: There will be 2 barcodes that appear in the address window. One barcode will be above your name the other will appear below your City, State and Zip. The top barcodes is the planet code (the tracking device for inbound mail from the sender). You will also notice two barcodes on the remittance portion of the statement (one for the post office the other for planet code tracking). Again, the top barcode is the planet code. Hope this helps!
Debbie, Depending on who the collection tradeline is from is who will be held responsible. i.e. If Asset has a tradeline on your report(s), and they have not marked the account as in dispute by consumer after you have the proof that they received your letter, then they are responsible, it the attorneys name is there or his law office name, then they are. Sending the attorney copies of previous letters you've sent to Asset, along with a copy of the green card showing the date stamp would be a good idea. Be sure to outline in your letter that they have already violated the FDCPA by not validating this debt after receiving a request from you to do so, and by continuing collection efforts. Send them a copy of the FTC opinion letter ( I believe I posted it above, it not tell me to post it and I will ) which outlines what the FTC considers "continued collection efforts". Now Debbie, I have a question for you: The new mail.trak system, you say it has two barcodes, however, can you tell me exactly how the process works? I guess what I'm trying to say is, do they set up the letter in envelope and scan it in-house and then send the letter to the consumer, or does the postman scan it when he drops it in your mailbox? I ask because if in fact they have these pieces of mail scanned in-house at their office, then this offers no further evidence that the letter was indeed sent out then just sending something through regular post. Only if a third-party, such as the postman, scans the mail before placing it in the receipients mailbox, would truly stand up in court as "absolute proof". On the flip-side, if this is what they're going to start using, they better watch their backs when they place the notation "cannot locate consumer" on a consumers credit report. Someone on the board recently posted about a CA that has added this statement on their report, yet the CA is claiming to him/her that they (the CA) sent out several letters in the past ( I think they were responses to validation requests) and that they were no longer obligated to validate the debt (which is wrong), so.... which is it? Can you not locate the consumer or did you send previous letters out to the consumer? Or in other words, the consumer can hold on to that mail along with the barcode and present it as evidence that indeed the CA knew where to find the consumer, and by adding the statement " cannot locate consumer " is false.
They are doing this on my reports. I have copies showing that they ahve never changed it either, even though we have been sending letters back and forth for quite some time. Athough, the last update on my report from Asset is from April 2001...except for a dispute that was verified by EQ in March 2002. Do they *have* to update their reporting on a regular basis to the CRAs?
Mindcrime: How mail.trak will work...prior to letters being sent out, a sequence number or customer account number will be used to make up the planet code (the tracking device for each unique piece of mail). Once the letter is dropped into the postal stream, it will be scanned as it runs through their operation. Therefore, it will be scanned several times before it reaches your door (date and time stamped). As your letter is moving through the postal system, flashes are being sent to the business that your letter will arrive in home on X day! The lettercarrier does not have the ability to scan your mail once he/she places in your mailbox/slot. The last scan will be prior to your lettercarrier. I will add the website to my next post.
Debbie, Okay, now I have a better grasp on how this system works. However, if the last scan is prior to the letter carrier even picking it up to bring on his route, how can they (the CA) claim with 100% certainty that the letter indeed was delivered to the recepient? -I understand that under "reasonable measures" the letter in all likelyhood did get to the recepient, but the CA's new mail.trak system is no more "proof worthy" than delivery confirmation (which is when the postman scans the letter before he puts it in the mailbox), in fact its less "proof worthy"(because DC is scanned just prior to placing mail in mailbox, while mailtrak is only last scanned at the receipients local post offce).... and from my understanding, delivery confirmation wouldn't quite stand up in court, while signature confirmation and certified return receipt requested would. Of course, anyone (like members of this board) who know the system wouldn't let a CA notice slip by anyway, (i.e. they wouldn't claim they never received the notice), they'd be firing off a validation the day after they get the collection notice.
