Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad check question pls help click the link in my Sig below. There is a copy of the estoppel letter in that thread. ITS is not the same thing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad check question pls help I guess I'm just tired, I didn't clarify. I'm sorry. What I meant to ask was, isn't the estoppel letter for no reply from the CA "As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date>, and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo)" The CA has responded, just an idiotic reply from them. I'm sorry to be a pest, but I want to be sure that I handle this right.
: Bad check question pls help QUOTE]Originally posted by mommyof3 I 1* What I meant to ask was, isn't the estoppel letter for no reply from the CA? "As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute, and 2*you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, 3*The CA has responded, just an idiotic reply from them. 4*As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute. The CA has responded, just an idiotic reply from them. . [/QUOTE] ========================== 1*No it's for when they do not supply the Information demanded in the original validation letter. 2*Since they didn't supply this they did not reply or respond to your request-demand. Had they done so you would have gotten what you asked for in the validation. 3* Until they send you the items stated in the validation letter they have not responded or replied to the validation letter. 4*Actually the debate of wither or not the ca responded or replied is a mute point anyway because the Estoppel serves as a reminder to the CA that they did not furnish you with the required documents & repeats the demand for the information requested in the validation letter. As far as I'm concerned the estoppel is nothing more than a curtsey to a CA giving them a second chance to comply with the validation demand rather than going straight for the throat by filing suit on the CA.
Re: : Bad check question pls help The way I look at it any CA getting an Estoppel should thank their lucky stars. It could have been an Intent To Sue letter or a summons instead.
Re: : Bad check question pls help I've never sent the estoppel letter. 1*I read posts on here that some people have modified it b/c some parts are not legally correct. 2**Do you modify yours? mommyof3 ******************* 1*The nice part about this is while the debate rages on the CA continues to violate the Validation Letter. 2*Why would I want to modify the estoppel and change The CAs behavior described in one.
Re: : Bad check question pls help I need more help. Sorry to be a pest again. An update. It took me a little while to get going with all the storms in FL but I sent an estoppel letter to CA and they sent me a copy of the first letter they sent me and a COPY of the check. No one can produce the original check. State Attorney's Office says all documents pertaining to this has already been destroyed. CA is pointing at SA's office. Just sent above documents to us. OC knows nothing. What do I do now? I don't want to sue. I just want it off. I would be so grateful for any advice.
Re: : Bad check question pls help Did the states attorney's office provide the statement in writing that everything regarding this has been destroyed? If so, you may be able to do a variation of PCM. Here is a copy of a letter from your alleged client saying they destroyed everything, since you are now being advised that the original documentation is no longer available, under the terms of FTC v. PCM, you must delete this erroneous account from my credit reports within 5 days of receipt.
Re: : Bad check question pls help Jam, Thanks for answering. We don't have it in writing yet. I guess we'll be going to state attorney's office tomorrow to try and get it. What do we do at that point if they still won't delete?
Re: : Bad check question pls help Butch is the expert on PCM... But basically, if the original records have been destroyed, which the States Attorney has said, then under PCM (& likewise under Johnson v. MBNA) there is no way to conclusively verify the information in performing a reasonable investigation under Section 623(b). The only options are delete the account, or be sued for violating the FCRA.
Re: : Bad check question pls help You'll also want to get from the OC that they have no knowledge of this account.
Re: : Bad check question pls help We didn't get to the courthouse today b/c of the flooding. Our yard is a mess!!!! Thanks for the input. Butch....where are you??? jam, I got another letter from them today saying that they had tried to make payment arrangements with me (WHAT?????). That never happened!!! Anyways, now they're getting ugly. They are saying no way, no how will they delete this from our credit report even if we do pay it (again!). I don't have the letter with me right now to give you the exact wording but I'm torn between amusement at their arrogance and ignorance and being furious with the nonsense that they are putting us through. They are also saying that this is not in dispute. Every letter that we have ever sent them has disputed the debt! I have disputed with CRA. Will they be in violation if they verify this account?? I'm very grateful for the help!!
Re: : Bad check question pls help *hugs* Try to keep laughing... Their arrogance and stupidity is what you want... #1) As soon as they get a validation letter, for the purposes of the FCRA, the account is in dispute, Cass Opinion. No ifs, ands, or buts. They argue otherwise, $1,000.00 for reporting or threatening to report false credit information, including the fact that the account is in dispute. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm IV Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8). Now the Harvey opinion adds a slight caveat to that. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/harvey.htm When was the last time that they updated the account? If they do not update the account after it was disputed, then the act is silent on whether they have to make a special report to provide the notice of dispute, however, if you force them to report by disputing under 623(b), then they have to notate the dispute (if they have validated the account, and can continue collection activities).
Re: : Bad check question pls help Jam, It hasn't updated since they first reported it on 3/2001. So, if they verify, we have them on continued collection?? They never noted as in dispute. You're an angel, Jam. Thank you so much for your help.
