Brick Wall

Re: Re: Brick Wall

Update (sort of)

Received the following letter from the Atty General's office in the state of the CA, addressed to them from the CA:

Dear Sir or Madam,

This letter is in response to your letter dated December 2, 2003 in regards to the above referenced consumer complaint. Please be advised that CA is a specialty finance company that purchases various types of consumer accounts receivables in the normal course of their business. To date they have purchased over 15 million accounts.

The account in question originated with OC and was acquired by CA in February of 2003(TYPO!!!). At that time the original creditor represented to CA that this was a valid account and that amish was the obligated party. As a debt buyer we rely on the information that is provided to us by the selling creditors. (Then why can't you SHOW IT TO ME?!?!)

My review of this account shows that CA sent their "first notice" to the debtor on March 12, 2002. This notice informed him of his right to make a written request for validation within 30 days. There is no record of receiving any validation request within the thirty days. To the contrary, the first communication from the debtor was on October 14, 2002. At that time the debtor called CA and indicated to a CA representative that he intended to accept their offer of settlement for $XXX.XX, which was fifty percent of the balance. The debtor did not dispute this account in any manner. The account history shows that you made the payment on October 25, 2002. CA then closed out the account and marked it to be reported as paid the the credit bureaus.

Federal law provides that a debt collector is not required to provide validation of a debt if the request for validation is untimely. His request for validation was received over 16 months after the validation period expired and over 6 months after the account had been closed.

I would also like to point out that nowhere in the debtor's complaint does he deny that he owes the debt in question. His is a common tactic that debtors have recently been using to avoid paying their debts and to clear up their credit reports. They know that these debts are legitimate but they use the resources of the attorney general's office in an attempt to harass creditors into closing accounts and changing credit reports.

At this time, I would request that the debtor send this office an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, that he does not owe the debt in question. If he will not do that, then I request that he quit wasting the time of your office and my office in his frivolous attempt to avoid the consequences of his failure to pay his bills timely.

I hope that this has adequately responded to the debtor's complaint. Please feel free to contact this office if I can be of further assistance.


Sincerely,

Joe Collector, Corporate Counsel
________________________________________________

Okay, it's official. This guy is a DICK. Never once did I suggest that the account is not mine. I simply wanted to know how they arrived at such a ridiculous amount. I should sign an affidavit though, it just has to say "I do not owe the debt in question", which is technically correct since it's already payed. But to accuse me of not paying my bills on time and all that other garbage, damn I want to get this a-hole. Anyway, I looked at my state's dept. of licensing site and it looks as though this CA isn't licensed so I faxed them a request for proof of their authorization to collect in my state. Normally I might have given up but that guy has been such a smarmy prick that I will NEVER give up now! Then I found the juicy info on their lack of license...too sweet. Anyway, we'll see what THEY say about that.

Please, feel free to reply with your thoughts on this dickhead's brashness.