Wow! I need input! Last week DH recieved a letter from a new CA for an OC recently disputed. They (the CA) are not yet reporting to the CRA's. I put the letter aside. On Saturday DH received a new letter from them, stating they had received his letter of dispute dated 12/11/03. (We never sent them one...never heard from them until last weeks letter) They state they bought the debt from OC in July 2003. They state they are contacting the OC for documentation of the account. They state they may take up to 90 days to get the information. They state they need additional information from DH... A copy of current driver's liscense, social security card, and signature on a seperate piece of paper. (Are they nuts??) I knew we recieved the other (debt collection) letter well after the 11th.... The letter is dated 12/5/2003 yet the envelope stamp is 12/12/2003. They backdated their collection letter!!! I don't know if the envelope is proof or not as the "mailed from" zipcode is different than the zipcode they've listed in their letter! And of course, there is no return adress on the envelope! Do tell! NuB
CA seems like a bunch of schmucks(sp?). Also sounds like they can't validate, asking you for your SSN#, driver's license #, sig. on separate paper??? Why do they want your sig. on a separate piece of paper. If it is your debt, they should be able to prove it. Hold them to your original validation request, 30 days, not 90.
Thank you for responding Cinderella! Okay, so give them 30..... I suppose from the date they state they recieved the dispute, Dec 11. ( the OC received the dispute on November 18 and must have forwarded it to them) I know, strange request for the signature! Will I still look okay in court giving them the 30 instead of the 90 they claim it may take? Since they now have a paper trail too.... I'm just wondering how a judge would look at that.... I wish the envelope was proof of the violation... slime balls. Thanks again! NuB
NB, I misread your post You never sent a letter to the CA for validation, but disputed with the OC? If this is the case, it is really odd why the CA would send you something looking like a response to a validation request that you never made. Weird. Well, whatever you disputed with OC is not the same as validation with CA. OC has no time limits on a dispute, when you go to directly to the OC. If CA is claiming they have an account with you, request validation on them. It doesn't matter they sent you some letter stating they are in the process of obtaining OC's documents and would like you to give them your personal info. They still claim they have an account with you. Send the validation request out CCCR to the CA.
Hi Cinderella, thank you for your reply. Yes, it is odd, but they are claiming they have the dispute that was sent to the OC. The dispute I sent was actually a validation request, based on the samples on CreditNet. This was my first ever round of disputes, and the sample letter said it was for use with OC's or CA's. This is the letter with the Creditor Disclosure included. I started a thread at that time asking if this was okay to send to an OC, because I thought I'd read conflicting information, but the only person that replied to my question said to go ahead and send it. So it is the same validation letter I would have sent to the CA. They say the received it on Dec. 11th, do you still think I should write the same letter, just address it to the CA? Let me know. I've read bad things about this CA, obviously... Thanks again! NuB
Can't say for sure NuB, it's kind of a guess how a magistrate might interprtet this. Validation is imposed on CA's under FDCPA, not OC's. You must send that validation request to the CA, not the OC. Only in California, under Calif.'s state consumer legal act is an OC required to validate. So the OC has forwarded your validation request, made upon the OC and addressed to the OC, to the CA, according to the CA's letter. Since the OC has forwarded a request you made upon the OC to the CA, does that mean your request for validation is automatically transferred to the CA and valid? Maybe, maybe not. I *think it is subject to interpretation. Based on the CA's letter to you, it doesn't appear they could validate the account right now. IMHO, take the guess-work out of it and send out a new validation request to the CA, CRRR.
