does this constitute a violation? ca sends letter affirming that they recvd my dispute/ val letter within the 30 days and states that they are in process of investigating the matter to obtain verification documents. then they proceed to say as of the date of this letter, you owe XXX$ because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may very day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. hence, if you pay that amount shown above any adjustment may be necessary after we recieve the check. for further info callus at XXXXXX I need to know what venue for small claims court that I can sue in also this ca is out of state and the debt or contract was signed in another county in the same state where Ilive now.
It sure sounds like they are attempting to collect the debt from you even while it is being disputed. Isn't this a violation?
Not only is this NOT continued collection activity, it actually fufills part of the request for verification.
how did you come to this conclusion im curious ??? am i interpreting this the wrong way ???? how can this be a partial validation by the Ca stating a balance that is disputed without even proving anything yet ??
well, I tried , but my mind starts changing gears thinking about all this stuff, plus I have alot of homework , needed to take a break, but I admit it Im addicted to this channel , couldnt resist checking for updates while I did my research
sorry to disappoint you guess you were hoping that I would quit it for awhile huh, sorry if I post too much.
LOL...actually no..I am awaiting your take on the case I emailed you...and the answer from your attorney
That is an FDCPA violation, Fun, nodding!!!!! The CA is required to cease collection activity until the documentation is mailed to you. They should have ended their letter with the first paragraph and included a disputed notation on your reports (if reporting). Did they include the required this is an attempt to collect a debt...statement in that letter? Sassy
Hi sassy to answer your question NO ! they did not include that info mini ,miranda another violation I think
Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute -No Sassy, this is not contiued collection activity. -In fact, the statement about "changing" costs/balance is RIGHT OUT OF THE CONSUMER LAW CENTER FDCPA manual. -It is recommended by NCLC FOR DEBT COLLECTORS to include an explanation of any "questionable" amounts, including "changing" balances etc in their verification response to the consumer. -A consumer cannot request verification, then sue because they go more than they asked for, which is even recommended by the NCLC. -FUN, wait for the "rest" of the verification. Then decide what to do -OR, they next COLLECTION letter
Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute But not including the "THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT" (or similar) IS A violation.
Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute The documentation has to come FROM the OC through the CA to the consumer. Regurgitating their own records (CA) isn't enough and is contrary to the purpose of validation. Fun said, 1st post: They don't HAVE the verification documents from the OC, they are trying to obtain them. It is a violation as is the lack of required wording that it is an attempt to collect a debt. So, while you have stated what you think the NCLC manual says, and I don't disagree, it would however be included in the verification response obtained from the OC and provided to Fun through the CA. In the meantime, they have to cease collection activity -- the wording in the letter is clearly attempting to collect without having mailed the documentation as required. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute "They don't HAVE the verification documents from the OC, they are trying to obtain them. It is a violation as is the lack of required wording that it is an attempt to collect a debt. So, while you have stated what you think the NCLC manual says, and I don't disagree, it would however be included in the verification response obtained from the OC and provided to Fun through the CA. " -It is NOT a violation, as this letter IS NOT an attempt to collect. -And I dont THINK the manual says anything, I KNOW it does. -The verification response DOES NOT have to come from the original creditor. -ONLY the information to respond to the "request of the consumer" has to. -Sassy, I am not sure what your motives are, but your posts dont help anyone, as they just foster contempt and disharmony. -If you want to help FUN, FIND case law that says this letter IS a violtion instead of offering your "opinon", as your opinion, and mine, IS NOT OF ANY VALUE IN COURT.
Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute Hi guys just read your postings sassy what am I to do ??? Im been going crazy trying to get 2 min with my lawyer who is always in trial to ask him this question hiding you are confusing me again is there or not case law on this?? heres my issue I sent the CA a notice of dispute, and requested validation within my 30 days,they respond with a letter saying we are looking into it.but fail to ever send anything, then they call me attempting to collect as if they did send proof, so I respond back with a C&D letter. 2 weeks go by and the CA sends me partial validation and says they are reactivating my acct, even though I already told them to C&D is this a violation???
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute -This is a little different. -The letter they sent, regarding amount of the debt, WAS NOT continued collection activity. -The "collection" call DURING the validation process, COULD BE a violation. -If you sent a "CEASE COMMUNICATION" letter, requesting to cease TOTAL COMMUNICATION, then the letter/calls AFTER they received the TOTAL CEASE COMMUNICATION letter, could also be a violation. -HOWEVER, if you sent a "limited/selective" cease and desist letter, THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO CEASE COLLECTION ACTIVITY
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute AGAIN, from Fun's first post, first paragraph: What is unclear in this sentence????? They need to obtain the verification documents. So, from receipt of Fun's validation request until they DO mail the verification documents, there can be no further collection activity. Second paragraph: How is this NOT an attempt to collect? That was YOUR interpretation of what the manual says. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor.Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer. They didn't even bother to itemize what they, from their own records, are claiming as due. See above. Actually, I think that is more reflective of your posts and questionable motives. Your credibility and motives should be the focus, not mine or anyone elses. 2 other people so far in this thread have disagreed with your advice, only you get to be correct, yet I am the one creating contempt and disharmony??????? We can check in any other thread that you have posted in and find the same, if someone isn't nodding along with YOU, everyone else is wrong and somehow that translates to creating contempt and disharmony and/or just misinformed. Find case law that says it is NOT a violation. Fun, This is insane, I'm feeling for you in trying to find your answers. I always tell people to do their own homework and get confirmation, you have to. If someone isn't or can't provide a source for the information they are providing as factual, it really isn't effectively useful to anyone. This manner of posting by Hiding is akin to bullyism and doesn't allow anyone to think, it only allows for nodding. So, all you can do is solicit enough other opinions to make up your own mind because ultimately you are the one responsible for the actions that you will take and, of course, any consequences. When you get a response like this, based on nothing (from above): Go to the FDCPA (or whatever is applicable) and see if it is true. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (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. Does it say anywhere in the statute that some portion or "part" of the verification will be mailed? No., it says the verification will be mailed. What does it say happens from the time they receive your request until it is mailed? Debt collection shall cease collection. What they provided you with in that letter does not fulfill part of your request for verification. Read (a)(1)., (1) the amount of the debt; That was required to be in the INITIAL COMMUNICATION to you. The FDCPA doesn't say the CA has to provide you with what it thinks is verification, it says verification of the debt has to be mailed to you and collection activity SHALL cease until it does. The Wollman letter linked above states the purpose of the validation section, to address dunning the wrong person and/or dunning for the wrong dollar amount. It explains why the CA's own records aren't good enough. Spears v Brennan: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he â??sent adequate verification of the debt [to Spears] in the October 30, 1996 notice of claim.â? Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). We cannot agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spearsâ?? loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least $350.00 more than the original loan amount. Therefore, Brennan violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against Spears after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that he was disputing the debt but before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears. See footnote We reverse the trial courtâ??s entry of summary judgment in favor of Brennan on this issue. For the same reason a contract alone isn't enough to satisfy the verification of the debt requirement, nor is an itemization alone and you've not even received an itemization. Look to the FAQ for your answers (or ask and confirm with the FAQ information as a first step), compiled over years and years of postings, postings that didn't occur in the same environment as is now thriving where thinking and discussion is stifled -- it was based on lots of input (the more the better) subtance, confirmable information, and respectful debates. Sources of information, confirmable sources used to be the rule and not the exception, click on them and decide for yourself. Your opinion and thoughts are as valuable as everyone elses -- http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?postid=419031#post419031 Ask and ask again, gotta love that bump, until you get enough input that you are satisfied with the answers, and comfortable with whatever direction you decide to go. Whatever you do, don't base your decisions that impact YOUR reports and YOUR life on whoever declares themselves the master of the board for the month. Most of your answers to any question are here, the archives are an awesome resource as well. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute "They need to obtain the verification documents. So, from receipt of Fun's validation request until they DO mail the verification documents, there can be no further collection activity. " -THIS WAS NOT FURTHER COLLECTION ACTIVITY. IT DID NOT ASK FOR MONEY! -AND a SIGNED CONTRACT AND ITEMIZED STATEMENTS CAN BE PROPER VERIFICATION!! -Garazanio v Harrison -The FTC opinion letter that is soooo tooooo often quoted, relates to THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LETTER. IT IS NOT a "blanket" standard for "proper" validation. And in addition, IT IS AN INFORMAL OPINION, KINDA LIKE YOURS! IT CARRIES NO WEIGHT. -Additionally, the Spears case addresses verification being "responsive to the consumers request". IT ALSO DOES NOT ESTABLISH A "BLANKET" standard for "proper" verification. -It is important to note, that the request for verification, IS NOT A CEASE COMMUNICATION. THEY COLLECTION AGENCY CAN CALL YOU AND MAIL LETTERS ALL THEY WANT. -As long as they do not request payment, make offers, or threaten suit etc, IT IS LEGAL!!!
