Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute LOl Hi Sassy & Hiding you two remind me of deja Vu from me & hiding last week arguing the issues. one thing I mentioned earlier that you must have both missed is the CA PURCHASED this acct from the OC they have the entire file already. so they should have had no problem validating if the debt was ligit which I know for a fact it is not ! the C&D letter stated do not contact me any further regarding this debt so I see their phone call and letter after this was done as a violation . hiding does make some good points to question the reality so I will do my own research thx for the links to add further interest the idot called again today and said he would send me a letter explaining his position like I care hello what does C&D mean to you, he thinks he can still contact me for this unvalidated debt. ok send me another letter Ill gladly take the evidence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute The letter they sent spelling out the amount may "change" IS NOT part of any violation. The calls etc ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT, and ANY CONTACT (besides an update on the amount) is probably a violation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute must have missed it...the letter u posted said they expained the amount may change from if you paid it now, to later.. additionally, they left out the "this is an attmept to collect a debt...." which is usally pre printed on their letter. So this can be argued that they did that intentially to aviod the inference it was further collection activity. I agree you have a case, just not with the letter you started in this post o well
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute after the dispute conf and mention that they will investigate the matter to obtain the docs, the letter goes on to say as of right now you now owe $ XXXX but it can change due to daily interest so If you send us your ck call this # if u have any question as to the current balance. we would appreciate your payment. yada yada yada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute It absolutely did ask for money and actually said the longer fun waits the more it will cost. Dude, I swear you can't read!!!!!! You really are your own worst enemy!!!!! I did not say or imply that anything less than that isn't verification -- that much isn't always required. I posted a link to the Spears case (where's your link, btw) and said: You need to learn to spell too, it's Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F. 2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1991) and you must not have read that case either. It absolutely does NOT say anything at all about a signed contract (that is SPEARS), it says: C. Verification [32] Graziano argues that Harrison failed to provide adequate verification of the debts that Harrison sought to collect. The district court concluded that the materials provided to Graziano were sufficient to verify the debts. We agree with the district court. The computer printouts provided to Graziano were sufficient to inform him of the amounts of his debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred. Summary judgment was appropriate for Harrison on this issue. That's just plain wrong. And where are you getting blanket from and why is it in quotes -- I didn't use that word or imply it. Didn't read that case either, eh? Don't read the FDCPA either, eh? They have to cease collection activity until the verification is mailed to the consumer. This is just wrong as well -- you've never read the FTC's commentary on the FDCPA, huh? Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute Glad you are enjoying it, as soon as he wears himself out misquoting me, so I don't feel the need to respond, I'm gonna let him have his paper burger king crown and be the master of his own world ;-) This is important. Debt buyers don't buy the documentation that goes along with the debt -- they have to buy it seperately if it's even available. Yep, if you said cease communication and didn't attach anything to it, it is cease communication except in those instances that were already posted from you. So, the letter itself that you received is a violation, if mailed after they received you request. If you are in a state where you can tape, do it! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute "Glad you are enjoying it, as soon as he wears himself out misquoting me, so I don't feel the need to respond, I'm gonna let him have his paper burger king crown and be the master of his own world ;-) " I will never wear myself out quoting you or misquoting you. It is my goal to get you to post as much as possible so people can see just how misinformed you are. It already worked for LK and you are right about the Graz. case....it ONLY ADDRESSES COMPUTERIZED statements....which doesnt it make sense that MERE STATEMENTS were "proper" , then a signed contract AND compuerized statements is even "properer? LOL bitter old maid.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute You are spewing again, that wording is required in the FDCPA specifically, to NOT include it on any communication (which the letter is) is a violation. Look for yourself, Fun, I previously linked the FDCPA. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute it is?? where??? hmm seems to me it is only required IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF A DEBT but what do i know??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute Sassy I did look it up it IS a violation confirmed with my attorney finally just read his e-mail they failed to post the debtor rights on the coll letter whoo hoo cha ching !! I could use the cash and pay off my good CC these case issues and quotes are getting so old I see how they are taken out of context and misinterpreted I guess to each it own. hey Im jealous lol where my BK crown I wanna play 2 lol??? can they throw in a kids meal I missed my dinner with all these issues.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute Not much left to twist, eh? It didn't work for LK and hasn't worked for me either -- only confirms that you spew at the keyboard and are incapable of having an objective discussion. You know, there's a spell check button you can use. I know I'm right, I read the case, would be happy to email it to anyone other than you who wants it. You though were just plain lying about what it said and once it was confirmed that you were now you want to twist it back around. Can't baffle 'em with BS anymore in this thread so you'll just hop on down into the gutter, eh? Like I said, your posting tactics amount to bullyism -- knock yourself out. Your every post reflects on who you are, as if it isn't clear enough already. Sorry, game over! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute be careful the validation rights is only required on the initial communication FUN. and the "this is an attemp to colect......" is only required on A COLLECTION LETTER. Ask him what he thinks about the letter they sent you regarding the "changing" balance.. Make sure YOUR ATTORNEY agrees that IT IS a collection letter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute Congrats to you, Fun!!!!!!!! Sassy EDITED to add: Glad you are seeing it, that will get you everywhere! Passing you a big-kids meal ;-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute Hiding, you have misquoted, misinterpreted and twisted everything possible, and then you start calling names. How professional. What other user name do you or did you go by here?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute hmm i dont recall ever getting banned Just one case? PS- just one
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute are you ok I think I know a collection letter when I see one, you are mixing up the cases now.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY "LEGALLY ACTIONABLE" RIGHT TO DISPUTE ANYTHING WITH THE FURNISHER UNDER THE FEDERAL LAWS!!! WHY CANT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!!! ? SHOW ME I AM WRONG>>.SHOW ME THE STATUTE! I am FINE thank u I KNOW THE ISSUE...it is the leter u got after you requested validation in which the letter contained info about a "changing balance" THIS IS THE LETTER YOU NEED TO CONFIRM WITH YOUR ATTORNEY to make sure IT IS A COLLECTION LETTER! YOU REQUESTED VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT, VERIFICATION INCLUDES THE "EXPLANATION" of the amount. By them informing you that the amount MAY CHANGE is verification NOT COLLECTION ACTIVITY. THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS THEY CANT SEND VERIFICATION IN SEVERAL LETTERS.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute enough Hiding its a pointless cause. this board is not your playground for verbal abuse !! its a learning tool , your comments produce nothing more than disenssion and fustration if you have nothing nice to say keep it to YOURSELF please !!! Im done here. sassy I got your back
Well, I'm glad to know that more of you besides Sassy are seeing thru Hiding's BS. Hiding, you might want to read the plain language of the FDCPA. (11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action Where does the plain language of the statute say only if its a collection letter?????????????
