Now Sassy, I have asked you this before... Can you warn me before you say something like this?????? My poor computer monitor can't take much more of me spitting coke at it without blowing up
Hiding...... I think someone needs to wash your mouth out with soap. I get a kick out you hassling Lizard, but do you have to go off ranting and raving garbage in bright red supersized font??? I don't know, there is something Charles Manson like about your sig. Anyways, I've been up all night on a deadline finishing a project for work, I'm going to bed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute when was he banned ? LK I think by his sig line that would possibly be a good reason to start with.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute Last Post: 04.29.2004 01:46
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute 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) substance, confirmable information, and respectful debates. Sassy ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> So now Hiding 90 comes along after all of these years and postings and nearly all his post refute this information. This has always bothered me about him! ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ca pursing during 30 day dispute Thx lbrown you guys have been buzy, I see what you mean with the conflicting info. the previous posts were alot easier to understand. of course some laws have changed since then which helps. you sure have alot of posts you must be a seasoned expert
one thing I mentioned earlier that you must have both missed is the CA PURCHASED this acct from the OC 1*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 ! 2* fun4u2 ============= 1* They seldom get the paper work when they buy the debt.
I think we need to more closely examine the position taken by Hiding, as it seems to have been accepted by some without question. Although it may present a figleaf of cover to a CA skirting the edges of legality, it in no way addresses the responsibility of both OC and CA to report only accurate information, since failure to dispute within 30 days is not to be interpretted by the courts as admission that the debt is legitimate or accurate. It appears to be just an argument that a CA can make to an ignorant consumer to claim they have unknowingly waived any right to dispute a claim, possibly without any notice actually delivered, and waiving of consumer rights is not what the FCRA is about. In fact, if used in this manner, it may run afoul of the FDCPA: "(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. " In the absense of access to other OC or consumer records, there is no verifiable difference between a CA who will not validate, and a con-artist. I do agree with his position that it may pay to be familiar with pertinent case law, but if there is a legitimate dispute, notice should be given, regardless of the existance of an interpretation of FCRA overly favorable to the CA. In effect, Hiding's argument that a CA has no obligation to respond, yet can continue to collect, would require a CA to claim both that they are attempting to collect, and that they are not attempting to collect. If you accept your opponent's arguments, you have already lost.
