Ok so im on the ITS letter now and i finally broke down and called this CA, I ask for the legal dept and talk to a lady who says " oh yes, you are the person who refuses to identify himself". -- Am i required to jump thru hoops to get my validation ? 60+ days now and NO validation ( verified with the CRA's though ^^) Should i file ?
I think it's time for the infamous "Dear D###head" letter! How's this for a response: Dear Dick-head Collection Agency: You didn't need my consent to put this matter into my credit file. Nor did you need my signature. When it came time to screw up my life, you didn't need any identification from me. Now you are saying you need identification from me to let me see what you have already told the world is my responsibility? Are you kidding? Your response to my request for validation pursuant to Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is legally deficient. Any further attempt to collect this debt from me will be answered by a Court Summons for $1000 Statutory Damages. What this means is - if you send me another letter without proper validation - enclose a check made payable to me for $1000 or I will sue. If you call on the telephone (This letter is to be construed as a Limited Cease-Communication Letter pursuant to FDCPA prohibiting you from communicating with me in any way but by mail) you are instructed to send me a check payable to me for $1000 BEFORE your phone call, or I will sue. Each communication from you to me from now on, without proper validation of the debt preceeding it, will cost you $1000 each time. Do whatever you feel best. I will do the same. 7/29/03 8/13/03 9/5/03 TU 689 689 668 EX 612 641 637 EQ 587 Who Knows?? Sears Used Gone Cap 1 "Dont F*ck with me, I F*ck back."
File. They didn't need your drivers license to PUT the item into your CRA file OR to verify it as yours, why should they need it to prove their case? That is a crock of $hit.
Keep, I already sent them a strongly worded ITS, with a settlement offer of 1k. The nutcase tells me "but sir you only owe $500, why did you offer us $1K?" UMM, the 1k is so I dont sue your a$$ . Guess this will be my 1st case Anyone got some pointers for Texas SC Court ? I cant even think of what the violations will be....
Keepmine..... Hey, I originally wrote that Dear Dickhead Letter. I'm glad to see it has a long shelf life.
Re: Re: CA refuses to validate w/o my lic. For a list of the violations, just go to the Dear Dickhead letter above, then go to the fair Credit Reporting Act, Validation section.
Re: Re: CA refuses to validate w/o my lic. If you're in TX, I think you have an even better violation, isn't not validating within 30 days actually a violation of the TX FDCPA statute... You don't have to provide them anything, they can't collect from the date that they signed for the validation whether they decide to validate or not... They could decide to not validate the account under the Federal FDCPA for 200 years, they just can't do any collection activity in those 200 years either... The Federal FDCPA doesn't make any requirements that the CA actually validate the account, it just states that they can't do any collection activity until after they do validate the account. I would see the TX AG's office with the letter from them stating that you need to identify yourself with a drivers license for them to comply with the FDCPA, and TX FDCPA, and see if the TX AG can do anything to assist you.
Hey All I wonder if there is not some provision of the Patriot Act that can be construed to limit CA's request for DL info etc. Perhaps we can research this. In the mean-time maybe a vague reference to the Patriot Act and permissible purpose for disclosing DL info will be enough to shut them up just a thought!
You realize there are quite a few people who have the name Richard Head. All leters to them would be considered... yup.
Not exactly... The violation of the TX FDCPA would be not validating in 30 days and NOT changing the cr. Please note, this statute was recently amended (for clarification not substance) if quoting you will need to find the amended version. §392.202. CORRECTION OF THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR'S OR CREDIT BUREAU'S FILES. (a) An individual who disputes the accuracy of an item in a third-party debt collector's or credit bureau's file on the individual may notify in writing the third-party debt collector or credit bureau of the inaccuracy. The third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall provide forms for the notice and, when requested, assist an individual in preparing the notice. (b) Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of inaccuracy is received, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall send a written statement to the individual: (1) denying the inaccuracy; (2) admitting the inaccuracy; or (3) stating that the third-party debt collector or credit bureau has not had sufficient time to complete an investigation of the inaccuracy. (c) If the third-party debt collector or credit bureau admits that the item is inaccurate, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall: (1) not later than the fifth business day after the date of the admission, correct the item in the relevant file; and (2) immediately on correction of the item send to each person who has previously received a report from the third-party debt collector or credit bureau containing the inaccurate information notice of the inaccuracy and a copy of an accurate report. (d) If the third-party debt collector or credit bureau states that there has not been sufficient time to complete an investigation, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall immediately: (1) change the item in the relevant file as requested by the individual; (2) send to each person who previously received the report containing the information a notice that is equivalent to a notice under Subsection (c) and a copy of the changed report; and (3) cease collection efforts if the item involves a debt.
jlynn: thanks for that post, i knew i had heard about the lucky people of TX's 30 day clause enough... the important part is that nowhere in that law does it state that the notice of innacuracy has to contain a drivers license to be looked at, so if they are refusing to consider the validation, at 30+1 days, they appear to be in violation.
Yeah.... John Ashcroft has decreed that CA's can only dun loyal, patriotic citizens and you have to prove your identity, your citizenship and pass an FBI loyalty background check before a CA has to honor your rights under law. If that's the case, I may start studying the Koran.
