CA Response to DV--Very Fast!

I really need some quick and detailed guru help on this since the mortgage underwriter is close to finalizing my loan am getting rather nervous about this bad TL....a bit long but necessary.

In January I sent to CRA verification request on $4800 collection--this amount and debt is not mine and was argued as such. it's from a tech school that is private (not govt afffiliated).

CA previously never contacted me (ever) but phoned on 2/3/04, left vm with no mini-miranda of who they were and what they are doing, just the name of their company and they were aware I filed dispute. I did not respond to their call.

TU verified 2/17/04. CA did not call again. Tu verbally advised 'we verified your SSN and name'.

I sent DV CRRR to CA 3/26. They received 3/29. I got green card back yesterday and filed online dispute with TU as 'not mine', 'no contract with them', 'did not apply for credit with them'.

I received letter from them today (no relation to dispute) with absolutely no correspondance, no mini-miranda, no stamp, only the envelope has a return PO box with no header, and just photocopies of 4 pages:

1. A signed "registration form" with my name and SSN on it. It has the package price and check boxes selected but no promise to pay or contract agreement, only refund stipulations in small lettering. It says "Registration Form" on the header;

2. A breakdown of classes and indiv. costs with balance due at bottom;

3. A response to my debt questionaire from my DV letter. It answers the name of OC, name of Debtor, address of debtor, amount of debt purported to be owed ($4800), date payable, date acquired by CA, debt assigned to CA (yes), amount paid (0), and commission if successful (25%). Live in NJ

4. Withdrawal form without my signature on it, outlines classes taken and total paid, as well as what I allegedly owe them

They ignored my questions separate from the debt questionaire form:
â?¢ Evidence of your authorization to collect under FDCPA 15 USC 1692(e) and 15 USC 1692(f);
â?¢ Original agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he/she agreed to pay the creditor;
â?¢ A copy of the agreement (if with a client) that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt;
â?¢ Any insurance claims been made by any creditor regarding this account;
â?¢ Any judgments been obtained by any creditor regarding this account;
â?¢ Original letter with proof of mailing date sent to alleged debtor notifying of the debt details;
â?¢ Complete disclosure of the purported debt, including all accounting statements, payment terms, etc.;
â?¢ Proof of Bonded, registration, and/or operation status of your business in the State of New Jersey, past and present, include all renewal dates;
â?¢ Explanation of your necessity to pull 3 consecutive hard inquiries in April 2002, a violation of permissible purpose

What should I do now? They have shown no contract, unless one considers it the registration form, but that's what it is, registering for classes, not a contract. 30 days have not gone by, should I wait, and what should I do next? Thanks a bunch.

 

Let's say for sake of argument I did to all you are asking, and I owe nothing IMHO and there was never a legally signed contract in the first place.
They believe otherwise.

Now I have to go by law. Are you attempting to help me or discourage me?

Why do I have to say that?

 

"In January I sent to CRA verification request on $4800 collection--this amount and debt is not mine and was argued as such."

-what exactly did you say. You must know SOMETHING about it since you know its a tech school? It says it on the docs I received, but I never denied or affirmed it

"CA previously never contacted me (ever) but phoned on 2/3/04, left vm with no mini-miranda of who they were and what they are doing, just the name of their company and they were aware I filed dispute."

-This would constitute "initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt" would it not ? -FDCPA 809 (a)Some people consider merely listing it on CR 'initial communication"

-IF this was, then: "Within five days.....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 --

-Did they send you the "validation" notice required by FDCPA 809 (a) (1)-(5), assuming it was NOT contained in the original phone call?No, nothing, nada, zip. While in itself it's difficult to bring violations, other violations will support my claim they did not send validation and mini-miranda

"TU verified 2/17/04. CA did not call again. Tu verbally advised 'we verified your SSN and name'.:

IF the dispute was simpy "aint mine" then this MAY be proper verification by a collection agency, BUT, the collection agency AND the reporting agency is required to conduct "reasonable investigtation" upon receipt of a dispute pursuant to FCRA 611 / 623 (b) -Johnson v. MBNAIt will be pulling teeeth with TU to get the procedure request on this in writing

"I sent DV CRRR to CA 3/26. They received 3/29. I got green card back yesterday and filed online dispute with TU as 'not mine', 'no contract with them', 'did not apply for credit with them'."

-As weird as it may sound, your validation rights have not "begun" because they never sent you the required "validaiton notice" FDCPA 809 (a)this may be their strategy, or at some point they may claim they did send validation? It would make them look like fools now since it's been on my report for 3 years. They cannot send a full mini-miranda at this point but must follow 807 (11).THey violated that a couple of times already. Can I sue for each incident?

-BUT (before you flame), the validation request you did send, will require the collection agency to report the debt as disputed to the reporting agency- FDCPA 807 (8) (dont forget they are already in violation of FDCPA 809 (a) for not sending you the required notice)Well then I guess I cannot respond to a invalid response until they properly validate? But this won't stand on its own.

"I received letter from them today (no relation to dispute) with absolutely no correspondance, no mini-miranda, no stamp, only the envelope has a return PO box with no header, and just photocopies of 4 pages::

-This WOULD have been validation/verification. More then what most collectors send anyway I don't see how since they cannot produce a written contract

-BUT, sending validation/verification BEFORE they send you the required validation notice, DOES NOT RELEAVE them of the required notice and DOES NOT take away the consumers right to a 30 day dispute period.(they are digging themselves further )-Xioa-Lin FTC letterStill, it's hard to prove on it's own they did not


"They ignored my questions separate from the debt questionaire form:"

-Not sure WHERE these questions came from, but Id like to know!! lol AND remember your effective validation right havent begun at this point.well, let's say its a combination of several sources


"Evidence of your authorization to collect under FDCPA 15 USC 1692(e) and 15 USC 1692(f);"

-These sections are FDCPA 807 and 808. They DO NOT "authorize" a debt collector to collect.I knew that, but think about how THEY will interpret it, my reasoning for wording it like this

-THEY DO however, protect a consumer from a collector collecting a debt it has no authorization or legal authority to do. In order to prove this, the debt collector has to be, for example, attempting to collect a debt which has been recalled by the creditor or one that has been paid etc.

-By then sending the info they did, it pretty much shows they are authorized to collect the debt.IT did not show me anything, I have no idea where this crap came from since there was no one taking responsiblity (no memo saying it came from my DV or from the CA in question)


"A copy of the agreement (if with a client) that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt;"

-This is concidered "confidential" information or "business records" they DO NOT have to send this to a consumer. THEY DONT EVEN HAVE TO SEND THEM TO A COURT UNDER SUBPOENA. (a custodian of records can bring them and testify FROM them)
never hurts to try

"Any judgments been obtained by any creditor regarding this account"

-This is redundant of the requirement of FDCPA 809 (b)


"Original letter with proof of mailing date sent to alleged debtor notifying of the debt details;"

-If they MAILED it to you, how can they send you the "original letter" ? (that was just sarcasim)
OK, but I was hoping they were real dumb
"Complete disclosure of the purported debt, including all accounting statements, payment terms, etc.;"

-YES YES YES!!!!!!! WHAT EVERY validation request should include!!!! THIS IS THE "specifics" I often mention.They did not produce any specifics (payemnt terms or my promise to pay)


"Proof of Bonded, registration, and/or operation status of your business in the State of New Jersey, past and present, include all renewal dates;"

-Not all states require a collector be licensed. BUT, including this in the validation request MAY "preempt" the collector from collecting if they are required to have a license and dont.NJ requires bond $5000, and I already knew ahead of time they communicated without renewing bond

"Explanation of your necessity to pull 3 consecutive hard inquiries in April 2002, a violation of permissible purpose"

-How did you determine there was no permissible purpose? 1. If the debt is not mine, they have no pp (like probable cause). 2. Excessive pulls, i believe, can be legally 'unreasonable'

-IF they are collecting a debt, they HAVE PERMISSIBLE purpose.not until they show proper validation IMHO

"What should I do now?"

-They are already in violation of FDCPA 809 (a) by not sending you the required notice right?Won't hold up by itself, need to get more

-If you are of the persuation to send an "intent to sue letter" (i hate that), this would be a good time.

-I take it the purpose is to get a mortgage..A properly served, well worded summons and complaint might clear this all up You dont have to go through with it, when they call you, just ask for deletion.

-EXPLAIN the FDCPA may only allow you to get $1000.00 for their validation notice violation, BUT THE COST OF THE "American Dream" (your mortgage) IS WORTH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS

-Wanna delete it now? LOLI've taken an attorney and a hit and run driver to small claims, I feel strongly that there are more violations that you list, but I can handle it if need be


Thanks a bunch
More on validaiton http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...d=57716&pgnum=1

hiding90@hotmail.com

 

I want to answer this one first, because it leads into other details not yet discussed that I believe are now pertinent.

I would like to make something clear from this point on in the discussion--I don't owe the debt, it's not an educational loan, it's not even a loan (it's more like pay me back for services under false pretenses, which is part the reason I'm not paying it). This is why I have argued 'not my debt' and such. This is a fledgling start-up uncertified, non-accredited tech school that did not have their s**t in order. They are nothing more than the CA themselves, and I would not cheat a legit school out of $ for an education they provided for me... I am not trying to take the school for anything I allegedly owe them. Because this is a public forum, one will have to make some assumptions and I will not come right out and say it. Data can sometimes get manipulated. So, going forward for the sake of this forum, you can assume (at least) I attended the school, registered and took some classes--withdrew--but I don't owe the debt. Here's why, FYI...

--They lied about their accreditation. It turns out they applied and got denied. I got turned down for state grants (after enrolled)to finance based on this.

--Classes were cancelled, postponed, or did not follow the curriculum. There was a high ratio of teacher turn-over. Some teachers had no certification, or they had a lack of them. Classes that were postponed were made up on non-scheduled days of the week (wed-thurs as opposed to Mon-tues) that I could not attend. Equipment promised was not given. Cancelled classes owed were not made up.

--there was no payment contract. Because it was assumed financing would come from state, they asked me to only put a deposit down until the grant went through. When the state denied my grant, I dropped out. They said I have to pay them for each class taken, as opposed to package price. I didn't sign that agreement, so I would not pay. Would you?

See next msg with responses.....

 

Re: Re: CA Response to DV--Very Fast!

I tried to continue this a couple of days ago, but the timeouts were numerous. Finally got an opp to finish this up.

I am hunting for violations, opinions are warmly accepted:

The accounting breaks down classes taken and their costs. It does not show when I withdrew, and does not demonstrate with any conlcusion I actually took the classes on the list. They do not even know when I left, and have no sig to prove it. To add again,they have shown no proof of contract, just my name and sig on this registration form.

Even if they get beyond violations somehow and say--sue me-, they will be in for a fierce battle. I would like to see how they are going to persuade a judge to get me to pay without a signed contract.


It seems like the alleged debt started at $3700. It is quite clear from the withdrawal form there is a credit issued of $995(again no sig), but not taken off the total amount allegedly owed. So, technically, just looking at the information they actually provided, their orginal claim should be reduced to $2705. Violation: Improper validation of debt amount 809 (a) 1?

The debt was assigned to this CA back in 3/02 and since that time, it looks like it went from $3700 to $4800. I would go as far to say this is collection activity (though passive), if not communication. They have been tacking on $30-$40 fees monthly to the balance, yet write they will make 25% if successful. Notice that 3700 divided by 4800 is about 75%, or 25% for the CA. That 25% is not representing their commission if successful, rather there is no set % b/c they keep adding onto the balance every month. I could have easily requested validatiion 6 mos ago, and they may have said commission is 20%. In addition, there is no agreement shown to allow these charges (b/c there has been no contract provided as part of their validation). So, this must be a LIE. Violation of 808 (1)? The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.
What are they allowed by law in NJ (or feds) to charge if no contract exists?

Also, as discussed earlier, no mini-miranda notifying me of their intention to collect debt, and that they are a debt collector (initial or subsequent). I have a recorded voice mail as well. 807 (11)

" the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage, such as signing an agreement or deeding away real property"

Whether provable or not, they enticed me to enroll based on the assumption tuition would be paid for by state grants (unemployment benefits at the time). NJ did not recognize them, so they could not grant me the funds and hence, the school came after me for the alleged unpaid bills. It may be too complicated to assert this as part of a lawsuit, but I will keep it in mind in case I need it ))
Haven't been able to find any case law or statutes to support false pretenses of this nature.

In my esitmation, for failure to adequately disclose the correct debt owed and their missing mini-mirandas, we can agree their validation letter is incomplete and a violation. TU has yet to modify TL on this account in dispute, but that's where it gets a little fuzzy for me. If the CA mails a letter they presume is proper validation back to me--immediately--after receipt of my letter to them, are they still required to notify to TU as 'in dispute' on my CR?

This gets even better. See next msg.

 

Re: Re: CA Response to DV--Very Fast!

Yesterday I get a call--the id says OUt OF AREA--since my number is on do not call list I figure it's someone I know. No, its the CA!!! Was not expecting this at all.

I wrote down everything that transpired, their dids and did nots:

--They did not say they were a debt collector and/or they were attempting to collect a debt, only stating their name and the creditor they rep.

--They did not get me to admit to the debt, just made them frustrated and hang up on me )))

--They did not mention the debt was in dispute.
***Do they believe they have validated and it's not required to report back to TU as disputed?

--THey did ask questions, disturbing ones like:
"What are you doing with XXX company? Are you attempting to apply for a mortgage loan?" Of course I answered no and "none of your business". I checked my credit imediately and found no hard inquiry by this CA, which leads me to believe they have some aleternative affiliation with them. The inquiry for the mortgage (it's valid) came on my CR 3/23, it's recent. If so, is this a violation? Otherwise, I do not know how the CA could know about it. I opted out over 2 wks ago.

Other ones are "We are going to ruin your credit until you pay this debt" and "do you want to be sued?". I laughed and said "I would like to see that".

--He did respond to my statement "you ignored my request to communicate in writing only", to which he said "we will not listen to that request and continue to call you" In no uncertain terms did I include on my DV "Please communicate with me only in writing at the address listed"

--He did say he was going to attempt to offer a settlement, but based on my previous 'behavior' he decided not to!

Need lots of input, please.

 

Re: Re: CA Response to DV--Very Fast!

Edit to above--
Whether it makes a difference or not, I did attempt to 1-2 punch the CA by also disputing online with TU, but the CA attempted validation so quickly I still am not certain of its effective ability.

 

Re: Re: CA Response to DV--Very Fast!

bump to bypass all those "experian disputes"