CA Response to DV--Very Fast!

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

"I am hunting for violations, opinions are warmly accepted"

"The accounting breaks down classes taken and their costs."

-Pretty damn good "verification" if you ask me!!

"and does not demonstrate with any conlcusion I actually took the classes on the list."

-Again, verification is NOT PROOF or "conclusion", it is an "informal process". Words like "proof" and "conclusion" are legal terms and need to be argued and established in a court of law (formal process)

"They do not even know when I left, and have no sig to prove it."

-Again, having or not having a signature is irrelevent.

"To add again,they have shown no proof of contract, just my name and sig on this registration form. "

-JUST YOUR NAME AND SIGNATURE????? JUST?? LOL{/b]

"Even if they get beyond violations somehow and say--sue me-, they will be in for a fierce battle."

-What do you mean by getting around violations???

"I would like to see how they are going to persuade a judge to get me to pay without a signed contract."

-Probably not a good thing to ask the judge LOL

-Bottom line, YOU WENT. YOU ENTERED INTO A CONTACT THE MOMENT YOU SAT IN A CLASSROOM!!

"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 they credited the unearned fees?? thats wrong??

"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?"

-Whoaa. THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND VERIFICATION.

"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."

-LOL adding fees etc or changing the balance IS NOT CONTINUED COLLECTION ACTIVITY.

"I could have easily requested validatiion 6 mos ago, and they may have said commission is 20%."

-So this request for validation was "late" and they were NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO RESPOND? Yet they did? And you plan to use this as some sort of evidence AGAINST THEM???

"In addition, there is no agreement shown to allow these charges (b/c there has been no contract provided as part of their validation). "

-It would not be "safe" to "assume" (AGAIN) there was no provision in the original agreement to allow this.


"What are they allowed by law in NJ (or feds) to charge if no contract exists?

-A contract DOES exist

"Whether provable or not, they enticed me to enroll based on the assumption tuition would be paid for by state grants"

-The "assumption" was on YOUR part. Because grants have to be "applied for", there is no "reasonable expectation" you will get $$$.

"we can agree their validation letter is incomplete and a violation."

-NO, we cant agree

"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?"

-THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE REPORTING AGENCY AT ALL AT ANYTIME!!!!

-There is nothing in the law which requires a collection agency, or anyone for that matter, to report to a reporting agency.

-Example. What if they just dont "update" AT ALL after the receipt of the validation letter.

 

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."

-Do not call list? what does this do?

"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"

-This MAY be a violation of 807 (11), BUT, they are ONLY required to notify you "that the communication is from a debt collector," AFTER THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION.

"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?"

-The debt IS NOT in "dispute". They provided what they are required to provide, and more, by law.

"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."

-They have access to your credit report, its all on there!

"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""

-Okay, now FINALLY to the relevent info

-This is where you need to focus. All the previous info was either irrelevent or not actionable. Validity, liability etc ARE NOT RELEVENT IN DEBT COLLECTION ISSUES.

-BEHAVIOR or techniques of the debt collectors is the issue.

"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""

-Here is good example of my point about "selective cease communication requests." In the opinion of the debt collector, the consumer HAS NOT notified them to cease communication because the letter specifically REQUESTED COMMUNICATION (mail)

 

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

"You certainly have a way with misconstruing (although convincingly plausible) and tearing my words apart, hiding"

-Ananlysing


"Rather that muddling the issue any further behind ethical reasons, I am focusing on FDCPA and/or case law, that's it."

-Good idea

"I thought ALL statutes in FDCPA are actionable by consumers"

-Most, if not all, is.

"although not punitive."

-If not punitive, how can they be actionable??

"I fail to understand how some of these issues are not relevant:

"An obvious error"

-Obvious to who is how you have to look at it.

"the alleged amount owed, does not credit the $995. Although the alleged amount owed shows $3700, the deduction of $995 is not credited,"

-How do you know about the "credit" amount if it wasnt included in the verification??

"This leads me to believe the CA did not REVIEW the documents and VERIFY properly, they merely forwarded the stuff on."

-Doesnt FDCPA 809 (b) require the collection agency to "obtain verificaiton FROM the original creditor and MAIL it to the consumer?"

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809

-Here is what the FTC says about this:

"it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor"

"the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer."- Wollman opinion letter
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

"Since they sent me validation letter with the obvious incorrect amount they supposedly verified as accurate, how is this not a violation of 808 (1)? "

-How do you know about the "credit" amount if it wasnt included in the verification?? If they just failed to "add" correcly in the total box, but inclused all the relevent "numbers", how is this a violation?

-"hey are using UNCONSCIONABLE means to collect the debt and confirmed it several days ago."

-Example?

"How is this late? Why should I contact a CA immediately upon seeing a CA listing and collection on CR cannot be construed as collection activity (you said it yourself)? By knowing about its listing on a CR and there has been no other form of communication with the CA, there cannot be late validation."

-You are 100% right! UNLESS they have communicated with you, SPECIFICALLY, if they HAVE NOT SENT YOU THE VALIDATION NOTICE, YOUR VALIDATION RIGHTS HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN. ANY VALIDATION REQUEST SENT DURING THIS TIME (BEFORE OR AFTER THE VALIDATION PERIOD) THE DEBT COLLECTOR IS NO REQUIRED TO EVEN RESPOND!

"Are you working for the CA or just playing devil's advocate? )))"

-Devils advocate. ACTUALLY, consumer's advocate

"Month-month, I have reviewed my CR and noticed this balance increasing. "

-I Dont recall if it was ever stated if this debt was transferred to a collection agecny or BOUGHT by one??

-If it was just "Assigned" to a collection agency, the ORIGINAL CREDITOR CAN BE ADDING THE FEES, INTEREST ETC.

"As I stated earlier, the CA never communicated with me until my dispute to TU last month (their first was a phone call)"

-And as I replied several posts ago, THIS IS WHERE YOU NEED TO START TO FOCUS. THEIR LACK OF a validaiton notice is a violation of FDCPA 809. Several cases JUST ON FAILURE TO PROVIDE a validation notice make it clear.

- I dont see the logic in attempting to "create" violations, where their is already "good ones".

I used a hypothetical (6 mos ago) to explain how they determined their commission, and confirm that it's not at 25% fixed if successful, but it's a undetermined value ever increasing in number, until the debt is paid. While it is true that they did not have to send validation response, IMHO it serves as proof they did not send any letter before it was listed on my CR. While this is not a violation, I had no need to send validation request to CA until I applied for a mortgage (otherwise my credit is good). Aside from this, I fail to u/s why this commission is not relevant. It's a violation b/c it's misleading, and it's just a lie. This seems to clearly be in violation of 807 (2) The false representation of --
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

and because they did not advise me of my rights on initial (full mini-miranda) or subsequent (mini-miranda) oral or written communication, 807 (11).

and after my initial dispute with TU directly (I actually I did this twice, in 1/04 and 4/04), the CA attempted communication with me (voice mail) in 2/04 without sending the proper validation notice within 5 days 809 (1-5). They only did it several days ago, and within the 5 days required (too late! initial communication was 2/04). THEY presumed initial communication was my validation letter to them, or at least they attempted to prove it. Then, they may have validated properly (although no mini-miranda), but they did not properly validate when they were supposed to.

And then (and more), CA calls yesterday and does not make any attempt to advise 'This is an attempt to collect a debt', again 807 (11). I would say that they did not mention anything regarding the dispute (a violation of 807 (8)) because in their minds they did validate. My dispute with TU is not up yet (filed 4/04), but that's FCRA....

Are you all seeing what I am, or am I just making this up?

Now, about partial C&D (the rest of your msg got cut off), my letter to them stated "Please communicate with me in writing only at the address listed"
This is still subject to scrutiny, as they can argue this applies only to my letter, not subsequent communications. So, better not to touch it?

Also, a new issue I found today, with regard to mortgage broker contact with CA. Mortgage borker advises I signed disclosure allowing them to contact anyone in connection with mortgage necessary to complete app. Fine. But--FDCPA says 805 b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES
without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer...

Ok, fine. So mortgage broker contacts CA, CA faxes letter notifying debt to them, including my name, acct #, debt details, and MINI-MIRANDA which I have never, ever receieved from them! Broker faxes to me (their header is on top).

I don;t remember ever giving permission to the CA to send that stuff to the broker. Do you guys see anything wrong with this? Seems pretty clear, "without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector". Is this a can't miss one? ))

Trying to concentrate on "debt collector techniques"

[/B][/QUOTE]

 

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

"You certainly have a way with misconstruing (although convincingly plausible) and tearing my words apart, hiding"

-Ananlysing


"Rather that muddling the issue any further behind ethical reasons, I am focusing on FDCPA and/or case law, that's it."

-Good idea

"I thought ALL statutes in FDCPA are actionable by consumers"

-Most, if not all, is.

"although not punitive."

-If not punitive, how can they be actionable??

"I fail to understand how some of these issues are not relevant:

"An obvious error"

-Obvious to who is how you have to look at it.

"the alleged amount owed, does not credit the $995. Although the alleged amount owed shows $3700, the deduction of $995 is not credited,"

-How do you know about the "credit" amount if it wasnt included in the verification??

"This leads me to believe the CA did not REVIEW the documents and VERIFY properly, they merely forwarded the stuff on."

-Doesnt FDCPA 809 (b) require the collection agency to "obtain verificaiton FROM the original creditor and MAIL it to the consumer?"

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809

-Here is what the FTC says about this:

"it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor"

"the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer."- Wollman opinion letter
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

-The courts have also ruled that if the creditor made the "error in accounting", the debt collector IS NOT liable. - Jenkins V Heintz

"Since they sent me validation letter with the obvious incorrect amount they supposedly verified as accurate, how is this not a violation of 808 (1)? "

-How do you know about the "credit" amount if it wasnt included in the verification?? If they just failed to "add" correcly in the total box, but inclused all the relevent "numbers", how is this a violation?

-"hey are using UNCONSCIONABLE means to collect the debt and confirmed it several days ago."

-Example?

"How is this late? Why should I contact a CA immediately upon seeing a CA listing and collection on CR cannot be construed as collection activity (you said it yourself)? By knowing about its listing on a CR and there has been no other form of communication with the CA, there cannot be late validation."

-You are 100% right! UNLESS they have communicated with you, SPECIFICALLY, if they HAVE NOT SENT YOU THE VALIDATION NOTICE, YOUR VALIDATION RIGHTS HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN. ANY VALIDATION REQUEST SENT DURING THIS TIME (BEFORE OR AFTER THE VALIDATION PERIOD) THE DEBT COLLECTOR IS NO REQUIRED TO EVEN RESPOND!

"Are you working for the CA or just playing devil's advocate? )))"

-Devils advocate. ACTUALLY, consumer's advocate

"Month-month, I have reviewed my CR and noticed this balance increasing. "

-I Dont recall if it was ever stated if this debt was transferred to a collection agecny or BOUGHT by one??

-If it was just "Assigned" to a collection agency, the ORIGINAL CREDITOR CAN BE ADDING THE FEES, INTEREST ETC.

"As I stated earlier, the CA never communicated with me until my dispute to TU last month (their first was a phone call)"

-And as I replied several posts ago, THIS IS WHERE YOU NEED TO START TO FOCUS. THEIR LACK OF a validaiton notice is a violation of FDCPA 809. Several cases JUST ON FAILURE TO PROVIDE a validation notice make it clear.

- I dont see the logic in attempting to "create" violations, where there is already "good ones". I think in a prior post, you stated the failure to provide a validation notice "was weak" and you needed to "Get more" on the collection agency.

-There are a ton of cases on just "failure to provide a validation" notice.

"I fail to u/s why this commission is not relevant. It's a violation b/c it's misleading, and it's just a lie."

-Technically, the commission agreement is between the debt collector and the creditor. It really isnt "your concern"

 

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

"This seems to clearly be in violation of 807 (2) The false representation of --
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt;"

-Good point.

-The section requires the debt collector to "disclose the full amount of the debt" and they cannot "mislead" the debtor in regards to the total amount. They example the courts use is:

A debt collector sends a statement with an amount (say $200.00) then states, "plus fees.

-The courts have ruled that "plus fees" is confusing to the consumer, therefore is "misleading" and a violation. BUT, they also ruled a statement with for example, $200.00, "plus $100 reasonable fees" is NOT a violation even of the $100.00 is just an estimate.

"and because they did not advise me of my rights on initial (full mini-miranda) or subsequent (mini-miranda) oral or written communication, 807 (11)."

-Lets look at this issue further.

-"they did not advise me of my rights on initial (full mini-miranda)"

-I THINK you are referring to FDCPA 807. BUT YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSING MORE ON FDCPA 809 (a) "notice"

-Additionally, SUBSEQUENT communications from a debt collector DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYTHING OTHER THAN DISCLOSING THEY ARE A DEBT COLLECTOR.- FDCPA 805 (11)

"..in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector,"

"after my initial dispute with TU directly (I actually I did this twice, in 1/04 and 4/04), the CA attempted communication with me (voice mail) in 2/04 without sending the proper validation notice within 5 days 809 (1-5)"

-YES! in focus again

-BUT, they would NOT have to send anything to you if this WAS NOT the initial communication.

-And if they did not actually "communicate" with you, ie you didnt answer, this isnt communication in conection with the collection of a debt.

"And then (and more), CA calls yesterday and does not make any attempt to advise 'This is an attempt to collect a debt', again 807 (11). "

-Additionally, SUBSEQUENT communications from a debt collector DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYTHING OTHER THAN DISCLOSING THEY ARE A DEBT COLLECTOR.- FDCPA 805 (11)

"..in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector,"

"I would say that they did not mention anything regarding the dispute (a violation of 807 (8)) because in their minds they did validate. My dispute with TU is not up yet (filed 4/04), but that's FCRA...."

-Does the law require them to "mention" your dispute when talking to you??

"Are you all seeing what I am, or am I just making this up?"

-I can see everything you are talking about. HOWEVER, you are a little "out of focus".

-When it involves YOUR own credit, it is often TOO easy to "read into" these statutes to "make them fit" your needs/situation.

"Now, about partial C&D (the rest of your msg got cut off), my letter to them stated "Please communicate with me in writing only at the address listed"
This is still subject to scrutiny, as they can argue this applies only to my letter, not subsequent communications. So, better not to touch it?"

-"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""

-Here is good example of my point about "selective cease communication requests." In the opinion of the debt collector, the consumer HAS NOT notified them to cease communication because the letter specifically REQUESTED COMMUNICATION (mail)


"Also, a new issue I found today, with regard to mortgage broker contact with CA. Mortgage borker advises I signed disclosure allowing them to contact anyone in connection with mortgage necessary to complete app. Fine. But--FDCPA says 805 b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES
without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer..."

-Geez. YOU SIGNED A WAIVER. The broker is working as your agent, it is called "implied consent"

-Arguments like this would make a judge pull his hair out!


Trying NOT to concentrate JUST ON THE FDCPA

 

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

3 replies up is an error