About a month ago I sent a validation letter to Credit Systems Intl Inc. They responded with a bill. I then asked them again for validation of the debt. Well today I checked the mail and low and behold a letter from them. Inside was, once again, a bill and their "validation." What I'm looking at right here are screenshots of some sort of ledger sofware with random amounts. Nothing else. I'm quite sure that this does not constitute validation, does it? What is my next step here? If this is the best they can do to prove the debt is mine, the next steps seem easy, I'm just unclear on how to go about it.
You can be sure...It is not. See the Board-FAQ Your next step is a form of the Estoppel letter worded to avoid the "estopple by silence" claim, because they responded...but to elaborate the complete lack of proper validation according to FTC opinion letters (see the FAQ too). -Peace Dave
I think that is what I need to send to one of the CA's on my back. Can you help us draft a letter? I need the help since I cannot get a grasp of the 'estoppel' concept, lol.
Here is a sort of estoppel - demand letter that I used, without the estoppel by silence. Feel free to use it or not. Dear Sir or Madam: In June, 2002, I sent you a lawful request for validation per the rules of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Your office signed for this request on June, 2002. Today, July 2, 2002, I received from your office a feeble attempt at validation. What you supplied was merely a printout from your computer, which proves absolutely nothing, and, which the FTC has determined to not be proper validation. In addition, you have committed serious violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Rule § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] states as follows: (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. You have failed to notify the Credit Reporting Agencies that this account is being disputed. I'm sure you are aware that violations of the FDCPA can result in damages of up to $1,000 per violation. Secondly, you do not need to validate the debt as long as you cease collection activities. In an FTC staff opinion letter (Wollman), reporting information to the credit reporting agencies is considered a collection activity. In addition, since your validation per the FDCPA was not a proper validation, you are also guilty of continued collection activity prior to validating. The FTC says that from the time you receive a request for validation and the time you PROPERLY validate, you must cease collection activity. With your improper validation was a bill for payment. That is a violation. My suggestion would be for you to immediately remove this listing from the Credit Repoting Agencies, as you obviously have no proof of this alleged debt. Should you comply with this request, I will consider the matter closed. However, since you cannot provide any proof of this debt, and you have committed at least one, if not more, violations of the FDCPA, I will, at the conclusion of 10 days, submit the matter to my attorney for any and all recourse I may have available as provided by law. I will then also file complaints with the Arizona State Banking Dept.. the Federal Trade Commission and the Arizona State Attorney General. Your expeditious response in closing this matter will be greatly appreciated. My hope is that you will decide to do the correct thing and dispose of this matter so that we both may close the books on this
Beauty. I, too, received the exact same type of screenshots, and suspected they did not constitute true validation. They sent the information in plenty of time, but did not send it certified mail. My question is....should I recognize it at all, or should I wait until the 30 days have passed, then send a second letter? Oh, and what's really cute is that due to my dispute, they've stepped up the scare tactics, saying they'll only hold my account for only ten days, or it MAY be referred for wage garnishment. Hmmm....
I say let them know you got them. If that's what they can provide in the way of validation, let them know that the average, uninformed Joe (or Jane), might decide that makes it "their" account, let them know you're NOT that person.
Folks you are taking a very simple thing here and making it complicated and confusing. Just use the estoppel exactly as found in the sample letters. The only thing you need to change is the 60 days. Actually the 60 days is a typo It should have been posted in the sample letters as follows you fill in the blank for # of days. Dear Sir/Madame: As I have not heard back from you in over ______ days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date>, and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists.
1*I will answer this with this question: IS what they sent what you demanded in the Validation? Self explanatory isn't it? 2*Send The estoppel just as it appears in the sample letters;except change the 60 days to the approrate number of days. This all you need do at this point.
Dear Sir/Madame: 1*As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date> 1*in other words its been more than 30 days and you have not met my demands as per the validation letter. This is not referring to wither or not they sent you a birthday card called you or anything else for that matter! 2*and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists. 2*If they fail to send this proof but instead send something else they did not break the silence, therefore it remains estoppel by silence.
Oh, and what's really cute is that due to my dispute, they've stepped up the scare tactics, saying they'll only hold my account for only ten days, or it MAY be referred for wage garnishment. Hmmm.... whatchawan -------------------------------------- Congratulations you have then for a $1000 violation here.
