I posted this on another forum, but thought I'd post it here as well. Any help is appreciated. This might be a bit long, but I want to make sure it's as clear as possible. On Febuary 18, 2004 I recieved notice from a CA that did not include specific text as required under California Civil Code 1812.700 in the initial dunning letter. I sent a notice to the CA that they were in violation of the California Rosenthal FDCPA, and today I received a response. Background: According to California Civil Code Section 1812.700, the following text must be present on the inital dunning letter sent to a California address: "The state Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act require that, except under unusual circumstances, collectors may not contact you before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. They may not harass you by using threats of violence or arrest or by using obscene language. Collectors may not use false or misleading statements or call you at work if they know or have reason to know that you may not receive personal calls at work. For the most part, collectors may not tell another person, other than your attorney or spouse, about your debt. Collectors may contact another person to confirm your location or enforce a judgment. For more information about debt collection activities, you may contact the Federal Trade Commission at 1-877-FTC-HELP or www.ftc.gov." I have a CA that is attempting to use 1788.30(d) as an excuse as to why they have complied with the law. 1788.30(d) states: (d) A debt collector shall have no civil liability under this title if, within 15 days either after discovering a violation which is able to be cured, or after the receipt of a written notice of such violation, the debt collector notifies the debtor of the violation, and makes whatever adjustments or corrections are necessary to cure the violation with respect to the debtor. I recieved notice from them today, stating they acknowledge a violation was committed but stating that because they are providing notice now, they are no longer liable. My problem is that I do not believe that this is actually a curable violation. It was already committed and the dunning letter cannot be taken back. 1812.700 is quite clear that this must be included in the INITIAL dunning letter and that failure to include it is a violation. From what I can see, they are applying 1788.30(d) to this situation and believe that they are no longer liable because they feel that including this notice after the fact is sufficient enough to meet 1788.30(d). I really want these guys, any help, ideas or suggestions is appreciated. I think I have them on this, I just need to make it clear that this violation is not curable per section 1788.30(d).
