On an account that I'm disputing, it seems that the OC charged-off $143+ (have to approximate it, since the CRAs round the numbers up -- the only thing the number is good for is proving that the numbers from the lawyer don't add up...) more than their CRA reporting of the final balance on the account was. It appears that they charged-off the high credit, then did some type of off-the-books transaction(s) for $143+ but kept the reporting that the full high credit was charged-off. So far, the only thing that the lawyer for the CA who purchased the account has provided has been 3 statements, with about a five month gap between them, showing the high credit. I originally requested the complete historical documentation for the account, and requested it again. However, if the OC re-couped something via some type of an off-the-books transaction, can they sell the account for the full charge-off amount, since that is not the true value of the debt. Also, apparently this account was bought and sold at least 3 times within about a month, so getting any type of validation is taking an eternity. It took the lawyer six months to provide the 3 statements that they did provide. It'll almost be nine months since I originally requested validation, and I'm debating how much more patient to be.
Try to verify with the OC if they respond with proper validation then that should include a full accounting statement and sig. You can go to www.commercialbar.com/sumcoltn.htm to find out how much interest can be charged for collection.
If I were you I wouldn't have waited the six months. You now have violations of FDCPA with the vailed validation and besides they only had 30 day to do that. Send the docmentation to the CRA and explain that they cant validate how can they verify. Then cross your fingers. You could always sue but then I'm a newbie and I cant help you on that.
Which exact section of the FDCPA states that they only have 30 days to reply; it explicitly states that we have that timelimit, but I've never been able to find the complimentary, they only have 30 days to reply.
The FDCPA does not give a 30-day timelime, that is just what most consumers deem a reasonable amount of time to reply.
It appears to Jam. Actually all it says is that if we don't dispute within 30 days they have the right to assume the debt to be valid, that's all. It's not a timeline carved in stone whereby, if we're late, we lose our rights. I know it's worded funny. But I'm not sure I get your original question. Are you saying that the OC charged off MORE than what the debt is for, and then sold an elevated debt to a 3rd party?
The account was CO'ed at the high balance at the time of the last statement. Sometime between the final statement and the final credit reporting before the account was sold, the account's current balance was adjusted to a lower amount by $143. (since CRAs round the amounts, an exact amount of the dscrepancy isn't known) So far the lawyer for the CA has been asked for three things. 1) proof that they are the true owner of record for the account in question. a week after their initial contact, one of the alleged previous owners of the account added a tradeline to my credit files, thereby confusing whom in fact the true owner of record is for the account. (i have them in writing admitting that one of the previous owners of the account gave them a message to contact me, so if they try to state that there was no confusion of whom i was required to contact, i have them in their own words.) 2) a signed application 3) complete historical documentation; and since their initial response finally admitted that the 'balance' that the CA is trying to collect includes 'other fees and interest'; documentation of how those were calculated in accordance with the FDCPA, state law, and the original agreement. In their first attempt at a validation response, they repeatedly stated that everything was based on the higher charge-off balance (which is what the final statement verifies). After I sent the second validation request, I tracked down one of the first copies of my TransUnion reports, and spotted the lower balance listed as the current balance. I then dug through and found supporting copies of the equifax, and experian reports. I've scanned the OC's trade line of all three CRAs into my next dispute letter. The last time they answered, they said they'ld give 10 days to contact them after receiving the information (after they had six months to create the validation information), and 30 days to pay, and served me a civil action (they didn't appear so it was d w/o p) before i had time to load everything into Excel to rip their validation apart, so I'm now prepared for the next dispute, on the trade line discrepancy issue, in case they decide to answer the current validation info. On May 21, I am planning on sending a please advise of the status of the validation; a request for a notice of the cease of collection activity 1692c(c)(1) notice -- tarred to the lawyer, the ca, the oc, and all previous and future successors, and assigns), and estopel of silence notice (failure to provide the previously requested documentation or 1692c(c)(1) notice before the deadline will be construed as an agreement of the above-stated 1692c(c)(1) notice. A copy of the intended clauses is below, if anyone especially (butch) has any suggestions... "In September, 2002, I originally contacted your offices to request verification of your account xxx. After receiving no response to the original validation of debts request, for several months, I sent a letter similar to this one requesting the status of that original request for validation. Your firm has been notified that your companyâ??s original March response to the September validation of debts request was incomplete, and contained numerous discrepancies, and inconsistencies with your companyâ??s previous statements and representations. I requested that all of these discrepancies and inconsistencies be immediately explained. I still have not received an adequate response from your company, please advise as to how long it will take your client to provide all of the documentation which has been repeatedly requested, since September. If documentation can not be provided within a reasonable time-frame (I have already allowed your company, your client, the original company, and all previous successors, and assigns almost nine months to provide the documentation originally requested in September), it is becoming increasingly apparent, that your company, your client, the original company, and all previous successors, and assigns cannot provide the necessary documentation as required by federal law. Under the principal of estoppel by silence, it is assumed that if your company, your client, the original company, and all previous successors, and assigns remains silent, when they are required to speak, they are admitting to the lack of the evidence required under federal laws to validate this debt, since your company, and your client have an obligation under federal law to provide the required documentation within a reasonable time-frame.. If this is in fact the case, I am requesting under the FDCPA, a notice that your company, your client, the original company, and any, and all other previous, and future successors and assigns are ceasing immediately, and permanently any, and all collection activities; and I would suggest that your company, and your client contact, either the original company, the previous successors, and assigns who handled this account prior to your clientâ??s purchase of this account, since the original company, and previous successors, and assigns are apparently refusing to provide your company, and your client, within a reasonable time-frame a valid response to the validation of debts requests, which I have repeatedly made to your company. I have been more than patient in this matter, by allowing your client almost nine months to provide a valid response to the validation of debts request which I made in September. Unfortunately, there has to be a limit to my patience, therefore, if I do not receive the previously requested complete, and total validation of the account previously requested, or the notice previously stipulated, before Friday, May 30th, 2003, an admission under the principal of estoppel by silence to the above stipulated notice will be assumed, and will be invoked if your company, your client, any previous or future successors, or assigns attempt any proceedings for this account. A copy of the last request for validation of debts is included with this request. Please advise. Notice to agent is notice to principal. Notice to principal is notice to agent. Applies to ALL successors and assigns."
I've never been able to find the complimentary, they only have 30 days to reply. jam237 ============= I'ts not there to find. There time frame is set and controlled by you. THE END ** *** ** LB 59
Re: Re: Can an OC Charge-Off a higher $? Why send them all this gobbly goo when the estoppel will do a better job?
Re: Re: Can an OC Charge-Off a higher $? 1*Also, apparently this account was bought and sold at least 3 times within about a month, so getting any type of validation is taking an eternity. 2*It'll almost be nine months since I originally requested validation, and I'm debating how much more patient to be. jam237 ========== 1*How soon do you want them to prove you owe it and why? 2*I give them 45 days so why 9 months?
Try to verify with the OC if they respond with proper validation then that should include a full accounting statement and sig. You can leo =========== Bad advice but a good confession. THE END ** *** ** LB 59
Re: Re: Can an OC Charge-Off a higher $? But I'm not sure I get your original question. Are you saying that the OC charged off MORE than what the debt is for, and then sold an elevated debt to a 3rd party? Butch, ============ That's how I read it. That would be quite a violation wouldn't it??
Re: Re: Can an OC Charge-Off a higher $? Apparently, after they CO'ed they did some sort of off-the-books transaction, lowering the current balance of the account. However, the new owner is validated the higher amount on the final statement. (However, the new owner has yet to document, the amount that they purchased; or how the new owners, and previous owner decided what fees to add, and what amount they were calculated based on.)
Re: Re: Can an OC Charge-Off a higher $? 1*Also, apparently this account was bought and sold at least 3 times within about a month, so getting any type of validation is taking an eternity. 2*It'll almost be nine months since I originally requested validation, and I'm debating how much more patient to be. jam237 ========== 1*How soon do you want them to prove you owe it and why? 2*I give them 45 days so why 9 months? Well, I'ld be willing to give them to the SOL (February) if they could document it, and all of the other discrepancies which keep appearing. But, since they tried to play hard-ball and allow only 10 days to review the documentation that they took 6 months to generate, I am inclined to follow their lead, and become a hard-a$$ with them. That's why I also want to make sure that my esteppel is tarred hard to them, their client, the OC, and all previous and future successors, and assigns.
Re: Re: Can an OC Charge-Off a higher $? Now that's how to answer a question by golly. LOL Remember when I said that the only thing that happens on the 31st day from that first notice is that, in the absence of a response from you they have the right to assume the debt to be valid? And then I said that's all that happens. Well that IS all that happens but that doesn't mean that it's not significant. If you studied my thread on "How Validation Works" (see link below) you'll know about Prima Facie evidence and the establishment thereof. In short: just as the expiration of this first 30 days allows the CA to assume the debts validity, it can also work for you too. If you write demanding validation and 30 days expires without a response YOU are now entitled to assume the debt IS NOT valid. This is one of the things Estoppel By Silence means. It basically says, since I've not heard from you I assume the debt is not valid. This is where you are right now Jam. What does all that mean? Well ... for one thing it means you should be billing them for future letters, which is something I've just not had the time to expound upon. When things ease up on me I want to elaborate in my initial thread under the heading "Bill Your Adversary". But I digress. You already have a few violations on these guys. For one thing continued collection activity in the face of a rather pathetic validation response. You did exactly the right thing by telling them it was inadequate. You haven't told us the size of the alleged debt. They may fight you on if it's big enough to make it worth their time. At this point I would go with the Estoppel. Lets take a look at a cpl things; -->
Re: Re: Can an OC Charge-Off a higher $? http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...read.php?s=&threadid=41324&highlight=estoppel -->
Re: Re: Can an OC Charge-Off a higher $? Well, I guess this is an answer to the validation request... (and it explains why the account had three owners before the first company even contacted me through their attorney.) I pulled my Experian report because of an adverse response, and typed in my report # to start the disputes rolling before the hard copy got here... The account is showing up with yet another new owner... The really good part, is when I tried to validate the new owners address and get their z+4 code from the USPS, the USPS doesn't show their address (as provided by Experian) as a valid address...
