Do the following: â??we have no alternative but to inform you that your account has been placed with our legal department.â? â??If need be, your account may be assigned to an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your state.â? â??Over the next 30 days our investigation into your personal assets will be complete. These findings, along with a prepared affidavit ready for signature, will be forwarded to expedite authorization of your account to an attorney of our choice. A determination to file suit will be made on x/x/xxâ? ....that are contained within a written communication from CA to consumer, violate these provisions of the FDCPA: 15 USC § 1692e (2) (A) 15 USC § 1692e (5) 15 USC § 1692e (10)
Only if they have no intent to do so, then it would be a false threat of legal action. FDCPA is only 1 violation (up to 1,000) per suit. Having more violations is good, but not more money...
It was all garbage; weeks after the so called date to determine to file suit they put in writing that they do not have any proof of account to validate. ...who threatens to sue, with intent, with no proof consumer owes? Could I go after them one violation per suit at a time?
Nope, because they'd move to join the separate suits into one suit with one penalty. Even if you'd file today, and tomorrow they violate, again, they'd move to join the new violation into the current suit. IF they've put it in writing that they have no proof, then I would go ahead and draft the complaint. Please note there is a difference between any proof; and what is referred to as a Chaudry affidavit. Even though it's not what we would call 'proof', it could be looked at by the court as being 'proof' of the debt. Yes, CAs have filed AND WON suits using a mere "Yep, they owe it" affidavit.
The amount in question is well under $1k. Violating the FDCPA allows for additional damages (after actual) for up to 1K. I do not see a suit being filed against me. There's a case out there now, similar to mine where (this) CA did similar action (threatening suit) and consumer hired attorney and going after CA for 50K (I'll give you link in a PM if interested) for violations (and then-some) that I listed. My question then is, do I get the jump on them by filing first, or, in Federal court can you counter-sue like small claims...or wait to see if they just fold and send letter agreeing to go away.
I would always file first... You could counter-sue, but why risk running into the shorter SOL under the FDCPA. If there are FCRA violations, you can get $1,000 PER violation for that statute.
They're not reporting, so no FCRA violations. I have second DVL in mail to them, outlining violations as well as letting them know that I've submitted complaints to AG in their state and mine, and FTC...and reaffirming that this will go a lot smoother on them if they simply write a nice apology letter saying they'll never report or sell, and include a check for my trouble. I really don't get the whole threatening to sue a consumer in first communication, AND leaving out key required statements in it to boot.
Mindcrime, I'm curious to know the wording that went into this letter. i really need to know what to say to start collecting a check from these people. Any one ever had luck getting paid back? or know any resources to look into how to put together that strategy?
My letter or CA's? I modify the heck out of the sample letters found here on the site with my specific situation information, along with a little bit of jam. ....Not the PB&J kind, but our friend here. He's a tad more direct than me, but some of the fire in my letters come from he thought process I am actually meeting with an attorney next week on this, one of the areas of law he focuses on is consumer credit, I spoke with him, gave background and explained that I'd only go forward with him on contingency basis. As I've yet to had to sue a CA, I want some in-person guidance on this. ....not that I need to sue this CA, they went away with their tail between their legs, but this one in particular I'd like to make an example out of after their empty threats in the very first communication to me. I like having evidence of 813(b)(1) FDCPA, as well. Just a little civil liability insurance, I hope.
