Hi everyone, I recently posted concerning a CA I did not know existed until I received my CRA report. I sent the validation letter CRRR and the following is the letter verbatim they sent back: Dear Mr Singledad, I am enclosing a copy of the FDCPA pertaining to the validation of your debt. (15 USC 1692g.) As it is clearly stated all requests must be "assumed valid" after the 30 day period. Out of courtesy to you and the fact you may not be familiar with the entire law I am enclosing the itemization of your bill. Also for your information, this account was referred to my office on */**/98 at which time our initial letter was sent. I can appreciate your concern to resolve this and please note that we will immediately notify CRA upon clearance of your check. (1) They sent no itemization of any alleged bill (2) Would this constitute a collection effort (3) Is there no recourse after 30 days if youhave never heard of these people (4) What next?
Singledad, they are full of it. It does not clearly state that after 30 days all is assumed valid. In fact, it says exactly the opposite. Read #5 c below. You can send them a letter advising them of this fact, and also that they are in violation of the FDCPA for continuing collection activity prior to validating. Actually after going back and rereading the rules, it does say that a ca may assume the debt to be valid. But, on the other hand it states a court shall not consider this an acknowledgment of debt. It is very convoluted. But my suggestion stands. § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.
Have them prove they sent AND YOU RECEIVED the initial letter. Did they send it CRRR (I doubt it). What proof do they have that they contacted you "on */**/98 at which time our initial letter was sent". I would claim your contact to them IS the initial contact (sparking the 30 days), and demand validation. After all you did not know about this debt until you pulled your reports (I had a similar problem with NCO - I had no knowledge until reports pulled) -Peace, Dave
Singledad, They said they sent a itemization of a bill to you? Yet you state they didn't? What did they send? Just that letter with a total? I would send them a 2nd letter stating that they violated fdcpa and fcra and you received nothing that verifies you owe this debt. State this on the bottom in quotations, "Due to incorrect data and lack of verification of debt, Remove these tradelines from all Credit Bureau Reports immediately or I will pursue this with legal action."
Dear Singledad, A bill from a company claiming that you owe money is called commercial paper. Commercial paper because it represents "debt" and is actually worth money. It is often sold on the open market. That's why one ca might buy your debt from another ca or oc. The law of the land that governs ALL commercial paper is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and has been adopted in all 50 states. Without getting too technical the UCC states that an Unrebutted document, such as a bill can be considered evidence of liability IF (but only if) THE RECIPIENT fails to respond. Its called prima facie evidence that the debt is valid and thus the collector may operate under that assumption. [ Definition - {Latin for "on its face." A prima facie case is one that at first glance presents sufficient evidence for the plaintiff to win. Such a case must be refuted in some way by the defendant for him to have a chance of prevailing at trial. ] Once the recipient (you) place the prima facie evidence of the debt (the bill) into question the collector may NO LONGER operate as if the debt is valid and is, from this point forward, required by law to prove it's validity. The important part here is that it matters not WHEN you dispute, just that you do. It's because of the UCC that congress included the language LKH so rightly points out in 5(c). Failure to dispute the debt during the first 30 days does NOT mean you acquiesce to its validity and thus, lose your rights from that point forward. Indeed, if that were the case no ca would ever actually send that first notice. They would just "say" they did.* Basically the CA lied to you, (imagine that). Stick to your guns, you're on the right track. Hope this helps, * I believe this is a popular tactic by the CA's.
Once the recipient (you) place the prima facie evidence of the debt (the bill) into question the collector may NO LONGER operate as if the debt is valid and is, from this point forward, required by law to prove it's validity. The important part here is that it matters not WHEN you dispute, just that you do. It's because of the UCC that congress included the language LKH so rightly points out in 5(c). Failure to dispute the debt during the first 30 days does NOT mean you acquiesce to its validity and thus, lose your rights from that point forward. Indeed, if that were the case no ca would ever actually send that first notice. They would just "say" they did.* Basically the CA lied to you, (imagine that). Butch, Certified Financial Planner ===================== This is why You always have the right to demand proof that you owe the money. It makes no difference who is making the claim. OCs and all other have to validate not just CAs.It might not be called validation for those who are not a CA.but it means the same.
