Hello, I received a letter from a collection agency stating that I need to pay them a small amount of money (less than $100) for going through a Fastrak lane without a Fastrak account on in January of 2006. The letter includes the time when that happened, location and the license plate number. I sent them a validation letter with no response. Afterward I received another letter with all the same contents. My three credit reports show no collection accounts. Question - do I need to do anything else? Do I send them a second validation letter? Thanks.
The good thing is the CA hasn't decided to report it to the credit bureaus yet. But things like unpaid library fees and moving violations are finding their way onto credit reports more often these days. Are you positive they received your DV? Did you send it CMRRR? What they sent you might be good enough. If it's a legit ticket, I would rather work out payment and get it taken care of before anything shows up on my credit report. Getting a collection on your reports for a ticket less than $100 isn't worth it. If you don't pay, they may start reporting it to the CRAs as a last resort to get you to take action. Then, you'll have to deal with paying and trying to get the collection off your reports...not fun.
I believe that what they sent may meet the requirements for validation. It shows the amount, time, and original creditor. Given the small amount of money, I'd pay to keep it off my reports. Was it really your car?
Two questions for you. 1. Why did you send them a validation letter? Was it because you didn't realize that governmental fines and fees are not consumer related debts and therefore not subject to FDCPA? 2. Even if it had been a consumer related debt why would you send a second validation letter? Sending a 2nd after failure of the first still makes no sense whatever to me even after some of the other well respected long term denizens here have gone to great lengths to explain it to me. While I must admit that I may be greener than a gourd and dumber than a fence post I can't see sending a second validation letter when the law and various court decisions have said that a debt collector has no legal obligation to reply to a consumer's demand for validation. I've watched new comers ask the same question on this board for over 10 years now and get various answers such as if the first DV letter don't work then send another one. I've seen them come back many times saying that the second one didn't work either, asking what to do next only to be told they should go to the letters section and get the local copy of the infamous estoppel letter or even that since there are multiple versions of DV letters and multiple versions of estoppel letters they might try a few more. Soon I see them on other boards asking the same questions, getting the same answers all over again. My thinking has always been that the newcomers and experts alike just need to understand that better answers must exist. Don't keep on making the same mistakes over and over and over again. So what is the mistake ? In my opinion the mistake is assuming that if you didn't get a response the letter didn't work but if we go back and read the law again therein lies the inescapable fact that the law says there is no requirement that the debt collector must respond to a consumer's demand for validation. So non-response can't very well mean the letter didn't work in my way of thinking. We might then very well ask what good a dv letter does if they don't have ever have to respond? To get the answer to that we must return to read the rest of the law which says they cannot move forward with any further collection activity until they have complied with the consumer's demand for validation. Now the question becomes what is continued collection activity? We know that if they don't validate but send more demand letters that would constitute illegal continued collection activity. Can they sell or assign the debt to some other company? Some courts have ruled that since the debt is their asset they can do as they please with their asset. That makes sense to me. So can they turn it over to an attorney with instructions to file suit? I haven't seen any court rulings on that but it seems to me that doing so would constitute illegal continued collection activity. Although my discussion of this matter can easily get really lengthy, let's return to whether or not the DV letter worked or not just because they didn't respond. The law plainly states that in order to comply with the demands of the law they must get the records from the original creditor and forward the results to the consumer which they seldom actually do. But for purposes of this response let's assume that they comply with your demands, send a request to the original creditor who returns a complete accounting of the debt and they forward that information to you. If they do that then it seems to me that the debt validation letter worked and you got what you demanded. So if the debt validation letter worked then what will you do? Of course, in your instant situation it doesn't matter because a traffic fine is not a consumer debt to begin with so there was no requirement that the respond to you in any case. Seems to me that you have two options and only two options. Pay up and get on with life or ignore it and wait until you look in your rear view mirror to see some funny red, white and blue flashing lights telling you that some uniformed minion of the law would like to discuss the matter further. Of course, at that point the officer will probably want to impound both you and your vehicle until such time as you do pay up. I've often heard that their crossbar hotel gives one a great sense of security but leaves a great deal to be desired in the way of fringe benefits. If you don't quit worrying about whether your debt validation letter worked or not and pay them you will probably have an opportunity to find out about that great sense of security and their fringe benefits sooner or later.
Can't disagree with anything in that answer! Maybe I'm clueless, but I thought the idea behind a DV letter "working" was that it "worked" if you got no response, because it meant the debt collector couldn't validate the debt, and therefore had to stop collecting. So no response would be the best possible outcome. Even if they sell the debt and someone else starts collecting, there's even less chance that they new company will be able to validate the debt, since they'll be further removed from the original lender and more time will have passed for records to be lost, so you send a DV again and hope it too "works." If a DV letter results in a response that does validate the debt, then you've got two main choices: either dispute it with the original creditor if you think it truly isn't your debt (they mixed you up with somebody with the same name, or you paid it off already, or whatever) or if you think they didn't really validate it and the DV response was just a bluff, or you can sigh and figure out how to pay it, because it's a legitimate debt. Have I got that wrong? That's pretty much all I can think. I'm guessing the collection agency was merely hired by the guv'mint to do the legwork of collection, and wasn't actually the owner of the debt. Therefore, it's not a matter of waiting for a civil suit from the owner of the debt as their last resort, because the state can arrest you, just like if you ignore parking tickets. (I'm assuming Fastrak violations work like other motor vehicle related violations.)
That's the way I see it too. Therefore, from my standpoint if it don't work then I have two choices, pay up or sit back and see if I get sued or not. Personally, I'd far rather get sued than pay a debt collector a crying dime. Of course, many of those who are far wiser than I am seem to think I must be really stupid and they just might be right. Of course, the proof of the pudding is who goes home with the most cash in their pocket. That's the bottom line. Its all about the money and nothing else in my way of thinking. Yep, that's the way I see it too. Gives you a second bite at the apple with better odds of it working than you had with the first bite. Well, that or sit back and hope they sell it again or send it to a lawyer thereby giving you a 3rd bite at the same apple. The best bite of all is when the lawyer fails to comply and files a lawsuit. Illegal continued collection activity every step of the way. Step 1. Files a lawsuit without proper validation. Illegal continued collection activity. Step 2. Defendant responds to the complaint and sends response plus demand for admissions and the lawyer responds to that. Another illegal continued collection activity. Step 3. Lawyer sends the defendant discovery requests. A. Interrogatories, B. demand for admissions, C. demand for production of documents. Three more acts of illegal continued collection activity. Step 4. Defendant files request for more time to respond to plaintiff's demands and lawyer objects. Another act of illegal continued collection activity. Since that much is just the start of the paper war with each additional step heaping more and more violations to the pile what chance does the lawyer stand when the defendant in the local court case runs out of things to file or gets a judgment against him/her and files a case against the lawyer in federal court and more cases against the various and sundry debt collectors what chance do they have in federal court? What excuse are they going to use for having violated the law so many times? But your Honor, the plaintiff owes us money and we were just trying to collect what is owed to us Federal judges have just one response to that which is something to the effect of GET REAL!We are here to talk about why you broke the law and nothing else Or maybe they will get really crafty and claim it was all an unintentional error and we have systems in place to ensure that it never happens again. When the judge gets through laughing at that one he will probably order them to prove it. The whole thing ends up with their having no defense whatever for their illegal actions and they have no choice but to pay up thereby putting more cash in the plaintiff's pockets. So of course I want the debt validation letter to work, but my definition of work is just backwards from that of most people. I don't think so. That's about the size of it.
