Credit Consultant Letter_HELP!

I know!

I know the court can rule he has to pay, but cannot make him do it! I have to take him to another court to get them to garnish his wages or something. Its crazy. Oh well.

 

The second debt validation letter should go to the main address listed on the "notice" letter from the collection agency. A debt validation request does not go to the original creditor (unless they are acting as the collection agent).

As a note, look at your credit report; if this Collection Agency account is listed, compare the address on the letter vs. the credit report tradeline. If they are different, you should cover yourself by sending a copy to both addresses.

 

No.

CRA's don't VALIDATE! The letter, as written, is to a CRA. I saw this letter on another site and pointed out that this letter was incorrect and leads to confusion. The site admins left it up anyway. So, this is not the second DV letter to send.

There is another approach though. Has the bank sold the debt to the CA or do they still own it? If they still own it, I would try a 'Goodwill' letter to the bank saying that if they pull the TL back from the CA you will pay what you owe them in return for having the CA delete the negative TL and removing any negative CHEXSYSTEM information.

A

 

My students are taught never to send a 2nd validation letter. The reason is that by the time they wait about 20-25 days from the date they receive the initial contact letter or initial contact by any means if an initial contact letter is not received in that time and send a short concise validation demand they should have logged at least 20 or more violations of FDCPA through phone conversations alone.

In reality, there really isn't any need to even send a demand for validation at all if the phone conversations have been properly handled and recorded but we do it anyway.

The second step coming at the end of 30 days after they receive the demand for validation is estoppel which is quite useless anymore but it does serve as a vehicle to keep the lines of communication open and give them a bit of a reminder to provide the demanded validation if they have not done so by that time.

Then we wait an additional 15 days after they received the estoppel letter and move on to intent to sue both the original creditor and the debt collector for violations of FDCPA.

Now then my readers should understand that we are only threatening to sue the original creditor, not actually doing it at this point. Since FDCPA plainly states that original creditors are not liable for any infractions of FDCPA our intent to sue letters are sometimes ignored but because they are properly prepared cases almost ready to be filed in federal court they are seldom ignored. What we hope to gain here and usually do is first of all a written statement from the creditor that they have sold the debt and no longer have any interest in the matter.

This is what we are really looking for because then the debt collector has provided us with false and misleading information in most instances and in the event they bring suit in the name of the creditor at some point in time we will have proof that the claimed plaintiff is not the true party of first interest in the case and more ammunition to use against them when we actually do go to federal court.

In the event we do actually go to federal court and the original creditor has not answered he will also become a defendant in the case. Of course, the step I have outlined here is not the final step. If we actually intend to sue the original creditor in federal court he will receive a second intent to sue with expanded causes of action. In that way he will have had two warnings that he is about to be sued before we actually do file the FDCPA suit against him. When he gets the summons from federal court he will have to wake up and die right at that point in time or we will have a default judgment against him and of course, he and his legal staff will probably try to wiggle out of it by claiming that they are not liable under FDCPA and the case against them should be dismissed for that reason. If they get dumb enough to make that argument they will find out that original creditors can indeed be sued for violations of FDCPA and the case will go forward. Contrary to what FDCPA says about original creditors they can be sued for violations of that law if one knows how to do it.

 

Okay, let's simplify this, and the actions to take:

1) Write the CA the following letter:

From:
Your name/address

To:
Millennium Credit Consultants
Address:

re: Creditor: TCF Bank:alleged debt of $2800.00

Certified Mail Article No.: xxxxxxxxxx

Dear Representative:

I request validation of this debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. I further request an accounting for the claimed amount owed.

Please note that this is my second request, and to date you have not supplied required validation to my first request.

Please ensure that all further communications are in writing to the above address, and I respectfully request no further telephone communications.

Thank You,


2) I would go further and visit the bank where you had this account, and ask for a review of the account. Explain the situation, and ask for copies of the checks written.

3) You should then go after the ex in court for the damages.