Estoppel applicable?

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by ElorraM, Sep 27, 2003.

  1. ElorraM

    ElorraM Active Member

    Can I send a estoppel letter to a CA that was supposed to remove collections after they were paid, but never did? I sent them a certified letter on 8/22/03 and have had no response. It doesn't matter that the debt IS mine does it? They fact that they did not respond is still, estoppel by silence (I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists), correct?

    Though on my EQ and EX CRs this item has magically disappeared (I'm assuming because of my letter even though they have not responded), TU is still reporting. I also want to cover my bases if this is reinserted for whatever reason, then I have proof of my dispute with the CA. Does this sound like the right path?
  2. ElorraM

    ElorraM Active Member

    Is this letter appropriate? I could really use your guys' advice.

    RE: Dispute Letter of August 22, 2003
    Account: #

    To Whom It May Concern:

    Dear Sir/Madame:

    I have not heard back from you in over 37 days regarding my notice of dispute, dated August 22, 2003. Under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists.

    You must now correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine.

    At this point I have no choice but to initiate my own investigation. Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 (e) and 15 USC 1692 (f) in this alleged matter.

    What is your authorization of law for your collection of information?

    What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?

    Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, has worked as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and entitles me to presume that this matter is permanently closed. Your dead silence has spoken volumes. You have fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice to CURE THE PROBLEM. I have damages.

    I refer you to no less of an authority than the Federal Trade Commission, in a case named; FTC vs. Performance Capital Management, (a collection agency) released August 24, 2000, to wit:

    The proposed settlement â?¦ mandates the proper investigation of disputes. Where PCM learns during an investigation that account records no longer exist for a disputed debt, the company must delete the information from credit bureau files within five days. (emphasis added)

    Enclose please find a copy of the Press Release for your perusal.

    You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act.

    Failure to respond within 15 (3 times longer than the FTC itself would expect) days of receipt of this registered letter will result in a probable lawsuit, quite possibly in Federal District Court, in demand of a Jury Trial, for, but not limited to:


    Willful, Negligent noncompliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

    Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

    Should I obtain a judgment against your company, I will petition for a Writ of Execution from the Sheriff's office in your county, and I will begin the process of attaching property or funds to satisfy said judgment.

    For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.

  3. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Did the CA put it in writing that they were to delete?

    The FDCPA most likely doesn't apply any longer, since they are no longer collecting the debt, its been paid. The exceptions would be of course, if they put in writing that they were going to delete their tradelines, and then did not, then you could argue an FDCPA unconscionable business practice, and fraud. Then you could argue for damages (actual damages of the amount you paid them; plus the FDCPA violation damages) because of their deception, and fraud.

    The FCRA would apply to their reporting inaccurate information, however, unless their agreement was in writing, you don't have anything to force them to remove the entry on.

    You can try to challenge the listing at the CRA level; but unless you have a letter in which the CRA put in writing that they would be deleting the entry, you're hoping that the CA would not respond to the verification request.
  4. ElorraM

    ElorraM Active Member

    They didnt respond to the letter I sent telling them to delete the paid collections as we agreed. I also told them there was inaccurate info on my report from them, which there was.

    Its been thirty days and the have not responded so I do have them for something.

    My question was since they didnt reply can I send them an estoppel?
  5. LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    The question was did the ca put in writing that they would delete the acct when you paid it?
  6. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

  7. paawk2000

    paawk2000 Member

    This is the letter I sent. And it was sent after I paid. I mention in this letter also that they reported this as paid when they were supposed to take it off AND that they are reporting the information that was on my CRs inaccurately (though I don't say what. Was hoping they'd pull my report without permissible purpose). On my EX it was reported as NOT paid and was a factor in me not getting a loan (and it wasn't even supposed to be on there at all. Defamation?) And no I didn't get it in writing. I didn't know any better then. I thought they took it off two and a half years ago. Just found out recently it was not taken off. This is for medical bills too btw. I was sick, no one could figure out what was wrong with me--I had chronic pain--and I was struggling through school and part time work.

    I really appreciate you guys trying to help me.


    Re: Acct.

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I have recently pulled my credit report and saw three negative listings from you. This was supposed to have been cleared up over two years ago when I was in contact with your office. This is my last attempt to settle the matter of how you are reporting the above mentioned accounts. My dealings with you on this matter have all been above board and I have acted in good faith and I trusted that you would do the same. Your company on the other hand, has avoided my best interests and have acted illegally in this matter. If the mentioned account is not DELETED from my credit files at all three of the major credit reporting agencies, I shall be forced to seek relief in Civil Court.

    In case you are not familiar with it, let me give you a quick lesson on the Doctrine of Estoppel and how it applies to you. A claim of estoppel is predicated on 3 elements. 1)The party against whom estoppel is claimed (you) must do or say something calculated or intended to induce another party (me) to believe that certain facts exists and to act on that belief; 2)and the other party must change is position in reliance on those facts, 3) thereby incurring some injury.

    Your company contacted me about the above mentioned account. I was in fact never notified in writing of my right to request validation of this account as per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [15 USC 1692g]. Your representative also stated that if I settled this debt your company would update my files with the credit reporting agencies. I, as any average consumer may, interpreted that to mean you would be removing this item. By making this statement and by avoiding informing me of my right to validation influenced me to pay this debt without first disputing it. Then you did in fact report it as a PAID COLLECTION, which has caused injury to me in the form of a damaged credit file, and to top it all off I see that these listings you reported contain inaccurate information. This has caused me diminished capacity to obtain credit and also has resulted in having to pay higher interest rates than I would otherwise have had to have paid when credit was extended.

    Unless the derogatory, and defamatory remarks are not removed from my credit files with all three major credit reporting agencies within 30 days of receipt of this letter I shall be forced to file a civil suit against you in Federal Court seeking a jury trial.

    If you have any contractual agreement with the credit bureaus that would supposedly keep you from complying with these terms, please be aware that any contract or clause that attempts to enforce an illegal act is in fact unconscionable and therefore null and void (U.C.C. 2-302). Any such contract with them will not shield you in court from willful violations of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the rights afforded to me by the Doctrine of Estoppel.

    While I have actionable claims I could pursue against you for violations of the FDCPA and FCRA (U.S. 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals Nelson v Chase, March 3, 2002) my pending suit against you will be about the damage you have caused me after I have dealt in good faith with your company. I will file separately in small claims court for your FCRA and FDCPA violations. Correct this matter immediately or be prepared to defend these matters in court.

  8. paawk2000

    paawk2000 Member

    Butch, anyone? I could really use some advice.

    This is ElorraM btw. this is my husband's nick.
  9. sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Why do you keep saying it was supposed to be deleted?

    Did they tell you it would be deleted if it were paid? was that your understanding? or are you just basing it on the letter you sent????

    You should never send a cut and pasted letter that isn't applicable to your situation, I say.

  10. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Estoppel applicable?

    Well that's what confused me. lol

    Slow down Elora. In an earlier post you said the TL has already been removed from 2 of the 3 CRA's, and that you thought it was "magical". :)

    Maybe not.

    It may not have happened "magically". If the CA did promise to delete it, is it possible they're trying to? That would explain the mysterious disappearance from, not 1, but 2 CR's? Maybe it's just that TU is out of whack. If that's the case, we need to take advantage of the CA's "willingness" to follow up and work on TU directly. This might be a lousy time to piss off the CA.

    What do you think IS going on?


Share This Page