Now, I thought I had the whole thing sort of figured out but I may not. I sent Blakley & Witt (a law firm/CA) a C&D letter on 06/07/2002. It looked like this: Date: 6/7/2002 Blakley Witt and Associates 802 E Highway 80 Mesquite, TX 75149 RE: Account #XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dear Blakley Witt and Associates, You are here by notified that your services are no longer desired. This is in accordance with the laws of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You and your company must Cease and Desist all attempts to collect the above debt. Failure to comply with this law will result in my filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and my stateâ??s Attorney generalâ??s Office. I will be thorough and pursue all criminal and civil claims against you and your company. Be warned, that if any negative information pertaining to this debt is added to my credit file after receipt of this letter, I will file suit against you and your company, both personally and corporately, to seek any and all legal remedies afforded me by law. I am not going to ever deal with collection agencies, and my intention is only to settle this account with the original creditor. Regards, Mr. Lawsuit NOW the Mr Witless and Associates have verified my dispute with Experian of the above referenced account. I thought that letter prevented them from doing so. Am I wrong, or are they? I just need to know which way to go here. Lawsuit? Or do I need to take additional steps?
I think you need to read the appropriate section of the FDCPA. My recollection was that they had to stop communicating with YOU, but could still try to collect the debt. Usually that would entail filing suit. A recent thread talked about reporting to a CRA as being a communication for FDCPA requirements, so I personally want to re-read the act before I say that I am 100% sure.
In my opinion the C&D letter is the last resort... The C&D letter is to tell the CA to cease all comunications with you regarding the debt... If you sent validation and they verified with the CRA and did not notate the account as disputed that is a violation..The C&D keeps them from calling and sending thier form letters demanding payment.. Im sure some others will chime in here as well..
Hmm.. that letter was taken straight from the letters section of the board. I'm reading the FDCPA again now. I thought I was right in my initial train of thought though.
The best use of a C&D is to prevent them from calling you. The C&D you did cut off all communications, including mail. What we call a partial C&D says "don't ever call me. ALL communications must be in writing". This leaves the door open for reaching a resolution but stops all the calls. If you cut them off completely you leave them no other alternative but to file suit. Which is what they are no doubt working on right now. The letters in the library are woefully inadequate.
I am only going to bring this up here because it makes a good point. I am in NO way trying to be critical of MrTexas. I believe this situation is one that exemplifies why you should do lots and lots of research before diving in. Just because something is posted in a letters section does NOT mean that it is something applicable to your circumstance. There is a lot of information available. Unfortunately much of the time there is missing data, something the unsuspecting user of the given advice is not aware of, and usually not prepared for. It can almost always be prevented by getting to the bottom of things and understanding the reasoning, BEFORE any action is taken. *steps off his soapbox*
Ech! Oh well, I've done it now! That was prior to me ever posting or reading the board. I have learned a lot in the last few months... mainly ask questions. See? I wouldn't be in this perdicament if I'd asked originally. Okay, so what is my best course of action now?
MrTexas, C&D is exactly what you say it is, They didn't place the account in dispute? Then violation #1, Did they Verify the debt with the CRA? Violation #2. Did they send you information that you requested for Validation? Violation #3. Now as for Cease and Desist, If you tell them you no longer want to deal with them and only the Original Creditor, then they must do that. That also means, You demand deletion of the Tradeline cause thats your right. Communication about your debt with anyone else but YOU is illegal. NOTHING in The FCRA or FDCPA allows them or gives them permission to do so. This is a beautiful loophole I have used. 4 months, I have 1 derog left. Out of 35. Never had to go to court by my own dealing with the exception of being sued before I starting this credit crap. These guys are leeches, squish them.
Please show me. I am reading the FDCPA and I see a specific mention of CRA's and third-party communication. Now, I would agree that if they refuse to send validation they can no longer continue collection efforts, meaning they can not verify and must mark the account in dispute, this has nothing to do with the C & D. I would also tend to think that if you leave them no method to send back validation, then you have shot yourself in the foot. "Your Honor, we had this here validation all ready to send, but the guy told us not to ever communicate with him." But then, I'm not a lawyer. Show me your basis though, and if you have case law to back it up, let's see that too. I'm all for favorable interpretations, but only if they hold water...
A CA can communicate with you or your spouse regarding the debt and no-one else. They may however seek "location information" from a 3rd party.
Butch, the FDCPA is pretty clear on this: Somebody SHOW me what I'm missing, don't just tell me that I'm wrong. This board is full of opinions but not a lot of hard facts... (No Butch, that was not directed at you, just a comment in general.)
Now as for Cease and Desist, If you tell them you no longer want to deal with them and only the Original Creditor, then they must do that unless they bought the debt.
If you tell them you no longer want to deal with them and only the Original Creditor, then they must do that Kiyi Does this mean that it has to be removed from your report?.
§ 805. Communication in connection with debt collection [15 USC 1692c] (d) For the purpose of this section, the term "consumer" includes the consumer's spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.
Nodding jambe, you're RIGHT! LOL (wish I knew how to bold) Just make sure before invoking that provision, NO communication vs. limiting communication, that the sol for enforcement has expired. Butch, that section you are quoting is for THAT section only, read 804. Sassy
Sassy, just enclose the text you want to bold in PHP: [b]text you want bold[/b] blocks. There is a list of vB codes and a link to it on the reply page, to the left of the text input box.
Far as I know we are, but what you quoted doesn't have much to do with the third-party communication exempted by 805(b). Butch, please to be going and read my recent thread. I value your input and opinion...
