/ Register

First Notice from CA is not a "Dunning Notice", A violation or Not ???

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Kameleon, Mar 7, 2013.

Page 1 of 2
  1. Mar 7, 2013 #1
    Kameleon

    Kameleon Well-Known Member

    I have a CA that HAD been reporting since 2009 (i found out in 2013 from a credit pull)
    They had not sent anything and the amount was for $70, i left it alone because i had higher balance accounts to take care of and i could not for the life of me figure out what this tiny thing was about.. Well all of a sudden i get an alert from my CMS that an account had updated its balance, it was them and the balance went from $70 to $100. The next day i got a letter in the mail.

    It states EXACTLY :

    My and their name and address,
    Account # XXXXXXX

    Total of all debts; $100.XXX
    "City of _______" Principle Interest Cost Total
    ._______________.$70____.$30___$0___.$100

    "In reviewing our records, we note that the above balance remains unpaid.
    This derogatory item on your experian credit profile may adversely affect a future purchase or loan.
    Help clear up your credit profile by using the enclosed envelope or call now to discuss payment.
    (agent types his name)

    You May also pay online at _____________
    We accept visa, MC, and checks by phone.

    This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This has been sent to you by a Debt collection firm."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That's it...nothing else!

    1) Isn't this a violation since this is the first ever mail i got from them and it does not have the statements of a "dunning notice"?

    2)Doesn't state who the original creditor is ( i assume "city of___" is who i "owed") etc....

    3) Do you see anything else wrong so far, or have a similar situation that you can give advice about in dealing with this

    Plan is as always to DV but i like to keep a running count of violations if needed down the line as I've read about folks getting money back from CA's for violating FDCPA and FCRA's and i think it's about time i start subscribing to this way of thinking
     
  3. Mar 7, 2013 #2
    jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    1) it is still a dunning notice. It may be a violation, however all they have to show is that they sent the initial disclosures.
     
  4. Mar 7, 2013 #3
    mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    What's the SOL in your state?

    It's a little harder to prove this is their initial communication not only due to age, but their letter reads sort of like its a subsequent contact. Therefore siting 809 (a)(4) which is what I believe you were alluding to may not work. Then again, maybe it would. I had a CA reporting for years on one of my credit reports (I honestly hadn't checked mine for that long during that timeframe) and I really had never received any notice from them either, so I went after them with a simple DV LTR, disputed with CRA, came back verified (of course), sent another DV LTR siting that they have never sent any notice to me ever, including my Miranda rights under FDCPA, and are also guilty of continued collection activity 809(b). Now at this point the debt was out of SOL, so going in blazing didn't worry me that it could backfire. In the end, they deleted.
     
  5. Mar 9, 2013 #4
    Kameleon

    Kameleon Well-Known Member

    Jam,
    i don't know if they did send them...should i ask for proof of mailing (i heard that never works). Also i read that being put on the credit report counts as being notified. that sound crazy to me//

    Mindcrime,
    Yes 809a(4) indeed. this one has a LONG way to go according to what they are reporting.

    As for SOL, i know credit cards are 4 years in my state but i have no idea what bill from "the city of _____" is even for. Nothing DMV / tax related for sure... guess i'll just DV for now.

    I'm just getting so annoyed with this whole CMMR back and forth that goes on with this credit repair process, it cost me $36 in postage just dealing with just ONE C.A. that keeps ignoring to properly validate/ PFD this is on a less than $200 debt... grrrrrrrr
     
  6. Mar 11, 2013 #5
    Logan Abbott

    Logan Abbott Well-Known Member

    Personally I would begin with a DV letter to figure out what the charge is for.
     
  7. Mar 12, 2013 #6
    jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    They don't have to prove mailing, unless we can prove otherwise their CRM software notation that they generated a letter is 'proof' that that letter was sent.

    This is one reason I make sure to notate when possible, date on letter, postmark date if available, and receipt date.

    Case law says that mail is received 5 days after the date they sent it. Unless we can show otherwise (like a pattern of postmarks days after the generation date) letter date suffices as proof of mailing, for them. When there are mailing discrepancies, we can chip away at the certainty of mailing, and erode their arguments that 'we sent it, no idea where it went to.'
     
  8. May 4, 2013 #7
    Kameleon

    Kameleon Well-Known Member

    Update:
    After DVing and mentioning the FDCPA violations and offering to settle PFD style.
    They sent back a notice asking me to call. No document no NOTHING just "thank you for letter in order to consider your request please call us."

    I had specifically state not to BE contacted by phone. But i figure they are just asking... not calling... so i sadly called and asked to speak to the man that wrote the letter the girl laughed and handed the phone to some ghetto woman how started screaming at me that i'm "messin' with state funds" all the while the first girl is laughing in the background ....I just hung up..

    I immediately sent CRA that holds this account a dispute stating that i sent a DV letter requesting document and the CA has not responded and asked them to verify and demanded to know the method of verification used and the documents provided as proof this debt is valid.

    The CRA sent me a letter saying they had already reviewed this account and it is verified therefore they will not re-investigate it unless i have some sort of new proof or document that the account is paid or i am a victim of ID theft...

    The point that i FIRST verified with them (stupid , now i know) is because i didn't have a clue who or what this was about. The CA added contact info and updated balances and then i had contact info....Now the collector is NOT sending me any documentations or information. If there is no info to send what is it that the CRA counts as proof that this debt is mine??

    I Did the mistake of first verifying with CRA before DV to CA, i also sent that first Dispute request via online. Which i learned does not give you any explanation and you cannot request "method of verification" (that online dispute stuff is full of $___t, DO NOT DISPUTE ONLINE)

    Should i just ITS, or should i DV the CA again?
    Looks like i can't get the CRA to ask for verification and hence trapping the CA into sending me something within 30 days.. although i think they might just be dumb enough to verify with the CRA and continue to ignore me...but now the CRA wont ask them for even verification/documents.....

    How can i approach this, folks?
     
  9. May 4, 2013 #8
    mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    A procedural request has nothing to do with them reinvestigating.

    (iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure
    used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall
    be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name
    and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with
    such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if
    reasonably available;

    ....this is 611(a)(6)(B)iii if you want to read more. They are REQUIRED to do this. I would send a letter CRRR back to the CRA siting the FCRA and they their refusal to cooperate is a violation of federal law.

    I would send a second DVL as well. Reaffirming that on this Date you sent a request for validation. As of today you are still reporting this debt and have refused to validate. You have 15 days from receipt of this tracked letter to either validate or delete. It is inconvenient for me to speak on the phone, your correspondence must be done in writing.


    You should be able to use both the first and second DVL's and proof of receipt to the CRA as your evidence. What verification do they expect YOU to be able to supply them with when you have NO idea what this alleged debt is all about?
     
  10. May 4, 2013 #9
    jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Kam:

    You can demand another investigation, you just need to be more forceful, and quote caselaw liberally. :)

    Cushman v. TransUnion
    Johnson v. MBNA

    Are the two cases where you can find cites that should get the CRA to re-investigate...

    The key is that you are challenging the DATA FURNISHER'S RELIABILITY...
     
  11. May 4, 2013 #10
    Kameleon

    Kameleon Well-Known Member

    I'm off to read and get that done...
    My biggest problem is condensing what i want down to a single page. as i read the CRA agents only have a max of appox. 3 mins to read and deal with any one single request.

    I think i'm unsure of the wording for demanding the method of verification. I though i could get the CRA to send me a copy of a document, it looks like they just need to state who at what company they contacted that told they everything is correct and nothing more... looks like they don't have to get any contract/statement/nothing , seems like if they were in the same room with the CA a simple nod of the head would be considered verified.

    So i'll send the CA DVL#2 first and send both DV letters and green card copies to the CRA and keep at it.
     
  12. May 5, 2013 #11
    jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Demanding the method of verification, is easy... but the results are blah...

    Essentially their reply to the request for procedures are the same as the summary of the process in the results.

    We contacted the DF, here's their reply.

    The procedures request has nothing to do with the actual investigation, just a summary of the procedures that they allegedly use for any dispute.
     
  13. May 5, 2013 #12
    jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Per caselaw, they are not required to examine proof that the account is valid, the DF just clicks a button, and the CRA says, yep, they verified it.
     
  14. May 5, 2013 #13
    Kameleon

    Kameleon Well-Known Member

    Well that seems a bit useless...
    Since i did that first dispute online. i never got any sort of details back i clicked the link they emailed me and it just pulled up a credit report. no highlighting or stating anything.

    What would i be looking for if i requested a "procedure request?" a time, date, person?

    i'm not sure why i would ask for this if all they are going to send me is a paper saying yes DF stated it was verified?

    Can you tell me what the main difference between a "method of verification" request is V.s. "procedure request" what are each asking for and why do i need either?

    Thanks in advance
     
  15. May 6, 2013 #14
    jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Basically the procedures request is gobbledygook such as "when we receive a dispute, we contact the data furnisher and ask that they verify the information that they are reporting."

    That's it.

    The verbiage in the act is procedure request, so if you use anything else (even if you mean the same thing), they may not realize what you mean if you don't specifically say procedures request.

    The hope would be that requesting a procedures request would actually give you meaningful procedures "we contacted the data furnisher, and Jane Doe of their xxxxxxxx office sent us the following information which confirmed the data that they were reporting you can contact her at xxx-xxx-xxxx, or by writing to Jane Doe, 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Sometown, PA xxxxx", but alas, they don't, never have, never will. The only way you are likely to see more than a one or two sentence paragraph procedures is by seeing them in court.
     
  16. Jun 11, 2013 #15
    Kameleon

    Kameleon Well-Known Member

    Update:
    So again i sent a Third DV letter and this time they sent back a letter stating that they contacted the "original creditor" and all information is verified.

    I asked for documents, proof, something, anything or who the Original creditor is. They REFUSE to ever tell me. 3 letters in a row !!!

    I've called every agency in "the city of___" and none of them show i owe anything. How on earth is this legal??????

    What am i left with here? file complaints with the SAG, FTC and BBB and what watch as they do absolutely nothing? Spend $100 to sue them for a $200 debt only to have them FINALLY tell me where this debt is from???
     
  17. Jun 12, 2013 #16
    MiaCam

    MiaCam Member

    Update:
    After mentioning and DVing the FDCPA violations and offering to settle PFD style.
    No file no NOTHING just "thank you for letter to be able to consider your request please contact us."

    I had especially state not to BE contacted by telephone.

    I instantly sent CRA that holds this account a dispute saying that I sent a DV letter requesting file as well as the CA hasn't responded and requested them to check and demanded to-know the process of verification used as well as the files supplied as evidence this debt is valid.
     
  18. Jun 17, 2013 #17
    Kameleon

    Kameleon Well-Known Member

    WHAT ??? I'm not not sure what this is a response too..

    Update: FTC Complaint sent, SAG Complaint sent, BBB complaint (these guys are a waste of time BTW) sent, BCA complaint sent,................... where else should i be sending a complaint to. Also any Advice links, etc on ITS process or just a general layout of paperwork needed to sue these "bas-turds"
     
  19. Jun 18, 2013 #18
    mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    Section 809 (b) (FDCPA)
    (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.

    Did they send you a LTR subsequent to your DVL that in essence refuses to comply with the above?

    FTC, you won't hear back from, it takes a lot of complaints against a company before they'll move.
    BBB, I don't put much stock in them, but have used them before, if nothing else it usually helps to wake the CA a bit into realizing you're not playing games, but ultimately they (BBB) have no power.
    AG, have you heard back yet? This will likely be your biggest help. Is the CA located in your state as well? If not file with their state AG too.

    You could try the CFPB > Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well.
     
  20. Jun 19, 2013 #19
    jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Remember, that FTC is no longer the contact for consumer financial issues, CFPB is. That's why FTC links for the FDCPA now point to the CFPB, except for older archived links such as opinion letters.
     
  21. Jun 19, 2013 #20
    mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member


    When did this change? (feeling like I was able to file a complaint not too long ago, but maybe I'm thinking of something else?)

    Unlike the FTC, CFPB does induce personal contact with the consumer!
     
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page