I think this one is unique! I sent an estoppel letter to a CA that got to them on Monday (according the the green card). Today, I receive a letter, POSTMARKED THE SAME DAY THEY RECEIVED MY LETTER, from them saying: "Your recent payment has been received and credited to your account with the above client. Your new updated balance is stated above. However, we are not able to accept partial payments unless it has been approved through this office. Please call xxx-xxx-xxxx in order to make arrangements. Sincerely, CA THERE WILL BE A $20 CHARGE FOR RETURNED CHECK ------------------------------------------ Then at the bottom is a payment stub with TWO options. Either I enclose my Credit card number or my checking account info. NO OTHER OPTION. LOL How funny is this? Comments: 1. I never sent any payments 2. Do they really think I am going to call them? 3. $20 for a returned check? See #1 Now, a few questions: 1. Is this considered still trying to collect on a debt during validation? 2. Should I just respond with an ITS letter already? (I gave them 15 days in the etoppel letter) Anyone have any comments and/or help on my next step? Thanks!
sounds like to me there still trying to collect on this debt, if there asking for your checking account number or your CC # why other then to collect on this debt would they want this info, Unless they r selling things on the side LOL J/K.
1. Is this considered still trying to collect on a debt during validation? 2. Should I just respond with an ITS letter already? (I gave them 15 days in the estoppel letter) WILLDOGS -------------------------------- 1*$1000 violation. 2*If it's been 15 days since they got the estoppel. THE END ** *** ** LB 59
That is what I figured. A Violation. Well it hasn't been 15 days yet, more like 7 so I'll just wait for the 15 days to be up before I send the ITS letter. Should I tell them that they are in Violation? Anyone have a good latter on this that I can use as a template? I am not really sure on how I should word it. In the meantime I will do some searching. Thanks!
1: I doubt it, The letter is postmarked the same day they recieved the estoppel letter, o it is just an innocent matter since thye will probably argue (convincingly) that the letter was actually written the day before. 2: You can but I think they can wiggle out of it in court. Give them another bite at the apple, they will screw up eventually, THEN nail 'em.
Re: Re: HA! Get this one! We can safely assume that WD's Estoppel was not the first correspondence with the CA. That it is a follow up to a previously sent val. demand. § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (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. WillDog, you didn't mention if it has the MiniMiranda. I assume it does but you didn't say. ???
Re: Re: HA! Get this one! Yes, The mini-miranda was in the letter, i forgot to add that. Yes, i did send my first validation letter March 1st, with no reponse from them. I sort of got very busy with business trips and personal issues and let time lapse a bit before sending my estoppel (A little over 2 1/2 months). I don't know if this makes a difference? Anyone know? Maybe giving them all of that time to validate helps my case? This is why it is so coincidental that, after all of this time, they send my that letter the same day they received mine.
Re: Re: HA! Get this one! 1: I doubt it, The letter is postmarked the same day they received the estoppel letter, so it is just an innocent matter since they will probably argue (convincingly) that the letter was actually written the day before. Flyingifr ============ ************* ----------------- 1*This is not correct the date goes by the Val.L. not as per date of any subsequent correspondence such as estoppel - reminders notices - other letter - ETC.
Re: Re: HA! Get this one! Thanks everyone for the comments! I just wanted to know if anyone had an answer for the fact that i let so much time pass before sending in the estoppel ? Thanks
