Ok. I sent validation to a CA. They did not validate, but DID verify with the CRA (Violation #1). So, today instead of an attempt at validation, I open a letter from CA, and get this typical: "blah..blah... we can't find the account, send us DL#, and utility bill, blah...etc." Ok but here's the kicker. Last line of letter : "This is an attempt to collect on a debt, any information obtained will be used for that purpose." Isn't this violation #2? LOL.. (And technically violation #3 will be failure to validate...)
Butch has a great thread "What is Validation" (check his sig above). And, yes, you're on the right track -- sounds like you're racking up the violations. Doc
Ok... Hmm. I thought the CA could not make any collection effort at all while I was seeking validation. So I only have the one violation then? How do I respond? A second validation letter? I'm not supposed to give them the information they request, am I? I mean, they should KNOW what account it is, if they have it on my credit report.
Apparently that's called the "mini-miranda" that they are legally bound to include on ALL corespondance. At least that's what someone once told me. It kinda looks like it. Failure to validate is NOT a violation. They always have the option of not validating and dropping the claim.
QUOTE It kinda looks like it. Failure to validate is NOT a violation. 1*They always have the option of not validating and dropping the claim. amish ====================== REPLY 1*But you can still sue them for violations already committed : THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Well, it is their responsibility to validate, so send them a letter and tell them they are misrepresenting a debt..... they have just sent you information that they can't, tell them that the 30 days of your original DV still stand and if they can't validate it to remove it from your CRA. THEY ARE PROBOBLY IN VIOLATOION, ... since according to your post this is not the 1st 30 days § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f] A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. They can't collect a dime(including any....) unless ... they provide and "agreement creating the debt" .... Get it !!!!
Correct. I'm not saying he should drop HIS claim for the $1000 violation. I'm just saying that they don't have to validate, they can always give up. Actually, the HAVE to if they don't validate.
Correct he can keep pushing the point that they are not validating and it is a violation. As fas as getting a $1000. on one slip-up, that is not going to happen because FDCPA violations work on the PREPONERANCE OF EVIDENCE RULE, they have to do it alot. I guess that is why the veterans of this BOARD suggest you do 1. DISPUTE NOT MINE to CRA 2. DV 3. 2ND DV 4. ESTOPPEL 5. ITS 6. filling complaints to ATTG and FTC 7. all violations of FDCPA, state laws 8. any previous FINES from FTC officials 8. is not necessary, but if you do 1-7, now you have some evidence. ... I think that is PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ??????
Re: Re: hahahahahah...check this out! Um, the question marks ????????? above where an invetation to the VETERANS to add additional comments to the above steps of 1-8 and hopefully enlighten us on the "PREPONERANCE OF EVIDENCE" stipulation. .... I see a lot of people go to court and loose becuase they don't have ENOUGH evidence!!!!
Re: Re: hahahahahah...check this out! I'm not after the $1000 so much. I want the reports clean. I'll take $500 and deletion, though
Re: Re: hahahahahah...check this out! I'm not after the $1000 so much. I want the reports clean. I'll take $500 and deletion, though
