Let's be clear...there is an element of truth to the statement. validation does not impact the enforceability of the debt by a judgment. If you don't validate you can still sue and get a judgment (assuming one buys the lawsuit is not equal to collection activity reasoning discusses in earlier thereads). Failure to validate prevents the CA from taking any further steps to collect the debt. If they take further steps they violated the fdcpa which means there is a separate lawsuit which can be filed against the CA for damages. It is not a defense (though it might be a counterclaim) to the original debt. They still have to prove the debt in court, of course. Also, if it were usurious, I am not so sure about the transferability of an otherwise usurious interest rate (which depends on the actual interest rate and NJ's laws) from a bank to a non-bank.
Someone was sued by a bank. When they got the notice from the court they sent a Val.Letter to the attorney handling the suit. After the attorney got the Val.request they did not Validate.Instead of validating they filed a motion for judgment with the court. Was that a violation of the FDCPA?
Continuing or taking further steps to pursue a lawsuit without complying to a validation request is not a violation,Correct.
is *probably* not a violation...one ftc opinion does not a universal precedent make. You could *argue* that pursuing a lawsuit is, in fact, continuing collection activity. You might not prevail, maybe even probably wouldn't prevail...but its a legitimate argument to make and in many cases will be enough to scare off the CA...at an absolute minium the CA has to spend much more than it is owed on a lawyer to defend against your lawsuit. Just researching this issue could cost more than is owed. And a half decent lawyer is going to have to say...you know there's always the possibility the CA would lose (which would be disastrous...we're talking staggering liability). So a simple "you didn't validate in the 30 day window, the CA's filing of the lawsuit is continuing collection activity is a clear violation of the fdcpa, either dismiss it within one week and send me a release or I'm going to commence suit against YOU" might be enough for many.
the secret to dealing with lawyers is to get something in writing in addition to the lawsuit. Anything. A letter. A xmas card. They never comply with the fdcpa, the required language won't be there. Then you send the lawyer a letter saying "you didn't comply with fdcpa, you probably never do so, either dismiss within a week or notify your carrier you're going to be sued and expect a complaint to be filed with the state bar."
candidly, i would. I wouldn't even mention stuff like the state ag or the ftc. because they don't do anything, everybody knows they don't anything, and it just reads like what it is...a bluff. the state bar does stuff (all lawyers are just anal by nature). an fdcpa lawsuit is costly to defend and can be crippling. the state ag's office is a wasted stamp.
Hate to disagree, well, no I don't, but I thought it would be nice to be polite.....but I've had the State AG's Office in NC and TX make nasty phone calls and send threatening letters on my behalf. It got results in both cases. I guess there are differences in each state's AG. Dancer I did happen to CC the State Senators in each case so maybe that had something to do with the AG helping me out........They thought someone might check up on them.
mea culpa. perhaps its a state by state thing but I think candidly that cc'ing your local sens may be the real difference. CC'ing your local congressman (constituent service...it means they have some intern who's job it is to send out a letter to the agency saying would you look into this) is also effective.
If you provide the AGs office with the all the leg work and legal references they need, they will act. They have no choice is the evidence is concrete and you have a case.
AG here has been good to me, ditto BBB and Department of Insurance. Aigle, here's a clue for you, validation wouldn't work if you and the others in collection did your jobs and did them well. Sassy
What the 'validation people' try to do is place an impossible burden on the creditor so that items get deleted in a short period of time. This was not the intent of the law. You know very well whether a debt is valid. I didn't say Joer should have paid Citibank a cent I think he should have done NOTHING and let the SOL pass. Obviously, writing these validation letters is something you should NEVER do on a valid debt within the SOL.
To make a collection agency prove what they are reporting or alleging, is not or should not be an "impossible burden". If it is an impossible burden, then they obviously cannot prove their allegations, and therefore, have absolutely no right to report anything. Gee, poor collectors. I never thought that making someone prove their allegations was an impossible burden. Maybe I should write apology letters to all the collectors that couldn't prove the alllegations and thus had to close their books and delete from the cra's. NOT!
Now, sassy, you know they are all just trying to help us - we owe money - they have a computer printout that says we do. And we need that help in order to get our lives straightened out, you know? Never mind that they do things like reage accounts, and have people served at addresses where they don't live. Those are just mistakes, and rarely happen.....They are good people, here to help us do right. tee hee, yeah. I know it cause the Easter Bunny told me not long ago.
Since it's impossible they have no business harassing folks and violating peoples rights in the process. Please explain why you believe it is ok for them to break the law?
