Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry SUE! lol I think by the time we have talked about this issue, you could have filed and had it taken off LOL Look at the SUE link below..makes it alittle easier to understand the courts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Where do you come up with this stuff. I will take a few minutes to type this but like sassy implied earlier, It is just not worth my time. Oh well. Let me quote it for you. I have 10 minutes to kill. "809.Validation of debts (a)Within 5 days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall..." it goes on to say exactly what the bottom dweller must provide (hopefully you already know this so i dont have to keep typing so much). Now where exactly does it say that the initial communication has to be by the debt collector??? of course now you have letter (b) which goes on to say that if I do dispute within 30 days of initial contact (which I have by the way with my "initial" validation dispute) then all collection must cease until you provide me with a whole bunch of stuff. oh let me quote that too "...and a copy of such verification or judgement, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." Now one more note, in that first section, "You" the CA must send me a written notice containing all that other information within 5 days (hope you have a copy so that I dont have to type it all out). So that is even better that the CA refused to ever respond to such validation attempts since my validation letter is certified return receipt, I have proof that I sent the initial communication. I gotta go now but if I get bored later, I may check back and see if you come up with any other BS.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Sue based on what? I have no "factual evidence" to sue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry " quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by hiding90 -The initial communication referred to in FDCPA 809 IS FROM the debt collector. ------------------------------------------------------------"-------------------- "Where do you come up with this stuff." -ITS RIGHT OUT OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION MANUAL PUBLISHED BY CONSUMER LAW CENTER "I will take a few minutes to type this but like sassy implied earlier, It is just not worth my time. Oh well" -LEARNING IS ALWAYS worth time. "Let me quote it for you. I have 10 minutes to kill. "809.Validation of debts (a)Within 5 days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall..." it goes on to say exactly what the bottom dweller must provide (hopefully you already know this so i dont have to keep typing so much)." "Now where exactly does it say that the initial communication has to be by the debt collector???" -IN THE Congressional meaning, FCT Opinion, and Consumer Law Center Publications. "of course now you have letter (b) which goes on to say that if I do dispute within 30 days of initial contact (which I have by the way with my "initial" validation dispute) then all collection must cease until you provide me with a whole bunch of stuff." -YOUR VALIDATION RIGHTS DO NOT START UNTIL AFTER YOU RECEIVE THE NOTICE OF VALIDATON RIGHTS FROM THE DEBT COLLECTOR.- "The 30 day period during which a consumer may request verification of a debt runs from the date of receipt of the notice of validation rights by the consumer and is not extended by collectors subsequent action" -Woosley FTC Opinion, Miller FTC Opinion, NCLC FDCPA. "Nothing prohibits a debt collector from sending subsequent validation notices even if the 30 day period in the initial notice has expired. The court failed to consider that the subsequent notices misrepresented that the consumer's validation rights extended beyond the first 30 days"-NCLC FDCPA, DiRosa v North Shore Agency, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1039 "Now one more note, in that first section, "You" the CA must send me a written notice containing all that other information within 5 days (hope you have a copy so that I dont have to type it all out)." -UNLESS IT IS CONTAINED IN THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION "So that is even better that the CA refused to ever respond to such validation attempts since my validation letter is certified return receipt, I have proof that I sent the initial communication" -THE CONSUMER DOES NOT INITATE THE VALIDATION PERIOD
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry There you go again with your interpretations. Nowhere in what I just quoted word for word does it say initial communication has to be from the collector, If the jerks never mailed any communication, which they never do. I can take it upon myself to communicate initially with them upon discovery. Again, setting off a trigger that after initial communication, which they can't dispute they got it since it was signed for, the collector has 5 days to send me the miranda since it was not in my initial contact letter. Now I got an easy grand for their violation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry You are absolutely right, I am wrong. I beleive what you are writing. I guess a consumer can just initiate the communication at anytime which in turn requires the debt collector to send the validation notice per FDCPA 809. I am sorry for the false info. I thought I could reply of the NCLC books, case law, Congressional reports, and FTC staff opinion letters. Ill just go back into hiding where I belong. Sorry to mislead anyone into thinking the above references where reliable, but I guess not. Thanks for the clarification Blue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry OK...I couldnt hold it any longer!! LOL NO! A consumer cannot trigger the 30 validation rights period by contacting the debt collector FIRST The initial communication described in FDCPA 809 (a) , is communication FROM the debt collector SENT TO the consumer. Here is a case that pretty much clears any "opinion" that a consumer can trigger the validation period by send a "pre-emptive" validation notice to the debt collector before the debt collector has contacted the consumer. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., Docket No. 02-017 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT , November 12, 2002, Argued, February 25, 2003, Decided "In addition, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g requires debt collectors to include a "validation notice" either in the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of a debt or within five days of that initial communication, which must inform the consumer that he or she has certain rights, including the [*46] rights to make a written request for verification of the debt and to dispute the validity of debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)." So, unless the debt collector had sent a collection letter to the consumer, HOW CAN THERE BE COMMUNICATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF A DEBT??? Are we to beleive that if a consumer sees a collection agency listed on their credit report, that this is communication in connection with collection of a debt???? If that is so, are they required to place a notice on the credit report stating "this is an attempt to collect a debt and any info will be used for that purpose?" How about if a consumer sends the collection agency a validation notice before the collection agency contacts with consumer. Using BLUES logic, this letter WRITTEN BY THE CONSUMER AND SENT TO THE COLLECTION AGENCY IS "communication in connection with the collection of a debt"? But the debt collector never attempted to collect the debt yet, so how can this communication be in connection with the collection of a debt????? If you need more info on validation, PLEASE read the links below.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry WOW....found another one... DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., Docket No. 00-9574, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, May 22, 2001, Argued, October 30, 2001, Decided "The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act establishes certain rights for consumers whose debts are placed in the hands of professional debt collectors for collection, and requires that such debt collectors advise the consumers whose debts they seek to collect of specified rights." -AND ANOTHER: Walker v. National Recovery, Inc., No. 99-2119, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, November 1, 1999, Argued, December 21, 1999, Decided "Congress requires debt collectors to inform debtors at the outset that the debtor has 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt, ...." OOH..and another! Mahon v. Credit Bureau, Inc., No. 97-17298, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 1999, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California, March 10, 1999, Filed **** THIS CASE IS ALMOST EXACLTY ON POINT AS BLUE'S SUGGESTION. IN THIS CASE THE CONSUMER SENT A "PRE-EMPTIVE" LETTER WHICH THEY CLAIMED WAS THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION. "We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that [*15] the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt. Even if it did, however, the Credit Bureau, when it received the June 5, 1996 request, promptly contacted Dr. Bowen's office, verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent from Dr. Bowen's office to the Mahons for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The Credit Bureau then promptly conveyed this information to the Mahons, along with an itemized statement of the account. Although the Mahons did not request verification of the debt within the time provided by the statute, the Credit Bureau properly verified the debt anyway. " Oh look, here is yet one more Johnson v. Revenue Mgmt. Corp., No. 98-3001, No. 98-3146, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 22 and 26, 1999, Argued, March 1, 1999, Decided "Within five days after a debt collector first duns a consumer debtor, the collector must send a notice " And another.... Smith v. Computer Credit, Inc., No. 97-4448, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, December 16, 1998, Argued, February 16, 1999, Decided, February 16, 1999, Filed "Section 1692g(a) provides that the initial communication sent to a consumer must contain..." I think you get the point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Whoa.. that's a lot of Re:'s... Just felt the need to add my 2 cents worth... Hiding's posts always confuse me. Just when I think I'ver read the laws, he goes and changes the meaning. I have been reading several sites, the laws, and other forums on this very subject. and Hiding just confuses matters of verification, validation, and dispute. let me clearly state this is my opinion and interpretation first BUT... what the hell is Hiding referring to when he says that the CAs do not have to respond to a consumer if it is outside of the 30 day initial communication period. The hell they don't have to provide me with information on something they are trying to collect. I can't remember if it is the FCRA, FDCPA, FACTA, FBA, the point is... there's a Trade Listing on a credit report that is not accurate. If a consumer writes a letter to the CA to DISPUTE and ask for validation, the consumer has a right. In addition the CA must notify the CRAs of this dispute. I believe the 30day rule you keep clinging to is really only about ensuring that a CA does not create a trade listing on a consumer's credit report prior to the consumer having a chance to say "hold the presses!!". If a consumer actually receives a letter and can respond withing 30days, then it halts any listing from being created 'til things are verified. If a consumer discovers that they have an inaccurate TL on their credit report and received nothing (or put it in a drawer and forgot about it), then again I say, it is within the consumer's right to dispute and ask for verification. The CA must report this to the CRA. To catch someone on a violation (really the least of my concerns, I just want crap deleted from my report), a consumer would then need to hop on line (easy way to dispute, you get aconfirm number and everything!!) dispute the TL with the CRA. If it comes back as verified and there is no update of dispute... BAM you got 'em... I had this situation 2 weeks ago. I sent of a letter of intent and the CA called and wrote me immediately and REMOVED the item from my credit report. Ddang thoguth I was gonna make a grand So EVERYONE... please keep trying. Don't let it get you down! I have been there and am still in the trenches of getting my report free of the collection muck..WE CAN DO IT (yes I was a cheerleader in high school.. no laughing!!) Robyn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry quote from previous member let me clearly state this is my opinion and interpretation first BUT... what the hell is Hiding referring to when he says that the CAs do not have to respond to a consumer if it is outside of the 30 day initial communication period. The hell they don't have to provide me with information on something they are trying to collect. I can't remember if it is the FCRA, FDCPA, FACTA, FBA, the point is... there's a Trade Listing on a credit report that is not accurate. If a consumer writes a letter to the CA to DISPUTE and ask for validation, the consumer has a right. In addition the CA must notify the CRAs of this dispute. I believe the 30day rule you keep clinging to is really only about ensuring that a CA does not create a trade listing on a consumer's credit report prior to the consumer having a chance to say "hold the presses!!". If a consumer actually receives a letter and can respond withing 30days, then it halts any listing from being created 'til things are verified. If a consumer discovers that they have an inaccurate TL on their credit report and received nothing (or put it in a drawer and forgot about it), then again I say, it is within the consumer's right to dispute and ask for verification. The CA must report this to the CRA. ***************************************** Thank you Im glad some onelse sees my point of view and what I was trying to relate all along. I tried to explain that the consumer does not give up any rights to dispute after the 30 day time limit from the CA as hiding90 claims. the debt is not time barred this is not state law as hiding90claims its federal law. because the CA does not always send notification and say the consumer first notices the debt on their credit report the FCRA allows all consumer to dispute any debt thet is inaccurate and unverifable . so say the consumer never heard fo the debt before or a new CA has it they can dispute it AFTER the CRA investigates the debt then the consumer can request the CA to validate. am I confusing anyone ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry "what the hell is Hiding referring to when he says that the CAs do not have to respond to a consumer if it is outside of the 30 day initial communication period. " -Unfortunealty THIS IS REALITY FUN..Sorry! -If you dont want to beleive the law, and stick to your opinion, that's always your right. -I would suggest if you are approaching the lawsuit arena, you start to beleive the law -Ask Butch about the validation notice 30 days, He had the displeasure of announcing to everyone that I was correct. -A REALLY CLEAR case cite about this issue is: Mahon v. Credit Bureau, Inc., No. 97-17298, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 1999, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California, March 10, 1999, Filed Butch said the link was somewhere in here...but I can email you, or anyone, the text of the case if you want. I guess what I really should be asking is what do you base this opinion on? Can you give me the case cite etc which establishes YOUR SIDE?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Great job to Hiding for FINALLY coming on out with it. He finally gives us the "rest of the story", as Paul Harvey might say. And quite nicely done I might add. Gotta admit Hiding, been a little frustrated about this too. Especially since I lack the time to complete an analysis. So in this regard I gotta stick with Jen. Come on out with the whole thing so people can understand you. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry So if I can sum it all up, if one sends a val demand to a CA, (past the 30 day period) and the CA fails to respond, I don't have a legal argument. Nothin wrong with that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry hmmm, so I have written pages and pages on this, and you write one sentence LOL Anytime anyone wants more clarification, or something worded easier to make sense of, just ask. I have no problem typing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry HOLY CRAP - I FOUND ONE!!! An area of disagreement that is. LOL This mysterious "Initial Communication". Hiding I believe you're interpreting the "Initial Communication" as an expression which describes something specific, as in the first notice or dunning letter from a CA. This would explain why you believe the "Initial Communication". must iminate from the CA. I don't follow ya on that one good buddy. Rather, the phrase "Initial Communication" is a phrase comprised of 2 separate words, which is designed to describe both a communication, AND specifically, the very FIRST communication. The one made initially. My thoughts on "Initial Communication";
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry So, back to read the rest of Blue's comments. ~
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help--Hurry Boards enough to make somebody nutz. Let's all keep our arguments focused to the issue at hand. FCRA and FDCPA are 2 ENTIRELY SEPARATE ACTS of law. .
