Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Thanks Mr. Bauer for your additional comments. And to Lbrown59: Only reason I even queried whether to wait until CA contacted me again or to validate now was because I am actually validating beyond the 30 days allowed. Even though they would be hard-pressed to prove that I did in fact receive their letter dated Dec. 30 since it came regular mail, it dawned on me as I was typing up the validation letter that the only way I would have some of the info I was inputing into the form would only have come from their letter Ii.e., collectors typed name, which branch address of NCO to use, etc.)! So, prior to my sending the validation letter off certified mail, RRR, and being the neophyte that I am, I though it best to run it by more experienced minds than my own. My daughter screwed me, CCB screwed me, NCO will now attempt to screw me - just didn't want to screw myself as well!
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - validating beyond the 30 days allowed. LRM216 ================== There is no cut off date to validate. The confusion comes from miss reading what the FDCPA says. The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Once again, thanks for your time and your help lbrown59. Wish me luck, this is my first outing and like Robert Frost said, "and miles to go."
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - I have a similiar question. On my TU report, it lists a Cap1 account which is not mine. States opened on 7/02 and closed on 8/02 with a balance due of $3193. I disputed this account with TU as "not mine" on 2/20 CRRR (they received on 2/22). Additionally, I sent a validation letter to Cap1, requesting all documentation re: account on 2/15, CRRR, received on 2/19. I pulled my EQ report and RMA is listed as the collection agency for this account. Do I now send RMA a validation request or wait on the results from Cap1 and/or TU?? Will it hurt to send one to RMA as well?? Additionally, RMA made a hard inquiry on my report. If I send a letter to RMA, do I tackle both problems or send two letters?? TIA
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - OK. That's one problem. I say lay it on them. Well, it might hurt them but not you. (lol) What two problems? There is only one problem and that is whether or not this account is yours. RMA claims it is so it is up to RMA to prove the claim. TU is not the problem. They are only the reporter of the problem. It is not up to them to prove anything except that RMA or CAP1 reported it and told them it was true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Whoop-de-do! Big deal. The originator of the story is the problem, not the reporter who only told the story he heard from somebody else.
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Thanks, Mr. Bill! I will start drafting the Validation request to RMA this AM. The two problems I was referring to for RMA are: 1 - No permissible purpose for obtaining my report; and 2 - the validation request. I apologize for not making that clear. Again, thanks for the advice!
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - And pray tell me just how much trouble that will be. Not (LOL) I am well aware of what you imagined might be a problem. The problem is not them, it is you. Sorry to let you in on the facts of life, but collections is a permissable purpose, not an impermissable purpose. The validation request is a problem? Only if you use my example letter #2. Then follow that up with a list of 16 stupid questions you demand they provide the answers to thereby adding injury to insult. The problem is that according to you it isn't your account in the first place so you are the victim of a mistaken identity and they have damaged your good name and credit history by placing a false report about you to your damage and injury. Is that not the case? Or did I misunderstand something here? If so then that is your one and only problem and the rest is obfuscation and pettifoggery with which they (or somebody) has confused the issue. It seemed clear enough to me.
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b] (a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: (1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury. (2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. (3) To a person which it has reason to believe (A) intends to use the information in a connection withcredit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or (B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or (C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or (D) intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or (E) intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or (F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or (ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account (c) Furnishing reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by the consumer. (1) In general. A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (C) of subsection (a)(3) in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer only if (A) the consumer authorizes the agency to provide such report to such person; or (B) (i) the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance; (ii) the consumer reporting agency has complied with subsection (e); and (iii) there is not in effect an election by the consumer, made in accordance with subsection (e), to have the consumer's name and address excluded from lists of names provided by the agency pursuant to this paragraph. _________________________________________________ I suppose if they cannot validate(your 1st step anyway) then you might want to discuss permissable purpose.. "intends to use the information in a connection withcredit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or " If they cannot prove the acct is yours they I suppose they had no permissable purpose to review for collection reasons..Save your violations till they screw up the validation/verification process
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - If you want to catch them in a permissible purpose trap, tread lightly. Do not mention the hard inquiry in any of your validation correspondence. Let them fail to validate. If they are smart, they will pull their tradeline and their hard inquiry. If they are idiots (which you can almost bank on), they will pull the tradeline but not the inquiry. You can then prove that they had no permissible purpose (because there was no permissible account) to pull your credit.
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - PLEASE CRITIQUE my letter to RMA - TIA!!!! MsBandit 123 Improve Credit St Anytown, USA 56789 February 27, 2003 Risk Management Alternatives, Inc. 456 Hellfire Drive Suite 300 West Hell, Lucifer 66666 Reference: xxxxx â?? Cap1 Account #: xxxxxx CERTIFIED MAIL: To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for your recent inquiry. This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that your claim is being disputed. This is a request for validation made pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]. Be advised that I am not requesting a "verification" that you have my mailing address, I am requesting a "validation;" that is, competent evidence that I have some contractual obligation to pay you as mandated by FDCPA and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Your failure to satisfy this request within the requirements of the FDCPA will be construed as your absolute waiver of any and all claims against me and all notations will be removed from my credit report expeditiously. Additionally, a dispute has been forwarded to Transunion regarding this matter. I expect original documentation concerning this alleged debt and/or written confirmation to Transunion requesting deletion of all derogatory information be deleted from my report concerning this alleged debt by March 27, 2003. Regards, MsBandit
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Question - Can I demand they respond to be by a certain date? And if they do not, is this leverage to have item removed from report??
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Now that they KNOW TU has a dispute they are given a very fair chance to validate the acct or delete. they should know that they cannot(by law) verify this acct without validatiing with you 1st. They can however have acct deleted and then when they validate with you after the fact have acct reinserted! I wouldnt tell them anything about TU..Just send it and let them make a mistake...
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Thanks, Knox! Good point! I will delete that. However, I was letting them know they have only 30 days....I think I remember from a post yesterday, the CA does not have a specified timeframe to respond to a validation request unlike the CRAs (if you go through them first).
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Right about the 30 days. BUT is you send validation then verify w/the CRA you "sort of" force there hand...
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Again, Thanks! Off to the post office it goes with the TU deleted!
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - Well dang me! Here it is again. Will this monster never die? Why is this here? Why is this here? Who enquired? If they did then did you appreciate it so much you have to thank them for dinging you? Why not just let them figure that out? There you go! Why is this here? Do you really want them to think you are some kind of an attorney or something? Or is it that you just want to look like a smartalec? If they have not the brains to figure that out then let them suffer the consequences. If they don't have the brains to figure out what a validation is then don't try to be their teacher. Just let them pay the price for ignorance. What's that for? Extra weight so the paper don't blow off their desk? It makes absolutely no difference whatever that you do or do not assume anything as far as they are concerned. They don't see where you have any right to assume anything except that you owe the debt and you damn well better pay it before they cloud up and rain all over your parade. SEZ WHO? WHOOP-DE-DOO! So what? No you don't! Its the last thing on this God's green earth you want. If you get it then what are you going to do? Cry a lot? Sure! And you want an egg in your beer too, don't you? And what if they don't? What are you gonna do about it? Look, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or pick bones or put you down. I'm just trying to point out that this is a business transaction, not an education. You are supposed to be dealing with professionals who are supposed to act like professionals and to know all the law that pertains to the professional conduct of their business. Never mind the fact that we are firmly convinced that most of them wouldn't know a professional if one ran out from under the front porch and bit them. We just want to get a simple task accomplished and get on with life. So although it might look cute it really isn't cute at all nor is most of it needed.
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - OHHH-KAY! Now that I have thrown my letter in the trash..... Would saying - I received your letter, please validate this debt - be sufficient?
Re: Re: Re: HELP please! CA trouble - egg in your beer? lol..I think he's saying keep it simple. Dont HELP them validate by telling them exactly what it is..let them do the bare minimum then when you are ready...Do your thing..Validate with a simple. Hi I'm Joe Normal.. Is this debt valid? goodbye. But continue your other oprions as far as disputing etc.. 1 thing I disagree with based on many posts I've read..I would still send certified mail.. I would want to prove they got the letter and when.. But Bill is the pro here and he may have his own reason not to send it CRRR...
