Ok, I sent a validation letter to a so called Attorney here's their response: 1. making a one time offer to make monthly payments on the account 2. contact their office within 10 days or the offer no longer stands... They obviously didn't answer one freak'in question is it now an estoppel that goes, can't find it in the letters section. Also, they are dating the letters a few days before they are postmarked, I brought this fact up in the valadation letter...anything I can do about that? Thanx guys, I'm so frustrated
I'm no expert around here, but I would personally ignore the letter they just sent you and send a followup to your first letter stating that his is your second request and include a copy of your first letter in it as well. Send this one Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and use a little bit stronger language than you did in your first letter. From what I can see from reading this board, you want to build a papertrail and let them hang themselves.
If you sent your validation CRRR, I think your next step is to send the estoppel. You aren't required to give them a second chance at validation. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
OK, here's an additional question to this, BTW thanx LKH for the response, IC System is reporting the collection(medical/dental) however "supposedly" an attorney, who doesn't sign letters, but puts the CO. name at the bottom, is now trying to collect, I sent them the validation letter, it's not reporting on any of my reports under dispute, I'm getting confused at who I should be writing letters to, both? I sent the validation letter to the debt attorney, but they obviously just ignored the request and just asked for payment again, should I also send a letter to IC System or will sending the copies CRR letters to the attorney be proof enough for the CRA's that they can't validate? Any suggestions are appreciated!!
Is the atty's address the same as the ca? I think if the atty is the one actively trying to collect, then I would just send the letter to him/her. The ca's name is at the bottom of the page, so that proves he is working for them.
There is absolutely no mention of the CA, that is what is so confusing, only the original creditor....
