Re: Re: Re: Re: help with charge off(capital one) No, thats not what I'm saying. I wouldn't pay an OC or a CA without proof of the debt. But an OC, collecting on their own behalf is not mandated by the FDCPA to provide validation. You made this statement in a previous post. The FDCPA does NOT cover OC's that are collecting their own debts. That statement is incorrect, and could be misleading to some. In fact, one of the url's you gave me says just that. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/commentary.htm#809 4. Specific exemptions from definition of debt collector. (a) Creditor employees. Section 803(6)(A) provides that "debt collector" does not include "any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor." The exemption includes a collection agency employee, who works for a creditor to collect in the creditor's name at the creditor's office under the creditor's supervision, because he has become the de facto employee of the creditor. I'm not trying to pick a fight here. If it worked for you more power to ya! What I'm saying is, its just not in the FDCPA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: help with charge off(capital one) jlynn Take a look at all of those opinion letters and you will find their ARE circumstances where a OC is a debt collector defined under the FDCPA. You cannot blanketly say an OC is not a debt collector. Your post comes off as a troll but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You are wrong when you say a OC is never a debt collector governed by the FDCPA. That simply is not the case and you would need more information to make that determination. Their are numerous opinion letters that say under what circumstances a OC is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA. However, that was never the question in the post. Why you picked on one sentence is beyond me and very trollish. The debate was never about whether they fall under the FDCPA as a debt collector. As a collector, either in house or a CA they are required to validate the debt and that is what the conversation was about, that should be fairly obvious. When you go before a Judge and say the account is not mine does the Judge say they are the OC so they are not required to validate the debt? As I said in my post, you need to read the FCRA, FDCPA, and TILA and pick out the sections that apply to your case. That is why you can't use these generic letters that float around. Every case is different and you have to put the sections of the Law that apply to your situation. If you use some of these generic letters you will not get what you want. They are too general and not all the effective when not applied correctly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: help with charge off(capital one) She did not say that. Jlynn a troll?? I think not. How good of you Again, She did not say this. You were the one who implied an OC is always required to comply with the FDCPA Maybe it wasn't the issue of the original post however you made it an issue by the very large statements in your answer to the post about validation and OC's having to comply with the FDCPA when in reality the OC is rarely considered a debt collector and not required to comply with this law. In this case the OC is Cap 1 who is clearly not a debt collector and not required to comply with FDCPA. They must however comply with the FCRA as a furnisher of information. Maybe the AG didn't catch your misuse of the FDCPA reference you made in your complaint...but Jlynn did. Your information was misleading and warranted clarification. That is NOT being trollish. Had she not asked for clarification, I would have. Am I a troll too?
Re: Re: Re: Re: help with charge off(capital one) Whether or not I think it is right has nothing to do if courts will uphold it. My guess is that they will although I would love to hear from any one who has researched it. While some have used validation against OCs it is clear the FCRA does not require it. It probably works because OCs, CAs and CRAs usually don't bother to fully understand the relevant laws(like the majority of consumers).
Rond, I resent being called trollish. If thats how you deal with an adversary in a debate, so be it, but its not my style. I was interested in finding your sources for your theory. Its been pretty much accepted on this board, and others, that an OC collecting on their own behalf is not covered by the FDCPA, if you had found a way around that, I'm sure many, many people would be interested in hearing it, because it would make all our tasks in the credit repair journey a hell of a lot easier. If you don't want to share your sources, other than vaguely mention it is in the FDCPA and its corresponding opinion letters, thats your choice, but it seems like you are short changing the good people on this board that haven't been able to find what you have.
This thread is the perfect example of why this board has turned to crap. Why would anyone help you with attitudes like what some have posted here? Iposted a reply about what I did to get out from Crap One and a couple of trolls come on and try to turn it into something else. Some of you need to ask yourself if you are here to benefit others or debate. I am not interested in debating. I was interested in sharing what DID work for me for Crap One where many others have failed. I won't anymore, you can bet on that and it's all because of a couple of trolls. It is a shame what this board has turned into. No wonder so many valuable people have left.
rond, I have to agree with you. This board has changed a lot over the past few weeks. Some of the advice, not all, that's been given out at times is just not right and can cause even more problems if followed. Then you have some people with 3-4 posts total causing problem amongst what used to be good threads. It's just not the same anymore. In addition to taking advice from some here I'd recommend some of the less experienced and new folks to read through some of the old post to make sure you know what you are doing and the consequences.
edoggie You have hit the nail right on the head. It is a shame that some would rather debate and argue than to help people, they forget the purpose of this board. They go into threads to debate without trying to help the original poster, so you have to wonder the point of their posts in the first place. We are not here to argue or debate with each other, this board used to be about helping one another. I agree that the newbies should do a search of the old posts. The stuff posted here recently is useless. That is why I originally posted to this thread. I wanted to tell others what I was able to do to get rid of Crap One. My actions were with the help of this board over a year ago. When the board had posters whose reason for being here was to help others, not have debates. It was with the help of those posters that I was able to correct the wrongs in my files. This board was once a great source of information. The trolls have changed that now. I have gotten to where I don't read the board much. I feel sorry for the new people on board, they won't get the benefit of how great and helpful this board used to be, truly a shame.
rond, Neither jlynn nor kathycmh are trolls. If you read their past posts you will find that they are both accomplished creditnetters who are trying to help others to correctly interpret the credit regulations and devise strategies for removing negative tradelines. No one involved with this thread is a troll. You are not a troll because you gave nsx78 a great strategy for dealing with an unpaid capital one chargeoff (good job). The others are not trolls because they are trying to help all of us understand how the FDCPA defines a debt collector and whether an OC is legally required to provide validation of the debt. I personally found your post fascinating! You identified for nsx78 and for all of us a new weapon for dealing with the OC. I had no idea that the State Attorney General could be used as a powerful weapon for getting negative tradelines deleted. You showed us how to reference the TILA and FDCPA, create a paper trail, and then turn the AG loose on them to get your deletion (or at least provide additional evidence for a later court case). I for one appreciate your participation on this board and sharing what worked for you. However, jlynn did bring up an important point. This board has consistently stated that the FDCPA does not legally require the OC to provide validation. We all know that validation often works with the OC for some unknown reason, and therefore we use it anyway in hopes of getting a deletion. Then comes rond1234 who says there are FCRA and FDCPA opinion letters supporting the notion that the OC is a debt collector under FDCPA in certain circumstances. The question was asked: where are these opinion letters? If these letters do exist, then you could help everyone on this board by sharing them with us. If the OC is legally bound by FDCPA to provide validation in certain circumstances, then we can SUE THEM for not providing it. Otherwise, we are left to assume that the OC is not legally required to validate. No one is flaming you for sharing your excellent technique for using the AG to obtain deletions. It was greatly appreciated. However, we all eagerly waited to see those FCRA & FDCPA opinion letters, but they never came. Now you have stated that you aren't interested in debating and won't share anything else with us on this board. I hate it when good threads break down simply because someone takes offense to having one of their statements challenged. There is nothing wrong with good debate, and in fact it is the process by which the truth comes to light. Throw the topic out...kick it around a bit...and reach a consensus based on the written law, supporting opinions, and good reasoning. You were almost there before this one broke down. All we needed to see were the opinion letters that you claimed to have found. That side issue aside, I hope you continue participating and sharing your ideas with us. And I would like to ask one more time if you have found any FCRA or FDCPA opinion letters that support the idea that the OC is considered a debt collector under certain circumstances and is therefore legally required to provide validation under those circumstances. If so, then I can sue them for not providing it, but I need to have the legal basis for that suit before stepping in front of the judge. Thanks, greenvan
Thanks Greenvan you are a true diplomat! To Rond: Frankly I was at a loss where the break down in this post occured and if I contributed to the breakdown I am truly sorry. I am hoping too that you will return and this thread can continue.
FYI, TILA or Truth in Lending ACT in regards to creditor billing is at this link... http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1637.html Enjoy! Tac
Greenvan and kathycmh I guess I was being overly sensitive. I am still upset that this board has come to the point it has. This board was my sole source of information when I began more than 2 years ago. With no more help than the people on this board I was able to correct all errors on my report. It is extremely disappointing to see those people leave and a new breed take over this board that seem to be more interested in debate and arguing than helping people with their problems. I may have assumed that is what was happening and I apoligize for jumping the gun. Now for what anyone truly cares about. If you look at my original posts and how I approached Crap One I think Jlynn read more into the post than was there. When I said I requested validation from crap one I was asking for the signature card or proof that the debt was mine. The OC absolutely has a duty to provide that information and my saying it was validatation was meant as proof of the debt. With a CA, when you request validation you are requesting more than just proof of the debt, you are also asking for proof of the balance or amount owed. Big difference. With an OC you are asking for validation or proof you owe the debt only. The TILA is what requires them to provide the statements or accounting. In the end the validation is the same but you go about it in a different way using different laws. When I sent my letters to them, I simply quoted FDCPA, FCRA, and TILA sections that "I felt" was required of them. By quoting those sections the idiots at Crap One probably did not have anyone look at the law as much as they thought I knew the law and was quoting it to them. When the AG follows up on top of that it gives more credibility to my argument. Truth is the AG's office does not research the law, they get a complaint and forward a letter asking for a response. In my case that was enough for Crap One to tell the truth and drop the debt. I agree the FDCPA does not always apply to the OC, however jlynns statement that it never applies is flat out wrong. My problem with him was that up to that point there was no debate about what I meant on validation. He jumps in and wants to debate without bothering to ask what I meant, hence my question to him about the OC proving the debt. That was my problem, stay with the subject and help others. If you want to debate, get your facts straight first. Also there are situations where the OC is not exempt from the FDCPA and if you go to the links you will see examples, one that comes to mind is when they use a different company name for the purpose of collections. Don't confuse validation under FDCPA guidelines with validation of a debt. Validation is both proving the debt is yours AND proving you owe what you owe. With a CA you simply use the FDCPA alone since they are exempt from the TILA, with an OC you use the FCRA, FDCPA, and TILA. Who cares whether the FDCPA or FCRA applies, legally if you dispute owing the debt they have to prove it is your debt, ie the original signature card and thats what you want. Let them figure out which Law applies because their Lawyers will tell them that they are required to prove the debt is yours eventually. I choose to use the AG's office prior to suit. That is because my AG's office does their job. On one debt I filed a complaint with an AG's office in another state and they sent a letter back saying they couldn't help. You first have to see if the AG in your state does what they should or not. I felt that Crap One would say no to the AG but I would then be able to go before the Judge with my letters and the AG's letters and the Judge would look closer after Crap One said no to both of us. Personally, I do not like this new board. I want to give the same help to others that was given me when I started. I do not want to argue or debate with anyone. Who cares what any of our opinions of the Law is? A Judge will decide that and they do not always follow the law either, so why would I waste my time debating with someone on a message board, especially when they do not bother to even get the facts straight first? I could care less about legal basis or interpretations of the Law debated on a message board. If it worked for someone I will try it and I don't need to debate with someone for that. There is too much debate here and not enough helping others. Thats my opinion anyway.
Rond, I did not read more into your post. In fact, I agreed with you that I never would pay a CA or OC without them proving the debt. I also congratulated you that your strategy worked for you. You had many excellent points, and TILA is one of those acts that we forget about. I myself have several OC chargeoffs that I am going to have to deal with, and read your post with great interest. I never said never. I'm a her... Many people, wanting to repair their credit, and who are considering utilizing the court systems pro se, do care what this board's opinion on the law is. But now, if someone happens to stumble across this thread and sees two differing opinions on an interpretation of the law, and will now see that the AG did not research it himself, and that you approached your problem with a mixture of facts and feelings, they can do their own research, and make an educated decision on how they are most comfortable approaching a troublesome tradeline. That is what this board is about.
rond, Thanks for your reply. There are a lot of different personalities on this board and many ways to go about doing credit repair. Some people just want to be told what to do and how they can best get rid of their negative tradelines without really understanding why it works. Other people want to really understand the law because they anticipate filing pro se lawsuits for cash or deletions or both. And I truly believe that some are attracted to this board simply for the thrill of debating issues and exploring legal theories. I have to confess that I am here for a combination of all three of these reasons. First, I want to find out what techniques you and others have used to successfully remove negative tradelines (and I am like you in that I do not care one iota about the legal basis if that technique has actually worked for someone else). Second, I anticipate the need to file pro se lawsuits over some of my tradelines and therefore need to understand the law as well as I can. Third, I also enjoy the theoretical debates that take place on this board such as Butch's recent thread on validation. It is very unfortunate that many of the oldtimers left the board and no longer participate. However, we still have their past posts to guide us, and hopefully those who remain will continue to share what has worked successfully for them. For the record, I believe this summarizes the technique that you used to remove an unpaid chargeoff: 1. Request "validation" within 30 days from the OC (quote the FCRA, FDCPA and TILA) (request copy of original signature card & monthly statements showing how the balance was calculated). 2. On Day 31, send a more threatening letter to the OC. 3. On Day 62, file a complaint with the State Attorney General. 4. Hopefully, the AG will obtain your deletion. If not, then the OC's refusal to cooperate with the AG will add further credence to your own subsequent lawsuit. NOTE: It has also been suggested that you send copies of your letters and green cards to the CRAs as proof that the OC could not "validate" your debt and then demand that they delete the tradeline. greenvan
greenvan The summary is correct, but I wanted to expand on it more. One of the reasons I put in my original posts that you need to gear your letter to your personal situations is because mine was somewhat unique. Your summary as far as order and timing is correct but I think you should expand on that somewhat. I completely agree with you that some people are lazy and want others to give them the letters, etc. This will not work with a company like CRAP ONE. They get those same letters all the time and won't give you any credibility if you send a form letter from the internet. You need to approach this with a game plan in mind and specific set of rules and Laws to quote that fit your situation. With an OC you are requesting validation the same as your would with a CA, however you are using different Laws that apply. When you request validation from a CA you quote the validation section in the FDCPA. With an OC you quote any section of the FCRA, FDCPA, and TILA that applies to your situation. My situation was a card that my wife had prior to our marriage. I never signed for this card, yet they reported it under my name. It would have been easy to get it removed from my report but I wanted it removed from my now wife's as well. That is where the TILA came into play. This was a secured card and as usual Crap One was playing with the balances and amount owed. The TILA requires them to show a complete accounting of the account. I requested this to show they never credited the savings balance and were charging higher collection fee's than were allowed. This is of paticular significance when dealing with your AG's office, if you have an AG that wants to help consumers. Crap One did not want to give the AG's office proof that they were charging amount not allowed because they would be giving proof to the AG that they are predatory. Our AG has been looking at some of these predatory companies and the last thing Crap One wanted was to give them proof. I used that to my advantage, but needed a reason in my complaint to the AG for wanting those statements. My reason was that this was a secured card and Crap One never gave my wife documentation that the savings balance was credited. I threw in that they were charging higher fee's than the agreement allowed just to peek all involveds interest. Moral is, have a game plan and how to use it going in. Do not rely on exactly what others have done, every situation is unique. Use any political winds of the moment to your advantage. Give deadlines and do not alter those deadlines. If you send a letter saying you will sue if no response by such date, file suit on that date. Otherwise you are just a bag of wind to these people. They deal with this stuff every day, and someone threatening them means nothing. They don't take you serious unless you do what you threaten to do. Clearing errors in a report is easy, if done correctly. Following in line with what others do or using letters from the internet are probably not going to do the trick. You need to apply the Law to your case and quote the Law in your letters. Follow up on the dates you say and don't waiver from your gameplan. The one thing you will notice from the folks that have posted with the most amazing results is their tenacity and willingness to follow through. That is the key, not following the same path someone else has. Your case is unique and should be approached that way. Every Law I quoted in my letters applied to my case or to the best of my knowledge it did. I never quoted something just to quote it. I may not have always been correct in my thinking, but I'm not a Lawyer and did the best I could. I never looked to get out of paying anything I legally owed. I also never tried to pay anything I did not owe. With Crap One I tried to settle with them first for what I felt was a fair amount. They chose not to accept my terms. In the end, they would have been better off accepting my offer, but since they are the predators they are they don't like it when they are the prey.
You bring up a good point. In dealing with the OCs we should first develop a specific game plan tailored to our own unique situation. This will involve drafting original letters that quote and apply the various credit laws (FCRA, FDCPA, TILA) as they seem to apply to our particular situation. The letters will include deadlines for the OC to reply, and deadlines passing will trigger additional actions from us as we follow our established game plan. This will also create the paper trail we need to nail them in court if they drag us down the road to that final step. Thanks!
Put yourself in their shoes. These form letters that are fill in the blanks that are all over the internet have been seen by these guys many times. Some CA's and OC's give in easily and most of them have been identified on this board already. While others like Crap One, Gulf States and a few others seem like they flaunt the fact that they don't follow the Law and they don't care what you do, that is until you force them. To do that you need a gameplan going in. Threats mean nothing to these people, you have to be prepared to follow through to the very end, including filing a lawsuit if needed. With a Lawsuit in mind as the final step you should approach the entire handling of the matter with that in mind. What would a Judge say about my letter and request, am I being reasonable when I make a lawful request or dispute of a debt or am I just another deadbeat trying to get out of paying a debt. My plan was to show the Judge my calculation fo what was owed and basis for settlement and to counter that with their willfull non-compliance and refusal to do anything required of them by the Law. I planned on showing that as well as their refusal to cooperate with a request from the AG's office. Those two things I felt would have pissed the Judge off that his time was being wasted by them. They were wasting his time when all they had to do was follow what is required of them by the Law, yet they would not do that when I requested it, nor would they do that when the AG requested it. He would see I made a good faith effort to settle based on my calculations and they did nothing. Much easier for the Judge to nail them when they are the only one not cooperating. I would not have appeard like someone trying to get out of paying, rather someone not wanting to pay what I didn't owe and Crap One refused to acknowledge. Make yourself look like the good guy in the Judge's eyes. You only went to him as an extremely last resort but they left you with no choice. It takes thought and planning. Doing what everyone else does with these select few lawbreakers isn't going to get the results you want. When I started planning my attack on Crap One the first thing I noticed in a seach on this board was that nobody was getting anywhere with them. I went with a different approach which was honesty and laying the facts right out on the line with them. I told them they were illegally reporting the debt as mine and illegally charging fee's they were not entitle to charge for as well as failing to account for the savings balance. I told them that I would settle for full deletion for the amount that I calculated as fair and reasonable and if they did not accept I would go after them for violations and report them to the AG's office. I gave them deadlines and stuck exactly to those deadlines, never missing the next step by even one day. After the AG's letter to them they caved so fast you wouldn't believe it. They did not like being the hunted, and I went after them with every Law I could find that even one sentence of applied to my case. That is the only way to approach these predatory abusive Lawbreaking companies. That is all they understand. Once they realize you are not someone to mess with, they are very eager to follow the Law.
Re: Re: help with charge off(capital one) 1*am I being reasonable when I make a lawful request or dispute of a debt 2*or am I just another deadbeat trying to get out of paying a debt. rond1234 =============== The debtor is not the one on trial here.2* The plaintiff isn.t asking the judge to determine the status of the debtor.The court is being asked to rule on wither or not the defendant is in violation of consumer law.
Re: Re: help with charge off(capital one) lbrown We all know that is how it is supposed to work. However, in real life that is not always the case. The Judges opinion of you makes a huge difference in how he handles the case. Sure you can appeal if you don't like his decision, but who wants to hassle with that. You want him to make the right decision the first time.
