Doc I posted the following a while back:, I sent the validation letter to a CA and a week later disputed with CRA. The CRA completed the so-called investigation before the 30th day of the validation letter. It came back as verified. However, I haven't had any response from the CA about the validation letter! Once the 30th day arrives, do I proceed with the second validation letter or can I send the estoppel? Should I ask the CRA's how the account was validated? Doc this was your reponse:, Killer, while a CA is validating a debt they are not allowed to report to CRAs. Moreover, they are REQUIRED to inform CRAs that the debt is being disputed by the consumer. If the CA has not done this, then consider that to be a violation of the FDCPA. If the CA ignores your validation request, that is another violation of the FDCPA. You can either send a second validation request or go directly to estoppel. I have seen excellent strategic arguments for both. In a nutshell, the larger the paper trail you create, the better your case will appear to a small claims judge. ("Your honor, I made multiple attempts to request lawful validation of this alleged debt.") On the other hand, there is no requirement that you send a second letter, so you could go directly to estoppel if you so desired, and that will shorten the process by at least 30 days. Your call. As for the CRA dispute, that is a separate action altogether. Certainly, you can request procedural information regarding the so-called verification. This adds to the paper trail against the CRA should you end up going to court against them. Even better, though, and possibly of more immediate benefit is that by verifying the debt DURING THE PERIOD YOU HAVE REQUESTED VALIDATION FROM THE CA, the CRA has confirmed for you that the CA has acted maliciously. In other words, not only did the CA ignore your lawful request for validation (negligence at best), they even went the extra mile by taking action and VERIFYING the disputed debt (clear malice). Good luck to you, Killer! Doc Well I went straight to the estoppel and stated that I intended to sue for violations. I also specifically stated the violations (the ones you mentioned). I sent a copy of a letter from the secretary of state verifying that CA was not bonded. I don't know which part of my response did it, but I received letter stating that they have ordered deletion from all bureus. Thanks Doc and all who gave me input. Whoever put the sample letters together (Lizardking?), super thanks to you. Creditnet Rocks!
Way 2 go, Killer! Do you have a copy of the letter you can share with me? My email is enabled...THANKS
Fantastic, Killer, you clearly rock. (At 40, I'm guess I'm too old to say "you rock," but what the hell. You rock.) Doc P.S. I know you mentioned you based the letter on several samples already uploaded, but regardless I'd enjoy seeing the version you sent as well if you feel like sharing!
Doc, I am not using the computer where the letter was saved and can't re-type right now. I will post it later.
Ok here it is. There really is not much difference in my letter and the sample letter. John Doe 123 Avenue A Anycity, Anystate 123456 XYZ Collection Agency 123 Anystreet Anycity, Anystate 123456 Date <date> RE: Dispute Letter of <date> Deposited by Registered Mail on <date> Dear Sir/Madame: As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute letter of <date> deposited by registered mail with the U.S. Postal Service on <date> and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists. In a good faith effort to resolve this matter amicably, I restate my demand for proof of the debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, as well as proof of your authority in this matter. Absent such proof, you must terminate this collection action and correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine. For the record, I state again that as I have no account with you, nor am I your customer, nor have I entered into a contract with you, I must ask for the following information: 1. Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 (e) and 15 USC 1692 (f) in this alleged matter. 2. What is your authorization of law for your collection of information? 3. What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt? 4. Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in the State of Texas pursuant to Title 5, Texas Finance Code, § 392.101. I have included a copy of Certificate of No Record issued by the Secretary of State. Unless you resolve this matter immediately by removing this account from my credit reports, I am prepared to file a complaint with proper state authorities. 5. Please evidence proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature and details of the calculation of the alleged amount owed. You have fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice to respond. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, will work as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and will entitle me to presume that you have reported in error, and that this matter is permanently closed. Your continued silence is unacceptable. Either provide the proof or correct the record to remove the invalid debt from my credit files with the primary credit-reporting agencies including Experian, Equifax, Trans Union, and Innovis. You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act by ignoring my request for validation. Furthermore during the 30 days following my request for validation that you received on <date>, you updated my credit report. This is another violation. You chose to ignore my request and continue to place information on my credit report. This is a malicious act and a disregard of the law. Failure to respond within 15 days of receipt of this registered letter will result in a small claims action against your company. I will be seeking damages for the following: 1.Defamation 2. Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should any further action be necessary. This is a request for information only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status. I affirm under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the Land for the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. John Doe SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the day of 2002. Name of Notary Public Notary Public, State of Texas
Could this followup letter work for a fully paid debt? Specifically, I sent the nutcase letter to three accounts. The results: 1. Deleted from 2 of 3 CRAs, waiting to hear from TU 2. Did not respond, and verified the debt in response to CRA disputes during the 30 day period with the CRAs 3. Responded with a phone call, then with copies of the charge-off statement and the statement where I paid the charge-off. The correspondence was not sent CRR. Nothing had my signature on it. They also verified with the CRAs during the period. I would like to follow up and perhaps a slightly modified version of this letter would be appropriate. Thoughts? Thanks!
