I have a twisted situation, and I think I've decided how to begin my 'attack' on a certain CA, but I'd like some input first. I'll try to make this as simple as possible. background: I had a sears cc w a 1300 CL. got it when i was 18 and stupid. I charged it up to the limit, and paid on it VERY inconsistently for about 9 yrs. then I got my act together, and paid the minimum monthly payment perfectly for 3 years. (i've calculated that over the last 12 years, I've paid them over 3,000.) Because of all the fees, and unbelieveable interest rates, my balance never got below 1200 bucks. I came into some money and paid off all my debts--mostly paid in full, but some settled for less. I tried for 4 months to settle for 1,000 w sears, but they pretty much laughed at me, probably because all the while I was making my payments on time. Then, DH and I bought a house. once I had a house, I said "screw it" to the sears bill. (no lectures please.) After a couple of months of no payments, they stopped laughing at me. at about the 179 day mark, they finally agreed to settle, but would not delete the TL. Again, I said "screw it." much to my dismay, they called my bluff and charged it off and sent it to collection. I never was contacted by the CA (sherman acquisitions). Instead, I got a letter from a collection attorney stating that they were collecting on behalf of sherman. I immediately sent a validation dispute to the attorney. all i got from them was 3 more collection attempts, and no sign of any validation whatsoever. I still have never received anything from Sherman directly. where I'm at now: Sherman has listed this on my reports. I just discovered it. I realize now that I probably should've sent Sherman a dispute directly. I'm kicking myself. However, I did send their attorney a validation demand, so shouldnt they have forwarded it to Sherman? there are two ways to approach this, and I can't decide which direction to go: 1. send sherman a Val Demand, stating that I'm within the 30 day validation period since I JUST discovered this on my reports, and THAT was my first communication from them. 2. send copies of communication from their attorneys, proving i DID request validation from them, but was never provided it, therefore their listing this on my reports is a violation. what would you guys do? thanks.
"I never was contacted by the CA (sherman acquisitions). Instead, I got a letter from a collection attorney stating that they were collecting on behalf of sherman." -Is he a collection attorney working as an employee of the collector OR has he been RETAINED by them to collect? "I immediately sent a validation dispute to the attorney. all i got from them was 3 more collection attempts, and no sign of any validation whatsoever." -DID THE ATTORNEY'S NOTICE CONTAIN A PROPER NOTICE OF VALIDATION???(notice is contained at FDCPA 809) -Was your validation request sent within the 30 days immediately following the initial communication with the attorney? and what were the "collection attempts" ? "I still have never received anything from Sherman directly." -If they have retained the attorney, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SEND YOU ANYTHING. It would be up to the attorney to send the "verification" (still has to be from the creditor) "Sherman has listed this on my reports. I just discovered it. I realize now that I probably should've sent Sherman a dispute directly. I'm kicking myself. However, I did send their attorney a validation demand, so shouldnt they have forwarded it to Sherman?" -The attorney is the agent of the collection agency and you need to send all communication to him/her. "there are two ways to approach this, and I can't decide which direction to go: 1. send sherman a Val Demand, stating that I'm within the 30 day validation period since I JUST discovered this on my reports, and THAT was my first communication from them." -"Discovery" of the communication IS NOT the initial communication. The Initial communication is FROM the debt collector, in this case, the attorney. "2. send copies of communication from their attorneys, proving i DID request validation from them, but was never provided it, therefore their listing this on my reports is a violation." -A "listing" on a credit report IS NOT a violation if they failed to provide "Verificaiton". If they fail to provide "verification" in response to a "validation letter", they DO not have to delete the entry. They do however have to list the account as "disputed"-FDCPA 807 (8). -Check your "inquiries" section of your credit report to see if Sears has pulled your credit report AFTER the "closed date" or the date it was sold to the collection agency (if it was sold) There is a class action suit against them for that -Since the attorney seems to be "incriminating" himself and the colleciton agency, might as well make their situation worse Send a "dispute"letter to the CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY (s), disputing the account (NOT A "not mine" dispute) ie dates, amounts, etc etc. -This will require the credit reporting agency to notify the collection agency, who in turn has to conduct an investigation. They then have to report back to the reporting agency. THIS WILL CAUSE THE COLLECTION AGENCY TO "report" the account again. AND SINCE they have been notified of the "disputed" status of the account (your validation letter send to attorney) -IF THEY THEN REPORT THE ACCOUNT WITHOUT INCLUDING "disputed", they are in violation of FDCPA 807 (8).
thanks. anyone else have anything to add? butch maybe? lol. poor butch...everyone wants a piece of him....
alright dammit. i did not do that. i even checked the main page before i tried to bump this again, to avoid multiple posts....and the first time did not seem to work. i only meant for it to be bumped once. sheesh. whats with this site anyway....
-If the collection agency listed the account before they received the validaiton request, it really isnt a violation (it crossed in the mail excuse) -BUT, chances are the attorney really doesnt stay in close contact with the collection agency, and may not have EVER notified them he received a request for validation. -In that case, if you send a dispute to the reporting agency, and they contact the collection agency, most likely the collection agency will NOT report is as "disputed" because the attorney never notified the collection agency of the validation request. -So what does that mean, BOTH the attorney AND the collection agency can be liable for not reporting the account disputed and not conducting a "reasonable investigation" -At least the attorney can be liable for continued collection activity for sending more collection letters IF HE DID NOT SEND YOU ANYTHING in response to the request for validation. -If the letter from them which stated "Please cooperate with us and submit monthly payments or call and offer a lump sum settlement to resolve this matter" was received DURING the 30 days validation period, IT CAN be a violation of FDCPA 809 (a) because it "overshadowed the validaiton notice" by inferring the validaiton period was now over and payment was do now. -Here is a letter from the FTC which DOESNT address the issue, BUT referrs to several cases which do reasonable investigation- FCRA 623 (b) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#623 failure to report debt as disputed- FDCPA 807 (8) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#807 continued collection activity- FDCPA 809 (b) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809
HERE IS THE FTC LETTER lol http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/edwards2.htm Butch's favorite case Chauncey also addresses this : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=963980 -In that case, the collection agency sent a "Validation notice" which was preceded by "Unless we receive a check or money order for the balance, in full, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter, a decision to pursue other avenues to collect the amount due will be made."
ok i read everything. I'm ready to dispute thru CRAs and wake the 'sleeping giant' as they say, because i'm pretty sure they wont list it as 'in dispute', and they've definitely done the continued collections thing. I still have a questio tho... after reading everything, including some of your (hiding's) posts, I'm under the impressiong that, unless the debtor writes a very specific validation letter asking for very specific items, the CA can reply with a very vague validation response. am i comprehending you clearly on that?
-you got it! Because the FTC etc has REFUSED to define validation/verification, there IS room for arguement on what constitutes "proper"validation/verification. But, if you think of it in the simple terms of "responsive to the consumer's request" it makes it much more easily understandable Imagine yourself in court, the more excuses you can TAKE AWAY from the collection agency, attorney, and reporting agency, BEFORE court, the less they have on their side Good luck and let us know! PS-small claims court = NO attornies
from your other validation thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=413970#post413970 so... what if a validation demand was not copied verbatim, from the 'sample letters' section of a credit repair website, and said something a little more original (and average joe-ish) like, "Greetings: This is a notice that I am formally disputing the validity of the alleged debt for the account mentioned in your letter dated November 4, 2003 (copy enclosed). I do not have an account with (and have never even heard of) Sherman Aquisition Limited Partnership. Your letter implies that I owe them money, but I do not. There must be some mistake that needs to be fixed as soon as possible. Your letter states that you will obtain verification of this supposed debt and mail it to me. In the unlikely event that you are able to validate this debt, please note that you already have already used an invalid address. Please investigate this error, and write me back at my (correct) address above so that we may be able to clear this up. Best Regards, crowmom" The collection attorney I sent this to only sent me a letter stating "this account is pertaining to your original creditor, Sears." and nothing else... (well, besides "please call and set up payment arrangements.") so is that good enough as far as validation is concerned since I didnt come out and specifically ask for "validation, persuant to section bla bla of the FDCPA"? hope i'm making sense...
-To muddy the waters, the courts have said a validaiton request concisting of "I dispute this" was a sufficiant validation request. -But having said that, if you had to go to court to complain they didnt send you the proper validation, what would be proper in this case -Keep in mind, a debt collector BY DEFINITION, is collecting a debt owed or due another,. -So the statement "I do not have an account with (and have never even heard of) Sherman Aquisition Limited Partnership. Your letter implies that I owe them money, but I do not" is not really beneficial. Part of the purpose of the validaiton is to identify the original creditor, which it appears was sears. -The collection attorney sent "verification" of the original creditor who you "owe" (at least in their mind). If you read your letter, the "meat" of the validation request was you not knowing who the collector was and you feel you dont owe the collector money. -Now look at the response. It identifies WHO you "owe" the money to, which CAN be argued a response which was "responsive to the request", that being "who do I owe this to?" -I am not disagreeing with your letter, I personally dont like to use the form letters found on the net. BUT, the more you "ask" for in the validation request, the harder it is to be "responsive to the consumer's request." -Unfortunately at this point, your effective validation rights are expired, BUT, they have been notified of the dispute, and must report the account as such if they are reporting. FDCPA 807 (8). -A way to determine "what" they are reporting (or going to report) is to dispute the account with the reporting agency. MAKE SURE YOUR DISPUTE IS MORE DETAILED THEN YOUR VALIDATION LETTER lol -Also, HAS SEARS PULLED YOUR CREDIT REPORT AFTER IT WAS CLOSED/CHARGED OFF ?
ok I get what you're saying, but I'm sure many (including myself) are freaking out on this: i'm having trouble seeing it that way in my case tho... in Shermans first collection letter, it reads: "...If you notify this office in writing within those 30 days, that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, we will obtain verification of the debt and will mail it to you. Also, upon your written request within those 30 days, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor...bla bla..." my letter says: "I am formally disputing the validity of the alleged debt.....There must be some mistake that needs to be fixed as soon as possible. Your letter states that you will obtain verification of this supposed debt and mail it to me. " again, they're saying, "if you dispute this debt, we will obtain verification of the debt and mail it to you". I disputed the debt, and all they came back with was 'this pertains to your sears account.' they didnt 'obtain' anything. see what i mean?
btw, no...sears has not pulled a hard inquiry... I spose they couldve pulled a soft (AR) but I wouldnt know for sure, because none of my monitoring services show soft pulls.
HAS SEARS PULLED YOUR CREDIT REPORT AFTER IT WAS CLOSED/CHARGED OFF ? Hide 90 _________________ Are you sayinf the have no pp after doing this?
I think when they probably got into trouble was pulling the credit reports after they were closed/charged-off (AND AFTER they were sold to a third-party CA).
Re: Re: how should I attack this? ok, i've read and obsessed long enough. i think what this comes down to is this: as far as the whole validation thing is concerned, maybe I didnt ask specific enough questions, but the fact is, I disputed, and all they did was send me a letter telling me who the OC was. I am going to go ahead and request validation again, this time being very specific, even tho its been over 30 days. I am, however, going to hope they're not too bright and I'm going to claim that I AM within the 30 days since I just discovered it on my reports, along with the FTC opinion and/or case law supporting my claim that I'm within the validation period, and that slapping it on my reports was a violation. question is, do i send this letter to the attorney or to sherman, or both? i'm thinking both. Then I'll just wait and see what they come back with. This will give me a feel for how difficult/easy this will be. I'll of course dispute thru CRAs during this time. another question: two of the 3 continued collections are questionable. is the following considered cont collection? Dear crowmom, this will aknowledge your recent call to our office. Please call me back upon receipt of this letter to discuss this account. Please call 1800-XXXXXXX and ask for Gina Coleman. This communication is from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt, and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. one more thing. I don't work. We had to take my name off the house so DH could refinance in his name only since this collection tanked my scores. I'll get rid of my checking account and put it in DHs name only if i have to. I don't live in a community property state. They can spend all the money they'd like suing me, but they won't be able to collect. I'll let them know that.
Re: Re: Re: how should I attack this? is the following wording considered continued collection activity?
Re: Re: Re: how should I attack this? It is written vaguely enough that it is not collection activity; they want to talk to you. It could be that they want to tell you over the phone that they decided to take a cyanide pill because of the undue stress that you are causing them by actually forcing them to do their job. (ok, meladramatic as it is, its an example of something that they may want to talk to you about, which isn't collection activity) Did you in writing tell them that you wanted all communications in writing? If so, I would reply in writing saying; as I have already told your company on XX/XX/XXXX, anything that you need to discuss with me, can be discussed in writing. This is a way to try to get you to use the device which they can use as a weapon against you. You want to turn it back to them, as to get them to use the device which YOU CAN USE as a weapon against them. -- p a p e r t r a i l This way they aren't the last one which could claim that made the offer to discuss the situation. If the letter they sent wouldn't have been cordial, I wouldn't even suggest you write to them again (if you want an example of what I mean, I could send you a copy of an example via e-mail, just mail me )
