I sent a validation letter, which they sent a printout in return. I then send a 2nd validation letter, including a copy of the Wollman letter. Their reply: We provided debt validation, which we believes satisfies the debt validation requirements set forth by the FDCPA. We respectfully decline your request for additional information. In reviewing the records for this account, it does not appear that you have ever asserted a dispute or fraud claim. It is unclear in you correspondence whether or not this is what you are attempting to do. If you disagree with the information that has been previously provided to you in our orginal response to your request for debt validation, please contact me at blah blah blah. What now?
Love, I also sent a The Wollman letter back to a Medical CA indicating their printout wasn't enough. They also didn't include the Miranda in my letter, nor put dispute on my credit file. I haven't heard from them yet, got the green card back last week. Estoppel goes out now. It was so funny they told me they follow the laws and my claims of violating the F.D.C.P.A are invalid... **Notice how they indicated FDCPA? There's no periods in it.. What Jokers we have in GA........
Just a game to engage you and take control it would seem to me. I got a similar response from a CA. I dont send the Wollman letter. I'll let the judge deal with it. Why help the CA prepare? You asked for proper validation, they didn't provide. Next step. Play hardball with them because they would cut your financial throat in a second if they could.
I don't mind playing hardball, especially since they are reporting a DOLA of 10/98 and the SOL in GA for open accounts is 4 years :OP. I just don't want to dance my way into a judgment. Call me chicken; I'm not showing my CreditNet stars and stripes
actually, not wanting to stir things up while within the sol is smart. Wait until December and hit them with a nice lawsuit. That way you're within your sol to sue but have proof they're not if/when they counter sue you for the account. keep all your reports and docs
The only thing is that I was hoping that by December I would be ready to start packing the Uhaul or Ryder truck... OP)
If you have the CA on FDCPA violations, I wouldn't worry about them suing. You have an affirmative defense: clean hands doctrine n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable because they are considered irrelevant. As an affirmative defense (positive response) a defendant might claim the plaintiff (party suing him/her) has a "lack of clean hands" or "violates the clean hands doctrine" because the plaintiff has misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. Example: A former partner sues on a claim that he was owed money on a consulting contract with the partnership when he left, but the defense states that the plaintiff (party suing) has tried to get customers from the partnership by spreading untrue stories about the remaining partner's business practices. Gib
