If a CA calls you after they recieve the validation letter isnt that a violation? keep in mind this is AFTER the 30 day first letter from them. Thanks, AJ
It is considered continued collection activity...Did they send the original letter CRRR, do they have proof that you received it? If not then it is considered continued collection activity.
Semper Fidelis=Always Faithful=Marine Corps Slogan so to speak. Semper Fi Do or Die United States Marine Corps!!
No they never sent the first letter crrr but, we have been negotiating a settlement. I have been in contact with them many times. They called me twice since they recieved the validation letter. I was reading a post from bbauer who said that this wasnt a violation if it was past the first 30 day letter. Thanks, AJ
Not necessarily guys It all depends upon what was said when you talked to them. For example just asking you what you need as val., or confirming your address is not a violation. It becomes a violation if they attempt to collect during the call. THAT'S the violation. HOOWAA!!!
AHHHH, ok, I need to answer the call next time they call for it to maybe become a violation. I dont think I have EVER read someone say that on this board. I was under the impression that just them calling me was a violation. Thanks Butch. AJ
I've always looked at it the same way you did but I sure would not want to argue the point with Butch. He is probably right. But there is another thing to watch out for as well. Did they give you a full and complete disclosure of who they are? If they don't then thats yet another violation.
Do you mean in writing bbauer? They havent responded to my validation as of yet. I recieved the green card 1 weeks ago and am going to dispute the TL with the CRA's soon. I want to force them into settlement but havent had too much luck yet. They have droped the "paid-in-full" amount by $400 but thats not enough. I wish they would make the "what is validation" thread a sticky already. AJ
pibb26 is correct. If by voice they have to give full and meaningful disclosure verbally and if by writing then it has to be on the letter and of course usually is. Something I can never get through my thick head is why people want to settle with criminals by paying them money. I always thought that the American system of justice demanded that the criminal pay for his crimes against society. I guess I must be some old fogey who just hasn't kept up with this new modern society. Woe is me. Doing so probably would have only minimal value at best since lots of folks would still rather post messages demanding that it all be explained to them yet once again because they didn't take the time to read the stickies or didn't understand what they read. And yes, I grant you that such a comment is a rather harsh criticizm of people in general but there are first of all a large number of message boards and newsgroups and email forums and I am either a participant or a lurker in most of them and even have my own message board and I have yet to see a complete discussion of what validation is much less how to use it so that the maximum benefit can be gained from its use. One would think that professionals such as 3rd party debt collectors and their attorneys would have been the first to fully understand validation and all the rest of the consumer protection laws while the consumer would be the last to know about it. But the facts of the matter demonstrate very clearly that they are least well informed of all for the most part. If that were not true then they would not violate the law and become the criminals that they obviously are.
1*Did they send the original letter CRRR, do they have proof that you received it? 2*If not then it is considered continued collection activity. pibb26 ============ 1*This has nothing to do with their being in violation or not. 2*Trying to collect after receiving validation is a violation 30 days or no thirty days. The END ************************* LB 59
1*No they never sent the first letter crrr but, 1*b*we have been negotiating a settlement. 2* I have been in contact with them many times. 3**They called me twice since they received the validation letter. 4*I was reading a post from bbauer who said that this wasn't a violation if it was past the first 30 day letter. thetravele =================== 1*Don't even concern your self with this as it has nothing to do with the situation. 1*b*Why in the world are you even considering this on an unproven debt??? 2*You broke rule number 1 here. STAY OFF THE PHONE 3*Two calls 2 violations = $ 2000.oo for you. and you're negotiating to pay them WOW That's sharp 4*Either BB don't know what he's talking about or you don't grasp what he is saying. I tend to think the latter. In any event it's clear to see that the Ca has you right where they want you and is leading you right down the prim rose path.
<< 1*If a CA calls you after they recieve the validation letter isnt that a violation? 2*keep in mind this is AFTER the 30 day first letter from them thetravele +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1*Certainly is. 2*Why; when it don't have anything to do with # 1 ? >> The END ************************* LB 59
============ I'm afraid that is not normally true LB. It may be true if the demand for validation was received within 30 days of their initial contact with the debtor but that is not normally the case since the vast majority of debtors know nothing at all about the rules so they just ignore the collector or creditor until it is far too late and the wolf is at their door. If they don't just jump up and go pay it out of fear that the wolf might just show up if they don't pay it that is. So only in an extremely minute number of cases is your statement true.
lbrown59: Your questions: 1*b*Why in the world are you even considering this on an unproven debt??? 2*You broke rule number 1 here. STAY OFF THE PHONE 3*Two calls 2 violations = $ 2000.oo for you. and you're negotiating to pay them WOW That's sharp 4*Either BB don't know what he's talking about or you don't grasp what he is saying. I tend to think the latter. In any event it's clear to see that the Ca has you right where they want you and is leading you right down the prim rose path Answers: 1- Because the money that will be used to pay off the debt isnt even mine. The friend that actually ran the debt up and failed to pay it will be paying it. 2- Ok I will stay off the phone, but all settlement letters I have sent were through the mail(CRRR). 3- The violations were within the last week and half, after my last settlement letter to them. I am planning on waiting until they give me their version of a validation before I call them on their violations. By the way, the agent left me messages on my answering machine with the date and time they called, now they have no way to claim they didnt call. 4- I believe bbauer stated his rebuttle to this statement. My only requirement is that the TL is taken off my CR. Thats were I am going. There stil seems to be some difference as to whether thoses calls are violations or not. Some say yes otheres say no. I will assume that they are in my future correspondence with the CA. By the way the totla that is owed is $1800 with $2000 worth of violations. Thanks for your help with this matter so far. AJ
lbrown59: Your questions: 1*b*Why in the world are you even considering this on an unproven debt??? 2*You broke rule number 1 here. STAY OFF THE PHONE 3*Two calls 2 violations = $ 2000.oo for you. and you're negotiating to pay them WOW That's sharp 4*Either BB don't know what he's talking about or you don't grasp what he is saying. I tend to think the latter. In any event it's clear to see that the Ca has you right where they want you and is leading you right down the prim rose path Answers: 1- Because the money that will be used to pay off the debt isn't even mine. The friend that actually ran the debt up and failed to pay it will be paying it. 2- OK I will stay off the phone, but all settlement letters I have sent were through the mail(CRRR). 3- The violations were within the last week and half, after my last settlement letter to them. I am planning on waiting until they give me their version of a validation before I call them on their violations. By the way, the agent left me messages on my answering machine with the date and time they called, now they have no way to claim they didn't call. 4- I believe bbauer stated his rebuttal to this statement. My only requirement is that the TL is taken off my CR. Thats were I am going. There still seems to be some difference as to whether those calls are violations or not. Some say yes other's say no. I will assume that they are in my future correspondence with the CA. By the way the total that is owed is $1800 with $2000 worth of violations. Thanks for your help with this matter so far. AJ
They turned down your settlement offer or is this somehow still being negotiated in the midst of your validation request? I'm a little confused here regarding the chain of events.
I sent my first settlement letter over a month ago. The CA and I have talked maybe 4-5 times on the phone as far as the settlement is concerned. The CA has dropped the amount they are willing to settle for by $450. 2 weeks ago I sent in the validation letter, they called me once on the day the letter was signed for and agian 5 days later. They hae not responded to the validation letter as of yet. The TL were added to my CR at the end of January. AJ
