Interest on Collection Account

§ 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.


It depends on what was in the agreement your gf signed. I suggest you review it, if she has it available.

Absolutely not. It is considered continued collection acitvity if a CA attempts to collect on a debt after a consumer has sent a letter requesting validation. I was in the exact situation where a CA attempted to collect. I sent the validation letter to them, they eventually faded away, then a new CA popped up for same debt, I told the new CA I would hold them responsible for violating the FDCPA for continuing collection activity on me without first validating the debt. I include copies of my orginal letter to the first CA and a copy of the signed green card. Shortly after that I received a letter from the OC saying it was a mistake, and everything is closed.

I suggest you go straight for the estoppel letter on the second CA, include copies of the orignal validation letter you sent (to the first CA), and a copy of signed green card (from orginal CA). An OC can be held responsible for the illegal actions of the CA they "employ" to collect on a debt, and since the initial CA could not validate, the OC obviously knew (because they're the ones who are supposed to provide validation to the CA), so the OC turned around and handed the debt off to another CA. And now it's 'continued collection activity'.

Do you mean you can no longer dispute *certain* accounts online? Or all? I know Experian only allows you to dispute an account online twice before they lock out access to another re-dispute.

 

The green card I was refering to had to deal with certified return receipt requested mail. It's a service offered by the post office. It's a green card that is attached to your letter to the CA/OC/CRA. Once it arrives at its destination the postman has the receipient sign something. The postman in turn stamps the green card, and signs/prints the receipients name on the green card and places it back in the mail to you. Once you receive it, signed, it is your proof of mailing to the CRA, and proof they received it.

 

Originally posted by mindcrime2


I suggest you go straight for the estoppel letter on the second CA, include copies of the orignal validation letter you sent (to the first CA), and a copy of signed green card (from orginal CA). An OC can be held responsible for the illegal actions of the CA they "employ" to collect on a debt, and since the initial CA could not validate, the OC obviously knew (because they're the ones who are supposed to provide validation to the CA), so the OC turned around and handed the debt off to another CA. And now it's 'continued collection activity'.

mindcrime2,

I see the logic in the above scenario. How about in a situation when a CA#1 has purchased the debt, one sends validation letter and they don't validate. Then they sell/get rid of the debt to CA#2.

In order to validate originally, CA#1 had to obtain validation info from the OC. They can't or didn't so they sell debt to CA#2. Does the same apply "continued collection activity", in this situation?

 

John,

Well if CA1 has purchased the debt from the OC, then they are supposed have validation (on hand). If they cannot provide validation, no one can.

To answer your question:

Yes, it would be considered continued collection activity. CA1 was/is aware of your request for validation, and they knew they were unable to provide it, thus making the debt uncollectable (at least in the legal sense where they could not continue with collection activity), and they knowingly sold a debt to another CA knowing that at that point in time no collection activity must take place, at least until they can validate. Now CA2 knows none of this. They go ahead and send you out a collection notice. You can now hold CA1 responsible for continued collection activity because they were the "culprits" here by falsely holding out a debt to be "collectable" to the debt's new buyer (CA2).

And this is why I do not even bother with the standard validation letter to CA2. Otherwise, we could be going in circles for a while.

 

Thanks for the explanation mindcrime2, that now makes total sense. I bet that situation happens often being that many seem to have the same debt listed by more than one CA.

 

Nah it's not worthless. They do that crap all the time. Just make sure it's dated.

You may wish to include this line in your Estoppel letter.


Dear CA#2,

Ca#1 has sold ("dumped upon") you a NONperforming, illegitimate debt which has already been frozen by my demand for validation via FDCPA. Both you and CA#1 are in violation of same.

May I suggest you return this account to CA#1 and demand your money back pursuant to the "qualifying recourse accounts" provision of your contract. Any further communication from you before I receive the demand for proof of this alleged debt via federal and case law and I will sue you.

Let us know what happens.