Ok everyone, here is another fax I received from First Credit Solutions, a CA that I am going through validation with. My first request was in February, and the only response I have received from them was a BS fax about how the process could take "90 days"...basically just a smoke screen. Then, yesterday I received this fax from them with no cover page, no documentation, nothing but this: --------------------------------------------------------- ASSIGNMENT OF ACCOUNTS This assignment is made effective this 27th day of October, 1998, by and between MIDFIRST BANK, a fderally chartered savings association ("assignor") and FIRST CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC, ("Assignee"). MIDFIRST BANK, as sole owner of the accounts described on Exhibit "A" to the Credit Card Accounts Agreement dated October 27, 1998 with Midland Credit Management, Inc. as successor in interest ot certin Discover Card accounts, does hereby assign all its right, title and interest in and to those accounts to Assignee for the purpose of collecting monies due thereon. As of the effective date of this assignment, assignee shall have full and complete power to act in its own name when attempting to collect and enforce said accounts, unless otherwise prohibited by state law. EXECUTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2002. --------------------------------------------------------- Then they notorized it. I don't see what sending me a document showing they can collect for a creditor mean anything to me for validation. They didn't send me anything regarding MY account that they are trying to collect. Does anyone have any insight into what they are trying to do here?
It's a partial validation. Still, it says the debt was assigned and not purchased, so unless the original agreement stated that you would pay creditor and/or assigns, they aren't legally entitled to collect on it anyway. If they aren't legally entitled to collect, they aren't legally entitled to report it to the CRAs. If they haven't notified the CRAs that it's in dispute, that is a violation you have on them. Just keep pressing them. Nice thing about the FDCPA is they can't harass us, but it doesn't stop us from harassing them. Just my take on it, please don't take this as gospel. Gib
1* They don't have 90 days-tough luck for them! 2*It can't be effective 10/27/98 because they did not sign it until 4-11-2. 3*It doesn't mean anything.It doesn't show they can collect for anybody. 4* I can tell you exactly what they are doing.They sent you a fraudulent document in an effort to deceive you into paying them.
I don't see how this is even a partial validation. No where in this document do they ever refer to a specific account. Nowhere does it refer to my account number. This is just a blanket document stating their authority to attempt collection for certain accounts. SO WHAT. I don't know where they are getting this date of October 27th, 1998 anyway. This account is for a Discover card account that I opened in fall of 1995 and it was charged off in 1996. The account is even supposed to drop off of the credit reports in August of next year. In addition, this account is past the SOL so they don't have a legal leg to stand on anyway. My main question is, how can this be considered a partial validation? It doesn't show anything in my mind, and they didn't even give me the context of why they sent it. Just that one page fax.
One other thing...is it actually legally binding for the CA to validate within 30 days? Their initial letter to me states that "they are not required to validate within 30 days". I haven't seen anything in the FDCPA referring to the 30 day timelimit. Is this bound by the FCRA? I need to make sure I get that straight for any upcoming action I may take against them. Thanks everyone for your insight into this, I appreciate it.
1*No it is not even a partial Val.Because the fax they sent is a fake. The real agreement would have the signatures of both the Creditor and the CA on it. 2*No it don't say any such thing because a fake instrument has no authority to say anything. 3* The reason they don't have a right to collect is because there is no agreement between the creditor and the CA. Had there been such an agreement the CA would have sent it instead of the forgery they provided. I would be sending them the estoppel. .
That probably is their proof of their right to collect, however, that doesn't prove that the account they are referring to is yours. They also have to have your account agreement, with your signature, and a full accounting for all interest and fees they say you owe.
Like I said, it's a PARTIAL validation. It is in no way all they need to send. Also, unless you agreed to for the OC to assign the debt in your original agreement, it doesn't mean squat. Not trying to ruffle anyone's feather's here, but most validation letters do include the request for copy of agreement between the OC and CA. So if it was requested, and sent, it is a PARTIAL validation. Gib
It's no validation at all. Assuming the document is authentic, all it proves is that at one time they were assigned to collect some discover accounts. Since they've failed to furnish an appendix showing your account was on the list of assigned accounts, they've so far not provided you with a shred of evidence to support the validity of the debt they are trying to collect. BTW, There is no 30-day time limit for validation under FDCPA. Saar
1* Of course not. 2*This is not even a document much less authentic. 3*It doesn't even prove that. 4*Don't make any difference as on a fake fax it would be fake also. Folks this is very easy to see through and dosen't take a bunch of analyzing. All the CA did was type up a false letter and had their signature notarized. Any one can do that but that don't make the fake letter enforceable.
