On March 24, I received a summons from a lawyer for a medical collection. I had received a collection notice from JC Christensen (the CA) a few months earlier, sent them a validation letter, and never heard back. So after I received the "summons", I sent a validation letter to the lawyer on March 27. Now I notice on privacyguard, that JC Christensen pulled a hard on Equifax on April 2. The collection wasn't being reported on my credit report, but can JC Christensen pull a hard before sending validation?? Does this give me some negotiating power?
1)received a collection notice from JC Christensen (the CA) 2)sent them a validation letter, and never heard back. 3)On March 24, I received a summons from a lawyer for a medical collection. 4)I sent a validation letter to the lawyer on March 27. 5)JC Christensen pulled a hard on Equifax on April 2. I think they were supposed to cease collection activity until they provided validation. Did you include C&D in the validation letter? It may be a little late to try to play 'validation tango'. Have you answered to summons yet?
How did this account end up being a medical collection? Is this the result of you receiving medical health care that, except for applicable co-pays/deductibles, should have been covered by an appropriate health care insurance policy? Did the health care provider file a claim with the insurance company in a timely basis (usually 90-days)? Did the insurance company accept/reject the claim? If the claim was rejected, what was the reason for the rejection - improper/incomplete information? These are the questions that need to be answered before you start asking about leverage. Can you provide us with more background in order to deduce why the account wasplaced with a medical collection agency! Michael
I'll try to answer all questions. The medical bill is from the early part of 200 when I was having serious financial issues. I had just divorced and moved to MN from GA. The bill is my $600 maximum out of pocket that the insurance didn't pay. The original validation letter to JC Christensen was this: October 9, 2002 Dear Sir/Madame: I am writing in response to your letter dated September 30, 2002 [copy enclosed]. This is the first letter I have received from you on this matter. I do not believe that I owe what you claim I owe, and I request that you please do the following: 1. Tell me what this money that you say I owe is for. 2. Show me how you calculated what you say I owe. 3. Give me copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe. 4. Show me that you are licensed in my state, and give me your license number. 5. Stop contacting me about this or any other matter you have, except to provide me with proof that I owe what you say I owe. I demand that you also send a copy of this dispute to the company that you say I owe money to, so that they do not report this on my credit report. I further demand that if you have reported me to a credit reporting company, you tell them that I do not agree with this debt. Sincerely, Charity As far as the summons goes, it doesn't look like an actual court summons, but another collection letter. My response was basically sending the same validation letter to the lawyer with a copy of the original validation letter that I sent to JC. I do have the money to pay this collection, but I thought the first response to any type of collection letter was to first ask for validation. Was I wrong?
Thanks for clarifying the details. No, I dont think anyone would disagree with you requesting validation from this collection agency since they have just entered the picture. It would probably be a good idea to research the collection agency though to try and ascertain what the likleyhood of them seeking relief from this matter in a court of law. I think that if you are now in a position to deal with this, then it would be better served to try and deal with it but only if the CA will give full deletion of derogatory information as part of the settlement. Michael
Am I confused? Did JC actually have PP to pull a hard? I thought I'd read that when you send a validation letter to a CA, you hope they illegally pull a hard so you gain leverage. Is this only with paid collections? or does it apply to unpaid also?
1*I thought I'd read that when you send a validation letter to a CA, you hope they illegally pull a hard so you gain leverage. Is this only with paid collections? Or does it apply to unpaid also? charityg ================= 1*Correct 2*Either one. From what I read you have the CA on at least 2 Violations. I wouldn't worry about 600 to them when they owe you 2000 for breaking the law. The END ************************* LB 59
I think that if you are now in a position to deal with this, then it would be better served to try and deal with it but only if the CA will give full deletion of derogatory information as part of the settlement. ms6073 | -------------------------------- Why should charityg pay any part of the 600 when the CA owes him 2000 for at least 2 FDCPA violations??? The END ************************* LB 59
Can anyone offer any advice on what my next step should be? Should I send a letter notifying the CA that they violated my rights by pulling a hard inquiry? If so, what kind of letter? I feel a little timid about pursuing this, but I'm willing to go the distance on this one.
Re: Re: Is this a good thing for me? And you are absolutely correct in pointing that out! The FDCPA violations far outweigh the debt in arrears and the original poster should try to use this as leverage to reach a settlement that involves full deletion. Michael
Re: Re: Is this a good thing for me? Your next step should be to sue them for illegally obtaining your credit report. Someone posted a link to a similar situation on another board. She filed a lawsuit and the OC pulled a report to get information on her. She won $2,000 I think. An OC cannot pull your file without your permission.
Re: Re: Is this a good thing for me? I think I might need some hand holding on this one. So my next step should be an ITS letter? I'd really appreciate if someone could take me under their wing, instead of me flying blind. Thanks, Charity
During the validation period, they are not allowed to continue any collection activities. This would seem to remove their PP to pull your report. They ARE allowed to pursue legal proceedings during this time under certain conditions, so check out the FTC opinion letters that explain this in more detail. I'd say you have them at least on: - no PP - continueing collection activities by virtue of the fact they pulled that hard depending on the circumstances and nature of this attorney's communications, you may have several more. For instance, they are not allowed to send you documents that are designed to give you the impression that they are court documents, etc. I strongly suggest taking some time and reading over the FDCPA and FCRA,as well as the FTC opinion letters, a few times.
