Hi, So I got a letter today from a CA in Calif for a phone bill. I do owe some money but not what they are claiming. Anyway, I was curious about the wording on this letter since I'd never before seen a CA word this way. Please tell me what you all think. Acct #: 89898989 Creditor: Phone Co Client #: 89898989 Principle: $180.73 Interest: $2.94 Late Payment Charge Total due: 183.67 CREDIT BUREAU DISCLOSURE There are three credit bureaus handling our information and reporting this to creditors when requested. In the future you credit may be checked. How? As a few examples landlords, doctors, hospitals, and employers. Yes, employers may check your credit prior to hiring. You may be new at this, but we've been at it for years. Believe us when we say, take care of it now! IT'S SIMPLE- PAY US The rest of the letter is the usual BLAH BLAH about this has been sent to you by a CA, BLAH, BLAH, etc. It is this CREDIT BUREAU DISCLOSURE Statement that bothers me. Am I imaging things or does there seem to be some kind of "veiled" threat here? Thanks, Jane.
It does sound like it's worded to entice you to pay. Did it have the mini-miranda on it? (This is an attempt to collect a debt, etc). You should send them a validation letter asking them to validate that it is your account and give you an accounting of how they arrived at this amount.
It is and isn't legal. Did it have the, unless you contact us within 30 days to dispute this account we will presume that it is valid. If you contact us within 30 days, we will obtain... statements as well? If it does, and it doesn't CLEARLY EXPLAIN the relation of the 30 day validation notice *AND* their credit bureau reporting, then it is illegal. It's overshadowing of the validation rights notice. Telecheck & the other check companies are notorious for this type of overshadowing.
While the 'check' related portion isn't applicable, it provides a brief explaination of overshadowing. Miller Opinion http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/miller.htm The important part of this opinion is the discussion of the cases where forcing that the consumer *MUST TAKE ACTION* immediately (as in the notice which you received) can violate the FDCPA. The key question is if the unsophisticated consumer could reasonably believe that they had no rights to validation, or that doing so would cause them HARM. (i.e. If you apply for a credit card the day after you dispute, the trade line is already on the credit report which they pull, and you are denied the credit card because of the trade line which is in question. The notice says the easiest way to prevent said harm is to DO NOT PASS GO, PAY US $200.00, any delay is going to hurt you.) Novak Opinion http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/novak.htm
One last thing... for now... http://www.edcombs.com/CM/News/news7.asp Do a search in your browser on overshadowing when it fully loads, it gives you a few good examples and caselaw on overshadowing cases.
I totally agree. question: should the poster include some type of 'overshadowing' verbiage within the validation letter? bugman
NO! they should play dumb as a box of rocks. they have proof of overshadowing in their hands...no need to spell/point it out to the CA. otherwise, the CA will know they're dealing w an informed consumer, and they'll be really careful from now on. the phrase "Take care of this NOW" is so blatantly a violation of §1692g, its not even funny. well, not funny for them anyway. you can probably get more violations if you do this right. why oh why wont some idiot CA send ME something like this?????
Im with you crowmom. but if he/she sends a validation letter chock full of legalese wouldnt it too tip them off? maybe a 'least sophisticated consumer' validation letter would work better here. bugman edited for irrelevance
This is a definate K.I.S.S. moment. How does this sound? (Make the first paragraph reflect exactly what they stated in their validation paragraph verbatem. You want it to sound like the only thing you know about the law, is what they put into the letter, nothing more... They're the experts, remember, you may know nothing about matters like these, but they've been doing this for years. ) (I'm not sure if this is simple enough. So others may be able to suggest ways of simplifying it some more.) Dear DACC (Dumb A** Collection Company) I have no idea what you are referring to. You said that if I request proof of this account within 30 days of when I received your notice which was dated on XX/XX/XXXX, which I received on XX/XX/XXXX, you would provide it, and the name and address of the alleged original creditor. I would appreciate physical proof that this is my account, with something signed by me, showing that this is truly my account, as well as all statements which support the amount that your company says is owed, in its entirity; without any discrepancies. I am anxiously awaiting your expedient response in this matter. Iamme (typed)
No, it doesn't have the 30 day notice on the letter. This isn't the first letter I'v gotten from them. The thing is part of this bill is for AOL that was billed through my phone bill but never paid by the phone company. The phone company is bugging me to pay it and AOL is asking me to pay. I don't understand how I should pay the phone company for something they never paid for. I will send out a semi-ignorent validation letter today, pretending I know less about my rights than they do. Personally, I hope to hell they violate some more of my rights. I wouldn't mind a bit of money my way. Thanks, Jane
The information on overshadowing only applied if the statements to "PAY NOW!" would have been in the first correspondence. How 'old' is the account? Is it within the statutes of limitations for your state? And how is the service provider (not the phone co) trying to collect for it? Have you tried disputing the charges through your phone company, and try to have them reversed that way (which if service provider is trying to collect themselves for the same charges, you would be able to make a viable double billing complaint.)
The information on overshadowing only applied if the statements to "PAY NOW!" would have been in the first correspondence. How 'old' is the account? Is it within the statutes of limitations for your state? And how is the service provider (not the phone co) trying to collect for it? Have you tried disputing the charges through your phone company, and try to have them reversed that way (which if service provider is trying to collect themselves for the same charges, you would be able to make a viable double billing complaint.)
Hello, No, this was my second letter from them. The thing is I don't owe what they are claiming. Not even close to the right amount. So this morning I decided to call AOL myself since they also sent me a bill for the same services that the phone co sent me to CA for but never obviously paid. Hmm. Don't know how they can legally get away with this. Anyway, a super nice man at AOL saw how screwed up my acct was, with lots of chargebacks from the phone co and decided to wipe my balance clean. So I will owe nothing to AOL or the phone co. My question is can I get this TL from CA off my credit since the phone co never paid AOL and now AOL is zeroing out my balance? Thanks, Jane
AOL should notify the CA that they want the account back and that it should not be reported, as it was in error. Even if they don't, after it's settled, if you dispute it they probably won't verify.
Hedwig, the problem is that the CA which is the problem child is for the phone co, and not for aol (the service provider). The service provider began collections because the phone co 'chargedback' the service providers charges on the phone bill. *AND* the phone co is trying to bill Jane for the same services that they chargedback too. Talk about the phone co trying to have their cake & eat it too. Hopefully they send you something saying that they were never paid by the phone co, and the phone co chargedback on the services.
HI, I thing I should clarify a bit. The phone co sent me to collections, not AOL. AOL hasn't done anything but send me one bill for the full amt which is how I knew the phone co didn't pay. AOL is supposed to be sending me a letter to the effect that I have a zero balance and the phone co didn't pay. So once I get that letter, if phone co doesn't remove acct w/ CA and have the TL removed from my CR can I sue then? And who do I sue? The phone co or the CA or both? Should I send a copy of the AOL letter to the CA? Or not? Thanks, Jane
Oh, and one more thing. According to the Phone Co they have every legal right to send this to CA even though they didn't pay the bill. When I asked how they could send me to collections for a bill they didn't pay the phone co rep told me that's just the way it is. Jane
I really don't believe this but today I got another letter from a CA. Every single bill I have in collections is a medical bill from the same hospital, and their affiliated doctors and various other providers. Total F**k job as far as patient care goes but that's another story. Anyway, this letter is the first, yes it has the mini-miranda. But the part I find interesting is this which is right under the usual paragraph about "unless you notify us within 30 days, blah, blah". So here's the part I don't get: *As required by law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations. But we will not submit a negative credit report to a credit reporting agency about this credit obligation prior to 60 days from the date of this letter". (It's this last part about not reporting for 60 days that has be stumped) Then this: " This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose". (this i know is fine) " Make your check payable to "*******, SCUM SUCKING CA" and return in the enclosed envelope. (this I don't get. Can they tell me to send money like this w/ the first letter, before the 30 days has passed?) Civil Code section # Please, Please, Please, Oh Pleeeease tell me there are violations here. I'm doing the reading also here but it's all so overwhelming at times. Thank you. Jane The letter is dated a few days ago. Are they allowed to do this? I swear to god, this is really getting old.
Hi Jane, Best way to explain this is that if you felt that they were ... trying to "pursuade" ... you [or the least sophisticated consumer] into paying this immediately, then yes, you may have an overshadowing argument. This is one of those things which is often difficult to quantify. Ya can't [often] just look at something and say yep - overshadow. Have you read this: http://www.mpbf.com/meeart1.htm Also - Pittman Analysis has a LOT to say about overshadowing. BTW - The little 2 line diddy is the Mini Miranda. The full notice of rights is the 5 day notice.
