I apologize for the length, but this is an interesting case for those who are fighting for proper validation, etc. Some questions at the end from me if anyone is willing to chime inâ?¦ I call this one reimbursing the reimbursementâ?¦ I am helping a desperate friend of mine out who had a CA contact her about the following: The CA is after an assigned debt. The debt was from August 2000. The CA is stating it was for â??tuition reimbursementâ? that the OC wants paid back for because she didnâ??t remain employed for a full 12 months after receiving it. So, with that said, she had been working at the OC for several years prior to August 2000. The contract that she originally signed, spelling out the tuition reimbursement policy, did NOT have a stipulation that the person must remain for a period after receiving it. They CHANGED the policy in January of 2000. They never informed her of this change or had her sign a â??newâ? contract, indicating her understanding and acceptance of the change. In June 2000, she incurred tuition and received the benefit amount ($636) in her August 2000 paycheck. At the end of the year, she resigned from her position to attend a University on the other side of the state (PA) in order to attend graduate school full time. And so here we are. My questions are at the end of this timeline. Feb 28, 2003: Initial dunning letter from CA (notice of dispute rights is given in full). Both she and the CA are located in PA. No license or bond required under that state. March 11, 2003: WITHIN 30 days, she fires off a demand for validation CMRRR. Aug 21, 2003: The CA ignores the validation. Sends another dunning letter. Nov 13, 2003: She sends the estoppel letter CMRRR. Feb 4, 2004: CA sent what they consider validation. (THEY EVEN SENT IT CMRRR) It consists of the following: A letter from the OC dated June 4, 2003. In this first breath, they say this: â??The letter you received from, CRAPPY CA, indicated that you had signed an agreement stating you would stay twelve months after completing your course, which was not correct. However, you signed a Tuition Assistance application and by doing so agreed to the terms of the Tuition Benefit.â? It goes on to talk about: by accepting the benefit, you agreed to the provisions of the plan, blah, blah, blahâ?¦. ANOTHER LETTER from the OC, dated Nov 17, 2003. Identical to the first except: NOW THEY CHANGED THE above to this: â??The letter you received from, CRAPPY CA, indicated that you had signed an agreement stating you would stay twelve months after completing your course, which was not correct. However, you sis accept the tuition benefit by doing so agreed to the terms of the Tuition benefit. We do apologize but we are unable to locate your signed tuition assistance application.â? -- BOTH OF THESE LETTERS FROM THE OC WERE IN THE SAME MAILING (see above). Included is also a computer screen printout of an archived paycheck with the tuition reimbursement listed as $636. Also, is a copy of a newsletter of some kind with a section called â??Tuition assistance changes take effect Jan 1, 2000â? â?? they are claiming this is adequate communication about policy changes. Iâ??m sorry but she claims sheâ??s never laid eyes on it in her life. So, they have just ADMITTED IN WRITING that they cannot provide her signature proving that she accepted the changes to the policy. She specifically asked for the document bearing her signature that verifies the acceptance of this policy when she demanded validation. This seems like a bogus and incomplete validation attempt? Did they just hand her evidence from the OC in writing that they cannot fulfill a full validation? Should she fire off an ITS to the CA??? I am desirous to get some input on this one. I am committed to following through to help her â?? ALSO, I am desirous to keep posting on this one here at CNET with the progress, as I am fairly disappointed that many who post their questions here and get answers never follow up to let others know the outcome. Itâ??s like watching a really really good movie and having the cable go out RIGHT AT THE MOST EXCITING PART! LOL Bless all you CNETers. I have been reading here a LONG time and feel that I still have so much to learn. Kind Regards, Wenchcake
Without even having to argue "properness" of the verification, here is the simple answer to the long post LOL "Feb 28, 2003: Initial dunning letter from CA (notice of dispute rights is given in full). Both she and the CA are located in PA. No license or bond required under that state. ***March 11, 2003: WITHIN 30 days, she fires off a demand for validation CMRRR. ***Aug 21, 2003: The CA ignores the validation. Sends another dunning letter." Using the proof of delivery as evidence to show they RECEIVED the TIMELY validation request, and THEIR OWN LETTER dated AFTER the receipt of the validation request. 2 exhibits FDCPA 809 (b) suit anyone ?
well i will leave the laws and codes for this to post to the "experts here" I do know for a fact I was just in a similar situation and my Attorney has stated no proof of the debt or signature agreeing to those terms = no debt to legally collect.
Thanks for the replys hiding90 and fun4u2! Hiding -- so far I read and understand the following, as I had seen this one as well: FDCPA -- 809 b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. My only concern is that the letter that they mailed as part of the CMRRR attempt at validation is dated June 2003 (i.e. the one from the originial creditor). I suppose it is possible that they sat on it until Feb. 2004 when they mailed the stuff but they might claim they sent it in June (she never received it tho) and by sending the Aug 2003 dunning letter they had already provided what they felt was proper validation. I'm just plain floored that they would include both, wherein the OC changes their tune from "you signed" to "we're sorry but we can't locate it." Fun4u2 -- I know you have talked about posting regarding your attorney -- the letter thing and trying to scan, I vaguely remember... I will go back and search those posts now to see if this is what you were talking about. My only issue with being uncertain regarding the signature thing was that they were an employer, which implies they have "policy" with regard to things. Could they take the stance (like they try to do in their letter) that it is a standard condition to be employed for a specific period of time (with regard to benefits like tuition reimb.) with most employers. It seems unreasonable to believe that they could just post a newsletter notice and consider that effective notice. OK, i'm done rambling. I'd love to post the letter the OC sent that has all this garbage I'm refering to, but my fingers are tired! LOL Plus my long posts and replies probably scare people away as it is... Thank you again for the replies! --Wenchcake
I still fail to see their collection tactics if they have no proof that you agreed to this how can you be held liable? if there is a clause in your emplyment contract then that may be another story but I doubt it. my attorney letter was posted by me typing it out, however this was in relation to a creditor not having proof same as your situation no signature to collect the debt, as hiding explained the tricky part is the relation between federal and state law. my attorney is suing because the furnisher has no proof of the debt and continues to report and verify with the CRA AFTER and investigation was completed that it is accurate and verifable. the CRA is now being sued for failing to maintain adequate procedures to ensure accuracy in reporting, failing to remove inaccurate unverifable info after numerous requests and not complying with requests for dispute proceedures. etc good luck
There is another MAJOR violation... In the letters the OC sent through the CA, THE OC BLATENTLY STATES that the CA made a false and misleading representation that the contract which was signed included the 12 month employment provision. And the CA actually provided this self-destructive declaration themselves. Does anyone else need proof that the CA never actually "READS" what they claim is verification? If they had, do you think they would have sent those letters, or told the OC to rewrite them without those statements?
Do you have a copy of the original agreement that you did sign, which did not require reimbursement? In the absense of your signature acknowledging the terms of any new agreement and showing that you were even notified of any change of terms, the original "contract" would appear to be still in effect. Notify the OC that they are in breach of that contract.
Well, actually, if they signed paperwork for the loan that was supposed to be reimbursable, they would need to look to THAT paperwork to make sure they didn't inadvertently agree to the new terms at that time. Kind of like cc's. You don't have to sign a new contract to accept new terms, you just have to charge something after the date those terms go into effect.
Hi again all! Thank you for the great replies. Again, just to clairify -- this is not MY situation, but that of a friend I am helping out. Based on these replies there are a few facets of this that I will be sure to get confirmation from her on, before I help her draft a letter. For now, there are some interesting points brought up... jam237 wrote: "There is another MAJOR violation... In the letters the OC sent through the CA, THE OC BLATENTLY STATES that the CA made a false and misleading representation that the contract which was signed included the 12 month employment provision." This is what the OC did say, in BOTH letters, so YES, I agree. I don't know if anyone can point me to the right section of the FDCPA that deals with this, but I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll do a search tonight and try to find it and study hard. ontrack wrote: "In the absense of your signature acknowledging the terms of any new agreement and showing that you were even notified of any change of terms, the original "contract" would appear to be still in effect. Notify the OC that they are in breach of that contract." I agree with this statement, but then I defer to jlynn's point: "Well, actually, if they signed paperwork for the loan that was supposed to be reimbursable, they would need to look to THAT paperwork to make sure they didn't inadvertently agree to the new terms at that time. Kind of like cc's. You don't have to sign a new contract to accept new terms, you just have to charge something after the date those terms go into effect." This is my one big concern and will look to my friend for the answer. I'll be calling her tonight to find out what her take is on these points that were brought up. The employer is taking the stance that jlynn points out here: that simply by accepting the tuition benefit, she is bound by any terms that were in effect with regard to that policy at the time it was taken. But if that's the case, why even bother to mention that they cannot locate her signed document? Why not just eliminate that if it's not relevant to the "legal" reality that it's not even needed?? Seems kind of fishy to me. It's definitely not cut and dry with regard to that, but at least there may be a leg or two to stand on with regard to the violations on the part of the CA. Thanks for the assistance with the suggestions and comments so far! I'll keep you posted. Until then, I welcome any further comments!! Thanks again! --Wenchcake, the long-winded.
-I think this is the ONLY thing you need to think about -REGARDLESS if you owe a debt , and in this case IT IS ARGUEABLE, the violations of the FDCPA/FCRA are actionable. -I would venture to guess that if you sent the OC and CA, a copy of their own letters, pointing out how the OC is "rolling over" on the collection agency and how you plan to use this in court, the whole problem will go away -Or just sue the CA using the letters from the OC. -Although I dont like the idea of "intent to sue letter" beacuse they seem to be used inapropriately, this may be a good case for one. -The limited "intent to sue letters" that I have sent, INCLUDED and copy of a COMPLETED "SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT" or whatever it is called in your state. -Idle threats will not do much, but when the threats are backed with a completed civil complaint, its like lighting fire under their arses
