I've browsed the letters - but this being my FIRST letter, I want to make sure that it's ok and not overboard. This is for a CA that contacted me this a.m., refused to send me anything in writing because "we already have" and then stated they were ending the conversation (as I was reading outloud my notes that they refused my request) and filing legal action. If it matters, I do owe part of this, but the some of it is inaccurate. I've not mentioned in the inaccuracy in the letter - should I have? Here is the letter -- comments very welcome. This letter is being sent to you in response to your agencyâ??s communication with me. This is a request for validation made pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Be advised that I am not requesting a "verification" that you have my mailing address, I am requesting a "validation;" that is, competent evidence that I have some contractual obligation to pay you which is binding on me to pay this debt. This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that your claim is disputed. Under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act I have the right to request validation of the debt you say I owe you. Your legal staff will agree that compliance with this request is required under the laws of Michigan and Federal Statutes. Please also be advised that this letter is not only a formal dispute, but a request that you cease and desist any and all collection activities. I require compliance with the terms and conditions of this letter within 30 days or a complete withdrawal, in writing, of any claim. In the event of noncompliance, I reserve the right to file charges and/or complaints with appropriate County, State & Federal authorities, the BBB and State Bar associations for violations of the FDCPA, FCRA, and Federal and State statutes on fraudulent extortion. You should also be aware that sending unsubstantiated demands for payment through the United States Mail System might constitute mail fraud under federal and state law. You may wish to consult with a competent legal advisor before your next communication with me. Your failure to satisfy this request within the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act will be construed as your absolute waiver of any and all claims against me, and your tacit agreement to compensate me for costs and attorney fees. Furthermore, if any negative information is placed on my credit bureau reports by your agency after receipt of this notice, this will cause me to file suit against you and your organization, both personally and corporately, to seek all legal remedies available to me by law. I reserve my right to take private civil action against you to recover damages. Sincerely,
Sassy - thank you so very much! I'm glad that I was patient..... lol a few chewed nails but your reply was well worth the wait. Hopefully, I'm ready to plunge in! Thanks again! Shanyl
Re: Re: Is this too overboard? You might want to put this in the letter that "any attempts to contact me must be made by mail at the address above." Something to that effect. It still leaves them the option of contacting you, but once they receive your letter, they have to send you a letter within 5 days stating they received your letter. They also have to notify the CRA's that you are disputing the debt within that same 5 day window. Failure to do either is a violation of federal law. Any communication with you that isn't validation of the debt is also a violation. They have 30 days from the receipt of your letter to get you what you demand. If not, then run them down! My $0.02 worth. Col. K0rn
Re: Re: Re: Is this too overboard? Validation section of the FDCPA: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. (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. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.
Re: Re: Re: Is this too overboard? Wow thank you both Sassy and Col. KOrn! With your help, I feel that I have a terrific letter and will be off to a powerful start. I am left with one cobweb in my head and this is: If I send one of these letters to a new owner of an account (purchased) does that reset the SOL? (by my sending this correspondence). Again, you're both so helpful thank you! Shanyl
Re: Re: Re: Is this too overboard? oh heck no, Shanyl, the timeframe for reporting (guessing that is the SOL being referred to) is fixed and based on the first delinquency (first time you were late and never became current again). They may try it, but that's re-aging. The date should always be the same, starting with whenever the OC, if they reported, charged-off/sent to collection or any similar action. Here's the section from the FCRA, 605: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#605 (c) Running of reporting period. (1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)(2) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action. It's required to be reported to the CRA's within 90 days of the information having been provided, under section 623: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#623 (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action. In some states the SOL for enforcement can be prolonged by a payment, agreement to pay, new agreement, acknowledgment etc., the letter doesn't do any of those things so you're safe there. Debt buyers typically don't get the underlying documentation required for validation when they purchase bad debts -- a perk for you!!! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Is this too overboard? Sending the letter will not reset the statute of limitations. There is no letter that you can send that can reset the statute of limitations.
Re: Re: Re: Is this too overboard? Great Sassy! I promise, one day I won't be some needy/infantile at this.
Within five days after the initial communication ... a debt collector shall...send the consumer a written notice... Ok, perhaps it was a bit inferred. I would assume the thought pattern to be that if they sent you a letter with all of the information required by the FDCPA, this wasn't just for the sake of sending you a letter. It is a direct result of your sending them a letter. As far as the 5 day rule, it's in black and white in the FDCPA. I might have been misunderstood. They have to send you a notification that they are investigating your clam. From the FCRA (E) Duty of person after receiving notice of dispute. After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall-- (i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice; 73 February 11, 2004 (iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and (iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to make the information provided by the person accurate. That takes us to §611, subsection a, section 2 (A) which reads: Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer or a reseller in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer or reseller. So, that's where the 5 day window comes into play. They don't follow the law, there's two violations. One of the FDCPA, and one of the FCRA. § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information (1) Reinvestigation Required (A) In general. Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. There's your 30 days. Man, you sure are sassy. Didn't want to ruffle up anyone's feathers! :=}
Re: Re: Is this too overboard? Ya know, Col K0rn, Your post got me thinking (yes, dangerous it is ;-). The FCRA is a plain language statute, the FDCPA is a strict liability statute -- the standard is the least sophisticated consumer. If you go to the FTC site and want to read the FCRA, this is what you get: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf There's a blurb at the beginning about the effective dates and a referring link to a press release and federal register. It seems to me that most people would believe that document is what is effective and binding -- throw some level of unsophistication in there and try to pin down a date and it's not easily accomplished. Seems to me, that while the FACTA amendments are in varied stages of implementation, it may be a good time to be unsophisticated, or at least feign ignorance. Surely those that are subject to its provisions don't have a clue either, that could work in our favor. Sassy
Re: Re: Is this too overboard? <grin> That's what it's all about, ain't it. Heck, look at O.J. lol. The lawyers got him off due to legal wrangling. Isn't that what we are doing, in a wierd, twisted way? I don't profess to be an expert, but I can draw my own conclusions about what I have read. I think that is what is great about our country and laws. Each person is allowed to draw their own interpretations about what is mandated. With that, we are free to express our own opinions. I'm not one to argue the points about what is in black and white. That's futile. It's those of us who think outside the box and are above the least sophisticated consumers mentality that will succeed when it comes to fighting inequalities and ineptitude of the bad guys. They throw stuff our way, and we can hurl it back at 'em. You have to understand where I'm coming from. As the days progress, I'll reveal my situation, and what I'm up against. But for now, I'll lurk, and glean information. Col. K0rn
Re: Re: Is this too overboard? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> Never read the fine print. There ain't no way you're going to like it. What's the latesr? NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ************************************************************
TransUnion has TICKED ME OFF! Ok, the latest in my situations are as follows: 1. Retained legal counsel for magazine scam. Got a healthy case laid up for them. Waiting for some FOIA information to come back. Also waiting for original CBR's from the CB's. This way they can't point fingers at each other if I pull it on a 3-in-1. 2. Got a letter from TU in reply to my request they delete an disputed item. Basically, it's kind of what I wanted. I made reference to the fact that I have not received competent validation from CA, and the item is invalid/incorrect. It was a form letter rattling on about how long they retain certain types of information. I sent my dispute/request for deletion CMRRR, so I got the clock ticking. The time has run out for the CA, so I'm just waiting for TU to get me my CBR in reference to item 1, and then I'll see where my counsel wants to take THIS case. Man, I never knew I knew how to juggle until I started getting 3-4 return receipts in my mail daily! What fun! I'll just be glad when these two are done with, and then I'll only take on one at a time. I guess what is fun is the first issue is with my wife's CBR, and the second is with my own. I'm having to do the legal studying, and writing, mailing, etcetera for both of us. I hope the settlement is worth it. I'm thinking a nice round figure with at least four zeros...maybe five.<grin>
