Note please: This is an actual ITS letter I am sending today. Only my name, the CA's name and address and telephone numbers have been changed to protect my sanity. Scumbag Collection Agency 1313 CA Lane San Jose CA 95110 Re: T-Mobile Your Acct No. 277XXXXXX N O T I C E O F I N T E N T T O S U E Gentlemen: This letter is formal notice of my intent to file suit against Scumbag Collection Agency for multiple violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 USC 1692 et seq) (herein referred to as FDCPA), to wit: 1. I was originally contacted concerning an alleged debt by your â??Mariaâ? at 8:30AM on June 7, 2004. In that conversation, Maria informed me that she was, at that time, fully aware of all prior correspondence between T-Mobile and myself. That statement incorporates by reference letters I sent to T-Mobile on April 16, 2004 and April 19, 2004. 2. Also in that conversation, Maria stated to me that â??if the account was assigned to Scumbag Collection Agency it is not a disputed accountâ?. I would like to point out to you that BOTH my letters to T-Mobile in April 2004 are dispute letters. 3. On June 7, 2004 I sent to Scumbag Collection Agency a letter memorializing my conversation with Maria. No part of that letter has been disputed by anyone at Scumbag Collection Agency. 4. In the June 7, 2004 letter to Scumbag Collection Agency I invoked my rights under FDCPA, specifically: A. Instructing you not to contact me by telephone at all, pursuant to FDCPA §805( c) B: Specifically instructing you not to contact me at 520-555-1212 since that is a cell phone and I pay for the minutes on both incoming and outgoing calls, your calling that number causes me a charge for communication pursuant to FDCPA §808(1)(5) 5. On June 10, 2004 at 6:46 AM I received a call from 925-DUN-HARD (which is your companyâ??s telephone number) on 520-555-1212 in direct violation of 4A and 4B above. 6. On June 11, 2004 at 11:01 AM I received a call from 925-DUN-HARD (which is your companyâ??s telephone number) on 520-555-1212 in direct violation of 4A and 4B above. 7. On June 11, 2004 at 4:44 PM I received a call from 925-DUN-HARD (which is your companyâ??s telephone number) on 520-555-1212 in direct violation of 4A and 4B above. 8. On June 14, 2004 at 5:14 PM I received a call from 925-DUN-HARD (which is your companyâ??s telephone number) on 520-555-1212 in direct violation of 4A and 4B above. 9. On June 14, 2004 at 5:30 PM I received a call from 925-DUN-HARD (which is your companyâ??s telephone number) on 520-555-1212 in direct violation of 4A and 4B above. 10. On June 17, 2004 at 5:30 PM I received a call from 925-DUN-HARD (which is your companyâ??s telephone number) on 520-555-1212 in direct violation of 4A and 4B above. 11. Each of the above calls represents TWO separate violations of FDCPA - Section 805( c ) and Section 808(1)(5). There are (so far) six violations of EACH section. FDCPA allows Statutory Damages of $1000 per violation. Please be advised that the call in paragraph number 5 above is a separate violation of FDCPA § 805(1)(a)(1) in that it was made before 8AM in my time zone. I will be nice, and if you settle this matter quickly, in accordance with paragraph 12 below, will forgive this violation. 12. This letter is formal demand that you forward to me the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND ($12,000.00) dollars within ten days of the date of this letter. Failure or refusal to do so will bring legal action to enforce my rights under FDCPA. Sincerely, Flyingifr
How do you answer "We never received your letter" or " We hadn't received your letter yet"? Can you confirm their receipt (CRRR), or did they confirm receipt in one of their calls ("Yeah we got you letter, but we can call you whenever we want. You owe us."), or did you also verbally inform them when they called of your letter and request to not call, that the number was a cell phone? Make the case for blatant intent to harrass, no accident, legal action was your only option.
That is a great intent to sue letter but it is not a formal NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE. A formal NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE is a form which is much like any court document. It has all of the normal court headings found in most documents filed in a court of law and looks like it might be filed in a court but states that it has not yet been filed. It also has several other things that are required in formal notices of intent to sue. The Cornell University Law School website carried a good discussion of the matter at one time but I don't know if that is still on line or not. They showed the exact forms one should use when it was on line.
Maybe in your state, but not in AZ. Formal notice of intent to sue as you describe is only required when suing a government or governmental agency in AZ.
just a thought here... why are we warning these CA that we intend to sue? is it possible for them to cure this violation? not at this point you are seeking $ so why not file suit, then make an offer to settle. why give out all that valuable info of what they violated let them waste the $ for discovery it would be cheaper to pay you to go away then pay legal representation, court costs and damages. I don't know of any CA willing to pay out $12K without a fight, they will take the chance of appearing and contesting from what I have experienced. maybe others on here know different but I just don't see that happening as an easy settlement. can you prove that this CA called all those times? maybe your cell bill? did you send your letter CMRRR informing them that all communication was to be in writing? I have a similar issue, but I am being careful to make sure I have enough evidence to present the basis for my claim if you don't have enough they may try to countersue you for frivoulus suit.
At the risk of being accused of trying to start something, which I'm not, how do you come up with 12k for violations when the FDCPA allows for damages up to 1k per action? § 813. Civil liability [15 USC 1692k] (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this title with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of -- (1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure; (2) (A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000; or (B) in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could be recovered under subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all other class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector; and (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs. (b) In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors -- (1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; or (2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)(B), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the number of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the debt collector's noncompliance was intentional. (c) A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this title if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error. (d) An action to enforce any liability created by this title may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs. (e) No provision of this section imposing any liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Commission, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such opinion is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.
Re: Re: ITS letter- Violation of DoNotCall He's flyingblind and he crashes and burns quite often just as he did on that one. He gets on collectionindustry.com flyingblind too except he calls himself Dr. Tax there. To quote Sassy, I'm flyin with you.
LKH- I am fully aware of the $1000 per suit limitation, BUT that limitation does not apply to ITS letters. To quote myself on AoC - It isn't $1000 per suit till the Judge says so. This just gives me some negotiating room. Meanwhile, they are just racking up the violations - two more this past weekend. "Do not Call" does not seem to impress this CA. BTW, it's an interesting CA - all their Outgoing calls are recorded messages. The text is this: "We have an important call for you. It is neither a solicitation nor a sales call. Please call 1-866-DUMB-ASS. That number again is 1-866-DUMB-ASS." No mini-Miranda, just that. This CA expects all calles to be incoming. So far they have called me and I have gotten that message nine times since I sent the "Do Not Call" Limited Cease Comm Letter.
