Lesarin:? 4u

Now you are making yourself look stupid.
Read the very first line.

a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer consumer in connection with the collection

Do you make the initial communication to collect a debt? NO.

 

no. however your looking foolish. It says 5 days after etc. also do creditors send out validations? notice the HEADING . § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] im sure CA's Validate before they send the collection letter dont they?? lol.

 

Lesarin, I believe LKH is correct. The law applies when the CA is contacting you.

 

After the initial communication. Your validation couldn't possibly be the initial communication because you already know about the debt. When you found out about the debt was the initial communication. Understand?

 

exactly. a validation is after the initial communication? right?

 

Thank you. You and Butch have both explained this now as well. However, I doubt it will sink in. I love it when someone who really doesn't know tries to argue with me about this. I have been thru it. I have learned it and I know it.

Also jrjr35, I've looke through this thread several times now, and I can't find where I called BBauer a liar. Could you point that out for me?

 

Ok then that is 1 violation times 3 credit bureaus is 3 violations and
no notice to you within 5 days is another violation for four violations.


exact words. Is he lying?

 

that was sent in response to my update on my VALIDATION letter.

So he must know of some law that states they must send me anotice within 5 days of my validation request.

 

and once again it brings me back to my point of i told a person that requested info from me, and my repsonse included stuff included from a email i recieved from a guy i hired. Im sorry i didnt respond to your post sooner, i just got done witha 13 hour work day. im sorry if that made you mad.

 

Lesarin, You didn't make me mad. You annoyed me with your inaccurate account of the law. You are still wrong. Accept it or don't. That is your choice. However, I wouldn't go basing a lawsuit on what you are alleging here.

 

Just for the record. I never stated this persons name, and they are unknown. I will not wreck there reputation because of these childish games.

Like i said i will post the law or correct the error depending on there answer.

Hopefully they will prove you wrong, however i should have waited for there repsonse instead of looking and finding a law that closely states this.

do you have icq or msn messanger?

 

Les, you would be wise to accept the answers you get here.

You do have a point but LKH is right on. The law you qouted above has to do with their initial contact to you.

Interestingly once contact IS made to you they damn well better read you your rights and do it within 5 days of the FIRST contact THEY make to YOU. In so far as that's concerned your friend/hireree is right.

Look, it's a fine point and I'm betting a small misunderstanding occured, no big deal. Not an uncommon thing with someone who is new, hell I still screw up.

Though imo, you should press for 3 violations I don't think it will really fly if it gets to court. (LKH is right on this too)

But DO apply all the pressure you can to get them to cure without going to court. In so far as your menacing potential is concerned by all means press for all 3.

See?

The other thing I might add for your personal edification is that LKH is very RARELY wrong. I only base that on the fact that NOBODY is always right.

 

Here's some food for thought:

When someone gets something wrong, even repeatedly, we probably shouldn't shower them with contempt.

An observer can take care of the "others may read and heed you" by simply pointing out the mistake -- without being contemptuous and hateful.

So, as an example, instead of writing, "Please point me to where the FDCPA says that a ca must send you a letter within 10 days stating they received your validation. There is no such law. I don't know where you come up with some of this stuff"... why not try something like, "Hey there, I thought I'd point out that I think you've made another mistake about the FDCPA. They don't have to confirm your validation request to you within a set period of time. Rather, the law says..."

LKH, I don't mean to pick on you (and this surely isn't an example of that since I respect and like -- hell, love -- you so much!), but as someone who's facilitated hundreds of group therapy sessions, I thought I might be able to serve this board by mentioning that inciteful words can be replace by insightful words (ok, what am I now, a wordsmith?) without sacrificing the meat of the point.

If we old-timers get to the point where we become annoyed, angry, or indignant when someone gets things wrong repeatedly, then we're going to create an environment where people are going to worry too much about taking risks, jumping in, getting it wrong, and not knowing it all right from the start. I think Marie provides a pretty good role model for handling these kinds of situations, btw. I myself haven't always met her benchmark, of course, but it's a good one to reach for. Hope these thoughts are helpful in some way and are received by everyone in the constructive spirit I intended.

Doc

 

You may be right Doc. In this is instance, I did this because in the past when this has happened with this person, he chose to ignore what was pointed out. And, after this happening on more than one occassion, and the behaviour and language this peson has displayed in the past, I didn't see the need to be "nice". That being said, I'll consider your advice the next time, of which I'm sure there will be one. LOL

 

Not to mention that even when one is "gently" nudged in the right direction and repeatedly refuses to open ones mind to the "probability" that the "old timer" is right, it IS very annoying.

The annoyance comes from the right place. The desire to;

a) See that the newbie finally does get it right, and;
b) The desire to keep the board from being "contaminated" with misinformation.

Some of us are more blunt than others sometimes, but it's not always unwarranted.

 

Hehehe! Now that's probably true.

Doc

 

In the case of Lesarin as well as anyone else, the advice one PAYS for is often concidered of more value than the free advice one can get from CN.

I know from experience that one has a srtong tendency to "protect" ones invetsment, even tho that investment may be worthless.

An unfortunate but understandable nuance'.

 

I have to agree with LKH about "jumping" on someone - there's reason to in this case.

I have, on numerous occasions, had people email me, making "moves" based on what lesarin has posted, becuase he posts it as absolute truth - when it is in fact erroneous. He is misreading this particular part of the law, and I doubt that comes from his "advisor" - and we all know only one person who would be acting in this capacity. But that person can read and interpret the law, and I think lesarin has come to his own conclusions here - and they are wrong.

Just a reminder that, the fact that someone posts with an authoritative tone, doesn't make them an authority. Listen to the consensus of the board before you act on what you read here.

But in deference to Doc, I don't usually think people who make mistakes should get chewed out in public.

 

BREEZE WHAT DO YOU MEAN DISAGREEING WITH ME!!!? ARE YOU A NEFARIOUS EXAMPLE OF BRAGUS INDIGNANCE? ARE YOU AN OSCILLATING, SCINTILLATING QUESTION MARK OF INTELLECTUAL PROVIDENCE? HOW DARE YOU INTIMATE THAT MY DECLARATIONS ARE LESS THAN EXUBERANTLY UNREPROACHABLE!!!??? FEH!! FEH!! FEH!!

Doc

P.S. hehehehehehehehehe