Letter from CA, after val letter...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Letter from CA, after val letter...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Letter from CA, after val letter...

Snakeman,

You can't lose anything under the FDCPA.

The FDCPA doesn't apply to consumers, it applies to 3rd party debt collectors only and is intended to address abusive collection tactics.

They would like you to believe otherwise or that they have some authority to decide what rights you have and don't have, but they sure don't.

They have to follow the rules of their business, that is what the FDCPA is -- we as consumers aren't subject to to it, we aren't CA's.

Another thought, I don't believe was made. You made a payment, it doesn't restart any clocks. Validation doesn't have to be provided if the account has been PAID, a payment however isn't the same as paid.

Even for the TL that is paid, the information has to be accurate and complete; updated and verifiable, always for as long as the information is reported. You can pursue additionally under the FCRA for verification of the paid TL, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information.

For the others (unpaid), both the FCRA and FDCPA are applicable.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Letter from CA, after val letter...

Another thought I don't think you are fully appreciating:

Validation is to address dunning the wrong person and/or the wrong dollar amount.

Recreate that place!!!!!!!

FTC Wollman letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

Since you've talked to them, hang your hat on the dollar amount.

Which staff opinion letter are you referencing earlier that states if validation is requested outside of the 30-day window the protection of the FDCPA is lost ???

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Letter from CA, after val letter...

Yep snakeman, you've got it right.

The only exception to having to provide the validation is for debts that have been paid (0 balance) NOT paid on.

One of the purposes of validation is to address the wrong dollar amount that you are being dunned for. How would you know after not having made a payment for a year if that is the right amount?

Did they credit your payment, did they add fees, is there interest? collection charges? anything accumulating -- you get the point.

The chicky-babe that told you that paying acknowledged the debt was yours ASSUMES (and incorrectly so) that validation only covers dunning the wrong person.

And paying alone still doesn't acknowledge the validity of the debt.

They are also required to report your dispute to the CRA's. The CRA's are then required to show that information as disputed in every subsequent report containing the information. Check after your 30-days runs, that will be another violation, both under the FCRA and FDCPA.

Sassy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Letter from CA, after val letter...

ok, fair enough, the CA's like to read it that way too. It's not a dead horse, if that is the issue they are hanging their hat on, then you need to flush out how to negate it and be able to back it up too, should your path lead you to legal action.

I've read them all till my eyes are bugged out and am not recalling one that says the same, however, that doesn't mean much, because usually you are searching and looking for a particular issue. I'm wondering though if you may not have pulled that out of context. I'll look and see if I can find anything similar.

Here's an easier way to research the opinion letters, btw, the commentary (linked at the top) is good reading too:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/

That isn't to say they all are there, because I've found some cool old ones that aren't included via old-fashioned searching too.

You are in a good place, snakeman.

Passing you this shaker of salt I found last I was in Margaritaville ;-) it was near Tijuana, lol

Sassy