I am having trouble finding a good letter to an OC for unpaid debt. I have seen the litigious nutcase letters but those seem to be for paid debt. And some letters to the OC I have seen ask for validation. I thought by law OCs didnâ??t have to validate, that only CAs do? I thought OCs had to verify? Also, I read somewhereâ??and I may be wrongâ??that with FACTA now, OCs can refuse to investigate if the item has already been investigated by the CRAs. With some OC letters Iâ??ve seen, it states, â??how were you able to verify this with the CRAS,â? which in affect is admitting that the item was already investigated. Does anyone know anything about his, where this is true? I have not seen much about the case JOHNSON v. MBNA AM. BANK, NA. To me this seems an excellent case to cite in order to get the OCs to investigate. What do you think? Iâ??ve read on here that Chase vs. Manhattan does not show that OCs have to investigate, so it is not good to reference it in your letters. This is kind of complex. I would appreciate help in figuring this out. And if someone could point me in the direction of a good template letter for this situation Iâ??d appreciate it.
OC's don't have to verify or validate *WITH YOU* directly, unless you are in a state which specifically requires them to do so. They DO however still have to verify with the CRA's during the 30 day period, and they still must investigate account disputes which you provide to them in any other manner (written disputes, phone disputes, etc); they just may not have to respond to them directly to you. The CRA's are usually the ones who respond with a blanket, we've looked at this once, we won't look at it again. (At least one of them is like that, but that's not the normal response.) Johnson v. MBNA is actually 'built-in' to the FACTA amendments to the FCRA. That was one of the good things about having Johnson's attorney testifying before congress for NACA attorneys, It was a great way to get the specific issues in his prominent cases worked directly into the FCRA. So if you like quoting legalese, and you want to really scare an OC off of your report by quoting J v. MBNA, and ask them how they could have conclusively verified the information, when they can not have the decency, or the common courtesy to respond to your dispute in person, with a thought of a $90,300.00 verdict coming down if they provide the wrong answer, Johnson v. MBNA is an excellent sledge-hammer for doing just that... But keep in mind, that the only way to know for sure, would be to sue them, and let the discovery process reveal how much they actually knew, and didn't know at the time that they verified the information, and if what they knew, wasn't enough to rise to the level of conclusive knowledge, then your Johnson v. MBNA based case should prevail.
So they do NOT have to provide you with a copy of the orignal contract and all of that? So that means when everyone is sending out these lettera sking is there really is no leagal basis and technically, the dont have to respond? So even the Nutcase letters have no legal baisis (beyond going to court if you decided to go that far, then you'd find out what they have)? Why do creditors respond then? Most ppl probably wont take them to court. I know ppl get stuff deleted when using the nutcase letter so im a little confused.
The only way to find out for sure is to check to see whether your state has its own equivelent to the FDCPA, or if you post your state, someone who knows of the law for your state may post an answer as well.
Click here: CREDITNET | Straight Talk | | Letter to OC unpaid/Questions/FACTA B U M P NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ************************************************************
