Lol, thanks. One more thing... Lizardking offered up an interesting validation letter for original creditors here: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=155525#post155525 Keep in mind that his technique centers upon a straight denial, and this may not be your cup of tea (or it might). Regardless, there it is for your perusal. Doc
When I write to original creditors, I say: I am writing for verification of credit information that has been reported to the credit bureaus. I am requesting this information per the Fair Credit Reporting Act which requires that information reported be accurate, complete and verifiable. blah, blah, blah -- you are reporting in error, not mine, account closed, date wrong, balance wrong, whatever the problem is. Please provide a copy of each of the following as verification of your reporting and evidentiary documentation per the Fair Credit Billing Act: Insert items from the validation letter -- copy of signed and dated agreement or contract establishing the debt; and a statement of accounting to substantiate the balance and account history, including the commencement of the delinquency date. Should you not have this documentation or find you are unable to forward it to me, please have the above-listed tradeline deleted from each of my consumer reports within the next 30 days to ensure accuracy. Thank you. Sassy
Sorry, In the above letter I forgot the sentence, I dispute the validity of this debt. "Dispute" is important. Sassy
Wouldn't you agree that there has to be some sort of benefit on my part in order to repay them? helpwanted ================= Dock says consumers need to be punished not rewarded!
Re: Litigous Nutcase Letter? Anyone asking for money has to prove it, be it a CA or an Oc. Both CAs and OCs have to prove their claim. What is confusing folks is for CAs it's called validation instead of proof.
So far nobody has really posted anything legally binding on an OC. I agree with Doc that you can bluff with a lot of them, but I'm sure Discover has an excellent legal department. As far as disputing under the FCBA, that states specifically that you must dispute within 60 days of the billing error. The only way you can force an OC to validate (or prove) an account is to sue them, or for them to sue you. Validation isn't what anyone is after anyway, it's just an end to the means, which is to coerce the creditor into committing FDCPA, FCRA, and possibly FCBA violations. Making a legal nuisance of yourself is going to be the most effective way to deal with them IMHO. My personal thoughts are that after requesting proof of the debt, the estoppel letter sans all the FDCPA stuff would actually have some validity. After reading for several hours on different forms of estoppel, estoppel from silence seems to be quite an effective legal tool. You may not have them on FDCPA violations, but defamation and actual damages from denial of credit would be credible complaints.This is just my opinion, and opinions are like ....... you know the rest of the saying Gib
lbrown, c'mon, Doc has never said he thought consumers should be punished and not rewarded. Gib, Last week I would have agreed ;-) this week though I'm re-thinking. I know the FDCPA and validation provisions don't have to be met by an OC. The FCRA says they have to verify information, albiet a lesser standard. There's investigation duties and procedures if the OC is notified by the CRA of a dispute and there's the same if the OC is notified by the consumer directly -- I know you know this, LOL. Whether they actually investigate or not seems to be the problem. I think an OC with one active brain cell would have a good laugh at minimum if validation were requested via FDCPA provisions. That said, it seems to be successful for some, meaning to me, there's a lot of inactive brains living amongst us and/or the value of the request is in the asking itself because it's a reasonable request. Per the FCRA, if something can't be verified it must be deleted, I don't have deletion powers that is for sure, though we depend on the CRA to investigate and if not verified, delete. The FCRA doesn't say I cannot ask for the same. I think it's a more reasonable request all the way around to request an OC to verify their information instead of asking for validation pursuant to laws that don't apply to them. It's just a commonly accepted part of doing business. I'm nodding with you that someone has to sue to force verification, however, because it is a reasonable thing to ask for and required anyway, why would they not provide the same to me if it were available, if they were interested in being paid, if they were conscious of their responsibilities. I think it gives you a leg up when you have requested verification from the OC and it is not provided, a basis for disputing with the CRA, a papertrail, and if verified by the CRA without it havng been provided a way to refute that verification. Asking for verification or an account audit because you dispute what is reported should work because the FCRA provides duties of investigating etc., when an OC learns of a dispute from the consumer directly. It just seemed to me to be a way to ask for the same thing, start a process in motion, with a basis behind it besides bluffing and hoping they don't know or don't care that the FDCPA doesn't apply to them. Besides, I don't want creditors being unfair or deceptive with me so I wouldn't give them cause to say the same of me. Forcing the issue in court, I think can work in our favor. An OC would have to prove the debt in court -- why then would they not respond or delete, they're supposed to do that anyway. I don't think a judge and especially a jury would take lightly having to go to court to get an OC to do what they were supposed to do all along -- again, it's the reasonable thing. I like the nutcase letter and the sons and daughters it has spawned and still think it was brilliant of Doc. I disagree strongly with the other thread that said it wouldn't hold up in court, for the same reasons as above, it may appear to be nutty on the surface, but the request is reasonable. If it's reported, paid or unpaid, it has to be complete, accurate and updated and verifiable. If it can't be verified it can't be complete, accurate or updated. The nutcases, if the OC's were interested in pursuing, would take some serious time and effort to respond to, and I agree, it would more likely be deleted before someone took the time to do that for a paid account. The reporting though and the things requested in the nutcases are relevant to the debt itself and could have far-reaching implications if someone responded incorrectly. I'm nodding to on the FCBA, 60 days, it does allow you to request evidentiary documentation, but it does apply to OC's. Someone brought up before, what if you didn't receive the statement with the errors, then you never had the opportunity to use the dispute provisions. Again, that seems reasonable. I definately share your opinion on the estoppel doctrine. Ask for proof of the debt under whatever is applicable, FCRA -- verification, FDCPA -- validation; FCBA too. No response or partial response -- modify the estoppel as appropriate and go. That's my humble opinion, and yeah yeah yeah, I know what opinions are like. Sassy
Can any one explain how this fact is used against us? Remember we are being victimized by it -not punished for it!
With the court case posted yesterday, I'll try to dig it up again, it DOES support that the OC's have a responsibility to the consumer when notified of the dispute. Why they won't accept legally defined responsibility for their actions without court action is dumb I say -- and adds to the assertions that they've no intention of playing fair nor playing by the rules unless a judge tells them to. They strive to maintain the unequal playing field, are strong-armed, and force you into the court room. Sassy
Why they won't accept legally defined responsibility for their actions without court action is dumb I say -- They strive to maintain the unequal playing field, are strong-armed, and force you into the court room. sassyinaz Sassy =================== How does this work to their advantage?
You know, lbrown, When I first started reading this message board I couldn't figure out what in the world you had possibly done or said to have created such unfavorable reactions from the other netters in response to every snippet that you post. I've never had to ask the question, one only has to continue reading, and it becomes painfully obvious. Sassy
You know, lbrown, When I first started reading this message board I couldn't figure out what in the world you had possibly done or said to have created such unfavorable reactions from the other netters in response to every snippet that you post. Sassy ======================= I'm not sure I know either! ********************************************************************* I've never had to ask the question, one only has to continue reading, and it becomes painfully obvious. Sassy So what is it?????
Can I get the link to the (in)famous Litigous Nutcase Letter? May be I have not searched it enough... Also, does someone know of any case where this litigous letter has back fired? Thanks.
