Re: lizardking letterworked to well The paid collections are listed by the original creditors as paid collection. What dispute has worked best for this situation? I wish I would have known that I could have negotiated how the creditor would report the listing 5 years ago when I was paying these people off.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well Here you said it can probably be negotiated off. I didn't and don't want to sue over it. I was answering because you said it can probably be negotiated off. Oh well, I give up!!
Re: lizardking letterworked to well LizardKing, You wrote: Where does it say in FDCPA that the actions of one collection agency are binding on the first? I looked over the act and I couldn't see it. It seems to me that FDCPA only covers the action of individual collection agencies. Believe me, I would like to be wrong, I would just like to see the section where you found it.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well Christi You may be able to negotiate it off. What Lizard was saying is that you might be able to contact the holder of the check and tell them you had no idea this didn't go through when you closed the acct. as no on ever contacted you. Tell them you will pay in return for deletion from the cra.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well LizardKing, thanks for that clarification. So they wouldn't really be in violation of the FDCPA, just some kind of statuatory agent/power of attorney action liability which does relate to actions under FDCPA. Any chance you have some of the case names/dockett numbers? It would be helpful. Thanks again for the info.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well I'm sorry to split hairs here, but again, nothing in the FDCPA says that the "obligation to validate the debt still exists even if the account is moved back to the original creditor". You said this was established by case law. What I am getting at is that I can't advise people that "under FDCPA section XXX-XXX, obligation to validate the debt still exists even if the account is moved back to the original creditor." I will have to advise them that people have won this point in a court of law, but they have to extrapolate the law here from the FDCPA and statutory agent law. Correct me if I am wrong. It's just not obvious from looking at the text of the FDCPA, like you can say FDCPA Section 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] part (b) says that "if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing, the collection agency must cease collection of the debt until debt collector obtains verification of the debt, copy of the judgment, etc".
Re: lizardking letterworked to well The law did not anticipate the passing around of a collection account among multiple collection agenices. They also did not anticipate collection agencies just ignoring a demand for validation. Thus, this situation has been disputed in court and it has been clearly established. FTC staff opinions have been issued that a collection agency may not add a line to your report if you have requested validation within the 30 days. Adding the line to your credit report could be deemed a collection action. So, once your request for proof is in, all collection action must stop. That does not grant them the right to say "screw the law, we will just give another agency a shot at it so we don't have to do this proof crap." If the debt is sold, the obligation to validate it is sold with it. [/B][/QUOTE] And that is exactly why I am suing gulf state. They allegedly bought an account from a creditor. Neither will respond to validation letters. Gulf state has ceased collections on this for now, but they reported it to the cra's well after receiving my validation. That is a big no no.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well i AGREE w/ Kristy. It is NOT obvious. And since neither of you are lawyers, neither should be arguing the LAW. Correct me if I'm wrong. Both of you are interpreting the law to the best of your abilities. Both of you have a right to express your opinions. Neither of you should say the other should not advise people just b/c you disagree. Kristy, welcome to the board. I dont recall seeing you post here before.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well I never said she shouldn't advise anybody. I was just agreeing with the part I quoted.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well I interpretted your "both of you" to mean me as I had just posted. My mistake.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well LizardKing, I think you have answered my question: it isn't in the FDCPA. It may not be common sense, as I think the FDCPA is pretty open to interpretation. Since the court cases were not listed in the FDCPA, it's not easy to follow through with the thought process. Even the FTC letter you cited only talks about a single collection agency. I would like to agree to disagree - your overall point is well taken should someone need to pursue this matter in court. Without this forum, (and you, of course!) I wouldn't have known about the other court cases. I didn't mean to put you on the defense, as I am one of your fans. Thanks for the clarification, it is appreciated!
Re: lizardking letterworked to well Will Lizardking sue Kristy? Or will Kristy sue Lizardking? News at 11.........
Re: lizardking letterworked to well Those letters appear verbatim in Kristy's great new book as well (Good Credit is Sexy)-- maybe they were hers, rather than Lizardking's? Inquiring minds want to know. Doc P.S. If they were Lizardking's to begin with but not copyrighted, and somebody puts them in a copyrighted book, don't they now in fact belong to the copyright owner? On the other hand, if they were public domain to begin with, are others also eligible to use the same material in another copyrighted book without fear of being sued by the author or publisher of the first book? This confuses me, and I'd like to know.
Re: lizardking letterworked to well LOL, roni! It's clear to me that the only person who's placed any legal claim to those letters (validation letter, the infamous lawsuit letter, etc.) is Kristy. So perhaps we should simply refer to those letters as the Kristy Welsh letters, rather than the Lizardking letters, henceforth. Doc
Re: lizardking letterworked to well Freud would consider "not quite sue how I feel about it" to be an unconscious slip which reveals something about how you feel about it. Doc
Doc lmao........that is too funny. I thought it but certainly wouldn't have typed it, but I had to comment
