Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... 1*A CA popped up out of nowhere, claiming a 1998 check is owed to their 'client' who turns out to be just another d/b/a of the CA. 2*The CA is trying to claim that they not only communicated, but VALIDATED the alleged account in 1998; so they don't have to validate again... 3*I have seen companies debit a bank account and use their own check # or take the consumers ck # as a form of payment. 4*Who knows, they won't even say who the alleged check was made out to. 5*from what you are stating it appears the OC has their own inside CA ? 6*They're claiming that their second DBA is the original creditor, in their reporting. ========================== 1*How bout the SOL on this.?? 2*How long is a validation good for before it expires? 3*But don't the payee have to be written on the check? 4*So how do they prove there was a bounced check if they can't show who the payee is ??????????????????? If there is no payee there can't be a bounced check. 5*What OC I haven't seen one yet? I think it's more like it appears the CA has their own inside OC ? 6*This is easy to prove or disprove by simply looking at the name of the payee on the check.
Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... 1: From what I've seen, if it *IS* a check there is no SOL, if there really is a check. SOL in PA for any other type of account is 4 years. Which is why, after 2 months of playing around with them waiting for them to produce validation, I decided to C&D. If they attempt action, I will argue that they are time-barred, until they prove otherwise, and they'll know that I already have one heck of a counter-suit before they attempt the action.
Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Hi Jam sorry been busy haven't had the time to keep up with all the posts lately. so the story goes on.... their goose is cooked! lol and they are kind enough to provide you with the pan and the fire to make the meal. are you including fraud and misrepresentations to your list of violations? did you say you sent the CA a C&D and then they added the TL to your CR? since the CA responded to your complaint did the BBB close it as administratively resolved ? that seems to be the general response that I have receieved to my complaints with the BBB lately. heres a shocker I filed a few complaints with the AG a few months ago and now all of a sudden I am receiving favorable responses and pending results. I ll keep you updated. good luck these issues can take alot of your time but may be worth the $ in the end
Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... I haven't received a response to my re-letter to their BBB. According to their letter the 'me' they allegedly spoke with 1998, asked that they cease and desist phone calls. I am proceeding along the lines that it is a "Sullivan v. Equifax", mis-identification case, and they were so nice to place that arguement on the record for me. (Along with, the fact that if they were in fact reporting from 1998 to May 2004, on whose report were they reporting during that period, because EX states that they only began reporting on my credit file in June 2004. Which could indicate, that for whatever reason, they had changed something in their reporting to mis-identify me as the 'me' that they claim the alleged account is.) The one count that I am ace in the hole-ing is the failure to include the "this communication is from a debt collector/this is an attempt to collect a debt", and the false and misleading representation that the communication was from the alleged OC when the language of the letter, plainly indicates that it is from the CA. i.e. the CA illegally used the name of another; or the OC is illegally reporting their accounts under the name of another (the CA), thus having a second company performing collection activity on their behalf, without providing them the rights under the FDCPA, for that second entity. There are a whole lot of things there, and that one is the either/or bonanza; because it has to be at least ONE of those things, there is no way to tell without the process of discovery, which violation is an accurate discription. But, by including the complete C&D in the ITS, they can rack up some post C&D violations as well.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Was your complaint to the AG's office against the CRA, or DF, or CA?
2*The CA is trying to claim that they VALIDATED the alleged account in 1998; so they don't have to validate again.. ============================ 2*How long is a validation good for before it expires? Anyone care to hazard a guess???? A-50-C
LB: I don't think that issue has ever been tackled... But, using the "Sullivan v. Equifax" arguement that the 'me' they validated, and that they were allegedly reporting on from 1998 - May 2004, is separate from the ME who they placed it on my credit file in June 2004; they are adopting a similar position to the position that InoVision failed to win on, (Debt Collection Activity, page 11, (C)) "InoVision argues that it has not engaged in any debt collection communication or activity with respect to the plaintiff, and that it is therefore not covered by the FDCPA", my arguement would be that even if they supposedly did communicate, and validate with the someone who they claim was 'me' that they claim to have communicated, and validated with in 1998, that does not relieve them of their obligation to communicate, and validate with ME, now; and they have refused to do so.
Asked by lbrown59 How long is a validation good for before it expires?) LB: I don't think that issue has ever been tackled... ========================================= I think your are right.It's never came up before that I can think of. I caught it when you stated the CA told you they validated it with you way way back in 1998. Made me wonder just what the life span of a validation is. Would be interesting to know the answer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Jam my complaint with the AG was for a CA who also was the DF. but since then I filed a complaint against the BBB for misrepresenting the status of a company I consider that to be fraud. not to mention I have a pending complaint against an OC
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... fun, btw: be on the look out for mail... you'll find it interesting... just not sure which e-mail account i'll have to send it from... hopefully, it'll go out on the primary account (the same as my CN profile), but if it gets caught going outbound, i may have to send it from a different account.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Who says Ranting don't help ! http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=432392#post432392 My first post on this side... I almost pissed and moaned when I read this one... jam ==================== Jam I know this is off topic but I just posted another on Who says Ranting don't help. Thot you might like it since it's along the same lines as the first one.
Then ask them for copies of hte validation and/or copies of your request for the validation (since you know neither exist.)
Where in the FDCPA does it say asking for validation is a one time deal???????????????????????????????
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... True, if they cease collection activity, three verifications with two CRA's doesn't constitute ceasing collection activity, under Cass...
Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Then there's the issue that, if the company that they are reporting to be the OC, who allegedly purchased the non-existant check, did provide the validation, their second DBA, the one who is listing the account on my credit report, didn't provide validation.
Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Agreed PS Did you see this ? Who says Ranting don't help ! http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...2392#post432392 My first post on this side... I almost pissed and moaned when I read this one... jam ==================== Jam I know this is off topic but I just posted another on Who says Ranting don't help. Thot you might like it since it's along the same lines as the first one.
Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Yep, although, you should have posted that on the end of the other thread, where I said that someone had better make me laugh quickly...
Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... jam. what case is this cass? I have a similar issue and want to back it up with case law. BTW got the mail you give new meaning to the term holy crap ! go hit they where it hurts Lbrown your post above made my day ! as the saying goes better to be pissed off then pissed on LOL
