Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA BUMPING FOR A ANSWER. I haven't had time to read the whole thread, I'm doing some DV letters today, and reading up on taking CA'S to court. If anybody has used DOLA reaging in a court case or as a threat to remove TR, please let me know. My basic question is if they RE-AGED the account, do they have to remove it or do you have to give them a chance to fix it????
Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA Movingonup, Surely you'd not take the time to go to court and feel confident if you can't take the time to read a thread, yes??? Dispute the date, you have to give them a chance to fix it, that's how it is, sucks I know, but it is by design. You don't however have to give anyone more than 1 chance! Accurate and complete; updated and verifiable (always) and even if all of those, not misleading. Butch, Is this the thread I'm not supposed to respond to? I'll give you the benefit of answering before posting my non-response. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA Yes. I knew that since you were on vacation and "flying" on the wrong side of history on this issue, I wanted you to fully catch up [on all the reading] before responding, so my heart was in the right place for you Sassy. ((
Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA Sassy Thanks, I was afraid that would be the answer. If I dispute the DOLA can I dispute via the CRA and take that to court, or do I have to do it via the CA directly? I don't have this CA on much. They already put my account in dispute after a phone call.
Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA I'm not Sassy but I think she'd tell you that you don't even have a private right of action for FCRA violations unless you first dispute through the CRA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA oh fave Butch growling dude, No pathetic sad faced sideways smileys (( I always enjoy a damnit sassy email, LOL, and thanks for the heads-up, I was trying to figure how many recent threads are addressing the same topic. My problem isn't with your position or anyone else's, even my own, but that you're shutting down and stiffling discussion and intelligent exchanges because you say so. I'm sorry to break it to you fave Butch growling dude, but because you type it or say so, isn't good enough. Like saying to not respond or telling me not to rather. It's kinda like your mum saying, because I'm the mom that's why. I'm still reading, Butch, I'm bothered by this thread and by this related thread even more: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=49575 Disappointed I am, Butch, you're bigger than this and the above-linked thread. No matter your position, your words are reflecting the you of you, your character is hanging out all over the place. Insisting that you are right and squashing discussion with insults and egotism just isn't what this board is about, or I didn't think so. I don't think I'm wrong about that now. This would be a boring, stagnating place without interaction and it would go the same way as every other board that allows for only one position and grand-standing. I never question where your heart is, if you think you need to be as rude to me as you were the others in either thread for disagreeing with you, then bring it on, Butch, you don't have to warn me or pretend to do me any favors or try and protect me. I am pretty sure I said to Greg before in the infamous thread, I don't care that you could do it, I care that you DID do it. It's the same with words just as it is with actions. Yep Movingonup, You don't have to contact the CA at all if you don't want to -- only if you want to hold them responsible specifically. It only makes for a better papertrail. You can't skip the CRA's though for a cause of action if nothing else. Dispute with the CRA's only, if you want to. The reporting requirements are the same and it is ultimately up to the CRA's to be sure they are reporting accurate and complete information. Once the CRA's know that information is disputed it isn't enough to rely on the information as furnished at face value. The CA though, is required to do more than put your account in dispute after a phone call. Have you considered sending them a validation letter and/or asking them specifically for the "commencement of delinquency date" and the date it was reported to the CRA's as required? Either way, disputing with the CRA's and/or the CA or some combination is only for their benefit and a papertrail for you. We only have to dispute to kick in the reporting requirements and nothing says we have to do that more than once. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA Haven't DVed them yet, these guys are pretty savvy, how many CA put your TL in dispute after a phone call? I've removed most of my TL'S with phone calls but these I'm going to have to get formal. But, I'm going to have to hit them from all angles. BTW Sassy, Glad to see your back, I always find your answers entertaining, on the $$$$, practical and VERY HELPFULL. .... I think I know what I have to do with THESE guys. All I can say is that these CA is tough!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA awwwwww man, another with the phone!!!!!!!!! Well ok, you've not met all4mymarine have ya? LOL I'm glad the phone has worked for you so far, nodding nodding nodding, it of course has it's place, sometimes though, it can only help you to stay off the phone, especially if you know you are heading to a more formal path. I'm understanding they are savy, slick as snakes too, I'd bet my left pinky finger!!!!!! Put them through the validation hoops anyway, because you can and it is required and it is your right!!!!! Ask for the commencement date and the date it was reported as part of it -- hmmmmm, or just ask the CRA for it, they're supposed to give you all information in your file and it is required to be furnished. What's the worst that can happen? They're an upstanding CA that knows and respects the rules of their profession and follows them? I shudder at the thought!!!!!!!!! ;-) Well then, you're still no worse off or worn for the wear, only know right where you stand and have all the information to be sure what is furnished for reporting is as it should be and if not, you've more ammunition to use against them. Gotta love that, thanks so much for confirming your errors savvy CA!!!!!!! Thank you!!!!! Maybe, you're tougher though and have the law on your side -- they only have to obey, it's a hard thing for them to get their brains around! One or the other will screw up, I'd bet my right pinky on that (now you've left me pinky-less in just one post!!!!!!!!!) If you know what is required for furnishing and reporting, you'll get there, just lay the paperwork trail for them to follow!!! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA Sassy I'm a guy, I want you to know I think you're cool. I find you're answers intellectual, humorus, and believe it or not kind of, oh I don't know ??? Sexy!!! I'm into the real stuff not the internet stuff, but I do find your posts very entertaining. Too bad most girls don't think like you, I find materialistic, neandrethal techniques, and a nice truck more effective on your average attractive girl, I gave up on the intellectually humorous side many years ago. Anyway I think your cool. ..... just want to put that out there. .. I'm sure you're a good looking girl too! ...... I have a question for you that I put on some other boards and nobody seems to able to answer. As you know(at least I believe it to be true..urg) a bill/debt must be assignable before a CA can legally attempt to collect on it. .... Is that true???? I couldn't find it in the FDCPA, but I've seen references to the assigment requirement on other boards. The bill that I'm postingi on only says "We may also take other action to collect unpaid account". Is that disclaimer legal in respect to having a bill assignable??? .. Woops should I start a new thread: "assigned debt disclaimers" ?????? I apologize for the miniture-highjack: I had to take this oppertunity to ask you, I'm sure you would know the answer. TIA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC DOLA vs. CA DOLA Sazzy, In resposes to your previous post. First, regarding what they avg. women like today. ... Sorry to say but generally speaking they like a guy who can meet their emotional needs and their need for security. So basically, as a guy you have to be an entertainer(In and out of the bedroom), handle your self well , Never let them see you sweat , an be a provider . Basically, Women seek men who can satisfy their emotional needs 1st, and their financial needs 2nd. Men, .... I think you know. Of course there are those of us (Men and Women) who are above that, BUT, .... we are way out numbered and you have to be able to play the game otherwise; People question your capabilities! Most humans(oids) are drivin by their id(Primal Instincts) but, some of us are driven by our SuperEgo(Our higher processes). I don't about you but I have been told I have a SuperEgo, and that I'm driven by it! .... How about you???? ... well I think it's a lot better than being driven by your PRIMATIVE INSTINCS, ... but unfortionatly, we must have our primal needs met too. .... that's why things will always be rough all over. .... Anyhow,....... So Sazzy unfortionally the primitive insticts are a force to be taken serously no mater how dumb it is. ... From a statistical point of view, it's called the NORM, .... So, I have adjusted by being able to function both NORMally and my favorite, SuperEgoly(Notice I didn't say interllectually, I've given up, it's not effective, LOL). There you have it Sazzy, the horrable truth, I didn't want to accept it but the numbers speak for themselves , And numbers don't lie. But, I think you're above that, and I think you have a Super Ego!!!!!! Just remember, we live in the "Kingdom of Id" ( .... I finally, figured out what that cartoon series was trying to say;I always knew there was a profound hidden meaning in there. Have you ever read it???). So, I have found you have to get in touch with your inner ID; but you don't have be like that all the time(Thank goodness). .... Just my observation and opinion!!! (lol) Anyway getting back to "ASSIGNED" debt thng: Kristy wrote: " One loophole is some contracts have the wording "debtor agrees to be responsible for payment of this debt to creditor OR IT'S ASSIGNS". This IS a contract between you and the debt collector as well as the creditor and if they can provide you with a copy of a contract that states this, you are pretty much stuck and need to negotiate." So, the key word is "ASSIGNS" there ????? If the original bill doesn't have that wording. ....It has to go back to the OC. ???? I guess " WE MAY TAKE OTHER ACTION TO COLLECT UNPAID ACCOUNTS" isn't going to cut it??? Right, .. I think you answerd that I just want to hear it, actually quoted again!!!! What do you consider proper wording??? Should I start another thread, I don't want people to start getting PRIMAL. TIA
