When will it end? I'm trying to fight a CA collection account on a utility bill- they left the account in my name for 6 months after I moved... Im about to sue the CA for violations Debt validation letter sent 12/03/02- Rec'd 12/05/02 Received a letter from ER Solutions requesting full payment on 12-11-03. They verified the account w/experian on 1-03- Never adding this account in dispute. On 1-03-03 I sent second validation letter On 1-29-03 I filed complaint with WA State AG On 02-08-03 I received a letter dated 1-28-03 hmmm with a print out of the collection account (Thier print out) On 02-08-03 I mailed an "Intent to file Lawsuit" On 02-13-03 I scheduled an appointment w/ an attorney to go civil Today I get a letter from the same CA stating they just received an account from Qwest the Phone Co. for $305.32- I know this is my bill, I'm sure I paid it- it was from 2/01. If I send a debt validation letter to the CA- that this bill is disputed due to it being paid- will it keep CA from reporting it to the CB's. and can they really validate a telephone bill? There is no signature ie...contract. The letter I received today Has "This is an attempt to collect a debt and any info obtained will be used for that purpose" It contains nothing about disputing debt with-in 30 days etc.. They should know by now- that I know all about that
Are you aware that they have 5 days after the initial communication to you, to notify you, in writing, of the 30 days? They may or may not do that, but if they haven't notified you 5 days after you received the initial notice of their claim, then you will have a violation. § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.
Well I would send a validation request and I would start out by saying "Even though your collection letter dated __/__/__ did not notify me of my right to dispute this debt, as required by the FDCPA as this was the first communication about this account I received from you please accept this letter as notification that I am disputing this account. etc. etc. etc. I'd work in the fact that they screwed up by not including the notification of your right to dispute in their first communication to you.
CA's can report the item as a collection account to the CB's. If they receive your request for validation before reporting they have to mark the account as "in dispute".
Re: Re: Please Help... The FDCPA says they can't continue collections activity until they validate if they receive a request for validation within 30 days of providing notice. Reporting to CRA's is considered continued collection activity. Therefore, no they can't report. 0
Re: Re: Please Help... What you said here is basically true but also has the possibility of raising the spectre of contention as well as possible danger for the collector. Let us say that a collector gets a new account in from Dewey Cheatum & Howe. As a matter of SOP he immediately sends a UDF to the bureaus and calls the debtor and starts reading him the riot act. And since the CA is always right on top of things, never missing a trick as far as he knows his automated system prints out the first letter which he immediately fires off to the debtor. Real efficient this outfit. Smedley gets the call and answers the phone and gets the letter within 5 days but he is real busy watching TV, fishing and spending time down at the local bar so he waits and on the 25th day he spots that letter while rummaging around through all the empty beer cans and fishing lures and fires off a demand for validation CMRRR which arrives exactly on the 30th day from the date on the letter he got. That same day the CA fires off another UDF informing the CB to mark the listing as disputed. Did the CA violate the law? Seems to me that you would say he did.
Re: Re: Re: Please Help... This is where confusion enters. There is nothing in the FDCPA that says a ca can't report an acct the minute it is forwarded to them. So, if they immediately report, 2 weeks later they notify the debtor, and the debtor then sends a validation letter, nobody has done anything wrong. So, they can report it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... You're right in that scenario but the question was if they can report it after you've requested validation. 0
Re: Re: Re: Please Help... No I wouldn't. This is basically the same as what LKH just raised. The CA reported to the CRA's before receiving a request for validation. That the CA sends a UDF marking it in disputes is irrelevant to this and puts them in compliance with the FCRA. 0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... Actually, this was the question: The answer is - maybe yes, maybe no. It may have already been reported. If it hasn't been reported yet, then yes, by law, it should not be reported.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... Ok, suing the CA might be good for violations of the FDCPA, but since its the OC's screw up to begin with why not just sue the OC for all the headache they have caused? Couldn't the OC be held vicariously responsible for the actions of the CA in this scenario?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... It is possible to hold an oc responsible for violations committed by a ca that they have hired to do their collections. I believe that would fall under the Law of Agency?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... While there are scenarios where that cannot be enforced, basically that is true. For instance, Wachovia was the original creditor and was bought out by FUSA who sold or assigned it to Dewey Cheatum & Howe. Joe Sixpack demands validation of DC&H and instead of validating they hire a lawyer to sue Joe. Joe now demands validation of the lawyer. Joe and all the laws of agencies can't hold Wachovia responsible for what the rest of the monkeys in the circus did. Fusa can be but they aren't the original creditor although they essentially hired the other two unless they sold the debt to DC&H. Then they can't be held responsible either. And DC&H can't be held responsible under the law of agency because they hired the lawyer to represent them. So law of agency won't work all the time. And no, the above comedy of errors isn't something I just dreamed up. I was talking to a man from Texas this morning by phone and that is almost (but not quite) what had happened to him.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... This CA has not reported the Qwest bill yet. Im am already getting ready to meet with the attorney regarding the first issue- Electric bill left in my name for 6 months- The last letter I rec'd from CA- His attempt at validation- a print out of his account- which lists as 200.00+ for utility bill now showed a balance for 563.47 With a typed note that says "This only pertains to the PSE account- The Qwest account is currently being ordered to validate the debt" Please call our office if you have any Questions, as we did not have a phone number to reach you at. Thank You Kevin Gordon This was my first notification of another account- the letter was dated 1/28/03. Nothing mentioned about 30 days to dispute this debt. On 2-13-03- He sent letter- which I rec'd 2-22-03 With a copy of my last phone bill. Is this considered validation? Nothing on this letter regarding disputing this debt either. I have a lettedr I am preparing to send to QWEST and PSE
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... So, if I understand you correctly the attorney is trying to collect on two bils at the same time? Is he threatening to sue you? If so, I just wonder if he would get dumb enough to try to kill two birds with one stone? If so you could win that real quick. He can't sue for 2 debts on the same lawsuit. So if you pay him its going to go against your credit reports on both of them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... Er solutions is a Collection Agency- I am about to sue them for the handling of the first account (PSE) A few violations of the FDCPA & FCRA I just got wind od the second account that is two years old and i am looking to see if I still have my paperwork for two years ago.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... Well, I would try to find the paperwork as you are doing but either way I would demand validation of this debt as well and get them in even more violations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Help... I think that the CA feels by sending the copy of the phone bill - that they have validated the debt already. On the last two letters they have made reference to the Qwest account and there was no information on the letters regarding be able to dispute in 30 days...that is violation number one. Lets see what else they do. I went up against NCO-2 months ago, they were very easy compared to this one. I have sent Experian my second "procedure request letter" on this account and copies of all my letters to ER Solutions with CMRR Slips.
