My wife entered into a contract with an exterminator service. There were issues with the fact that we were being billed for services that the company did not provide. We did try to address the issues with the OC but got nowhere. At any rate, since the bill wasn't paid, it went to collections per a letter dated May 12, 2008. The letter had the normal "you have the right to request validation within 30 days" verbiage. The CA is based in upstate New York, where I am also located. This morning I sent a certified letter to the CA requesting validation (the letter was based on the sample letters template in this forum). I want to see how the scum exterminating service recorded the visits they didn't make but billed us for on their records. When I came home from my out-of-town job yesterday, I saw another letter from the CA that I believe constitutes additional collection activity within 30 days. Here is what that letter said: Of course there are a couple of grammatical errors in their letter and they are quoted verbatim, but I digress. ;-) After all, if they have morons writing their forms who don't know how to proofread, they get what they deserve, but I digress again. After having read the letter quoted above, would it constitute a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, given that it appears to be additional collection activity prior to the initial 30-day period expiring? Or am I misinterpreting this? Just curious, as we do plan to dispute the charges once I get the validation. If this really is additional collection activity, I'd like to go after this pond-sucking CA. Thanks for your insights. John PS: I've tweaked the amount the CA is looking to collect in case one of its employees peruses these boards. EDIT: One other thing just jumped out at me - the CA stated "Since you failed to respond to our previous letter legally..." Now hold on one freaking moment; don't I have up to 30 days from the original date of the letter to request validation?? My response to them that was sent today is certainly a LEGAL response, because it was sent within the 30-day window allowed by the FDCPA. Thoughts about this?
If you've altered the dates, it's impossible for me to tell, but, if you have the green post-card from your request for validation and this was sent at least a day or two after it shows when they received it, you might have them on a continued collection violation (there's some wiggle room, of course, so it's not a rock-solid offense). But, to do anything about it, you'll have to initiate a civil action against them (i.e. sue them). Sending them a harsh or threatening letter just makes them giggle. To really rattle their cage, you'll need a lawyer. The most threatening part of an FDCPA suit isn't the $1000 fine, but the legal fees that can be awarded (I saw one suit where those amounted to more than $50K!) If you're just trying to chase them off, you could file a small-claims suit that they'll whine about but ultimately pay because the $1-2000 it takes to make those go away is hardly worth calling the lawyer for. Of course, they can also sue you for the debt, so keep that in mind when you plan your strategy. The obligation to pay the debt and the act of collecting the debt are two separate actions. Just remember, suing a collection agency is like wrestling with a pig. You both are going to get dirty, but the pig enjoys it. If you're not ready to enjoy getting dirty (i.e. doing all the homework for a lawsuit and standing up in front of the judge to explain all the legal details) get a lawyer or think of another strategy.
ccbob, Thanks for your reply. I didn't send my request for validation until today. I know that the CA should get my letter by Tuesday, 6/10. That would be within the 30-day clock started by their original letter, which is May 12. That particular letter was postmarked on 5/12/08. I'll be able to see online when the certified letter was signed for, since the US Postal Service will allow tracking of certified mail. I still think that their letter dated 6/2/08 is questionable because of the blurb "Since you failed to respond to our previous letter legally...". Since when does the CA dictate what the FDCPA states??
Sounds like no cause of action (yet). I wouldn't get too worked up over the verbiage you're quoting. That's just their way to rattle your cage and you'd have to really stretch to say it's abusive of overshadowing (And Judges don't like that, from the cases I've seen). Just keep track of the correspondence and keep an eye on your credit reports.
