I sent out a validation letter to a CA, who responded that they are unable to locate my name or address in their database (yea!) therefore need the creditor and claim number on the bottom of my letter to "stop our collection process." Do I send it to them or just hold tight for the 30 days?
Re: Re: Quick Q on validation reply Hey there LB! That's what I was thinking but then I also wondered how they're going to delete if they can't find it. Ok AND I feel a bit responsible for sending them the wrong reference number.
Re: Re: Quick Q on validation reply If they are maintaining adequite safeguards to ensure that they don't violate the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, then they would be able to locate the account based on only your name & address. If they don't stop the collections process, its a violation, because they should have an adequite procedure in place for when the consumers account can not be located automatically. How else are they supposed to work properly when the CRA report something like 99**** as an account number?
Meanwhile you've sent a dispute to the CRA, correct? When the CA can't locate your file to verify -- you have EUREKA (deleted TL).
Actually, I did it backwards. I sent the disputes to the CRA, but this account isn't on my CR yet so I went straight to validation with them. I'm assuming that if they can't validate THEN put it on my CR, I have them also. Right?
Remember, you sent, and they received a validation request for the account. The fact that they didn't maintain the adequite safeguards and procedures to find your account isn't your problem, it's theirs. So anything that they do to collect on this account including putting the trade line on your credit reports would be in violation of Section 809(b). In other words, if you sue them on the 809(b), they'll claim a bona fide error, you're arguement is to force that they provide proof that they have a procedure to match accounts manually, *IF* they can not be pulled up by the information provided. They'll have to produce their company's training manual including a complete procedure which is supposed to track down the account, and for some unknown reason, in your case, even following this complete procedure they were still unable to pull up your account. I think it was in the case quoted by BUTCH in the Critical Update thread (but I'm not 100% sure). The CA there tried to use the Bona Fide error defense, just because he claimed that he regularly studied the FDCPA, and it was rejected, because just studying the FDCPA, does not provide for procedures to prevent the violation. They actually have to prove to the judge/jury that their procedures should have worked, and for some miraculous unbeknown reason in your highly unusual case, it didn't; despite the procedure being in their training manual *AND* that the procedure was followed in its entirity.
Jam - thank you for the excellent instruction on this! It goes in my "credit repair 101" folder. Could I just borrow your brain?? <grin>
Believe me, you wouldn't want it... The only reason this stuff is in there, is that when a CA decided to try to sue me, I took the three weeks before the hearing to eat, drink, breathe, and sleep the FDCPA (I downloaded the entire section from the USCODE ( i think its http://uscode.house.gov ) web site in doc format, and studied it for all 3 weeks, doing little else.) I was so PEEVED when they didn't have the **** to actually show up at the hearing, and had already sold the account to another sucker. I should send all the CA's I've dealt with since the name of the CA 'attorney' that that they have to thank for me being a pain in their rump. Let them send them a nice 'Thank You' card...
LOL don't be too sure! I just finished reading a post of yours to me and I'm still trying to digest it. Ok, here I can relate. I had a school district once tell me "no" regarding a child's legal rights for an equal education as a disabled child and after inhaling ever law and case in existance, I had them for lunch.
ROFL This struck me as very funny. You can really turn a phrase! I'm the same way. I'm not sure whether it's addiction, dedication or being a Mother Bear when it comes to advocating (sometimes.) I admire your dedication!
