I just got a letter today from a new CA. This is for an alledged Pacific Bell debt that was listing quite a few months ago under RMA. I sent two validation letters, disputed, never heard from them and it dropped off my reports. The company now mailing me is American Agencies in Torrance, CA. I actually mailed them a Validation letter yesterday inquiring as to their new TL on my report. I have heard you all discuss mini-miranda's and such. I am wondering what a collection agency legally has to communicate on their first letter to you, or any letter attempting to collect the debt. This is actually just a payment stub basically. It says: Our records show the above balance as correct. If you disagree, call our office at once. If you agree with the balance, remit the balance-in-full at once. Enclosed please find a self addressed enveloped for your remittance. Creditor: Pacific Bell Date of Notice: 10-22-03 Principal: XXX.05 Interest: XXX.95 Amount: XXX.00 Then there is a ton of preprinted stuff about who to make the check to and that they report to National Credit Reporting Bureaus. On the back is Civil Code in big red letters. It doesn't say California or anything but says Civil Code Article 3. Debtor Responsibilities. 1788.20. In connection with any request or application for credit; inability or lack of inention to pay oblication; falsit of or concelament of information. (a) Request or apply for such credit at a time when such person knows there is no reasonable probability of such person's being able, or such person then lacks the intention, to pay the obligation created thereby in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit extension; or (b) Knowingly submit false or inaccurate information or willfully conceal adverse information bearing upon such person's credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity. And lastly printed on the back is Avoid Possible Higher Credit Costs, Denial of Credit, Continued Collection Activity and new or further inquiries and analysis of you personal consumer credit report information. Is this letter legally okay to send me as a first communication before they got my validation request? And now that I know they are trying to collect on a debt that RMA failed to Validate, what should my next step be, since the Validation went out to them yesterday? Thanks Again!
If the letter does not state something similar to the text within this section of the FDCPA, then it is not legal, however, they do have up to 5 days to send the 809 notice if they should choose to send the 809 notice as a separate letter... http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 Also, the letter needs to say something similar to "This communication is from a debt collector, any information obtained will be used for that purpose." See Section 807(11)
Thanks. That was exactly what I was looking for! I appreciate the various replies you have given to my posts! Now that I know their communication with me is already not right, is this something I can eventually use to help to get this matter resolved?
If the 809 notice wasn't included, thats a sueable violation, $1,000 right there... Be on the look out for the mail in the next 5 days, (allow a week to be safe) to make sure that they don't send the 809 notice under separate cover.
Do companies normally send it out under seperate cover? That seems like a waste of postage from companies that are notoriously cheap anyway.
That letter is way out of compliance Chick. Yep, keep your eyes out for another letter in a few days.
Bumping!! Butch, Can you catch this one again for me? On the 23rd of Oct I sent them a validation request, on the 31st they confirmed reciept of such by return letter, Today (4th of Dec) they answered my TU dispute with "consumer disputes" notation. I still haven't recieved any validation. Via phone today, before I could hang up, they said they are mailing me a fraud affadavit. And I never got the 809. I can do the estoppel but what would be the biggest bang to get this TL gone quickly? Someone here said the FTC in San Francisco (near me) is investigating them... I am going to call their office tomorrow and see if I can get anywhere on a contact to e-mail or Fax. I am afraid a general letter will get "lost".
Sorry Chick, I didn't see your 11/08 post. Let me catch up. Yeah that's calif. code. BTW have you ever seen that code section before? .
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/08/performance.htm For Release: August 24, 2000 California Debt Collection Agency Settles FTC Charges Of Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations The Federal Trade Commission today announced a proposed settlement with a California-based debt collection agency, Performance Capital Management, Inc. (PCM), under which the company would be fined $2 million and enjoined from what the FTC called "serious violations" of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the terms of the proposed settlement, payment of the fine would be waived due to the company's poor financial condition. The FCRA regulates the collection and dissemination of sensitive information about consumers by credit bureaus and other types of consumer reporting agencies. Section 623 was added by Congress in the 1996 amendments to increase the accuracy of consumer reports by imposing specific duties upon any entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency. The settlement announced today is the Commission's first enforcement action under Section 623. PCM is a California corporation with headquarters in Irvine, California. It specializes in buying and collecting consumer debt that has been charged-off by the original creditor as uncollectible. PCM is currently in bankruptcy, and the Commission has waived the $2 million civil penalty based upon the financial condition of the company. In its complaint against PCM, the Commission alleges that PCM violated a number of requirements imposed by Section 623. First, the complaint alleges that PCM provided credit bureaus with inaccurate "delinquency dates" for its accounts. Section 623 defines the delinquency date for an account as the month and year that an account first became delinquent. This date is important because it is used by credit bureaus to measure the seven-year period that negative credit information may be reported under the FCRA. According to the Commission, PCM systematically reported accounts with delinquency dates that were more recent than the actual date of delinquency, resulting in negative information remaining on consumers' credit reports long beyond the seven-year period mandated by the FCRA. The Commission's complaint also alleges that PCM violated Section 623 by ignoring or failing to investigate consumer disputes referred by credit bureaus, and by failing to notify credit bureaus when consumers disputed collection accounts with PCM. The proposed settlement would require PCM to provide correct delinquency dates when reporting collection accounts to credit bureaus. The agreement also mandates the proper investigation of disputes. Where PCM learns during an investigation that account records no longer exist for a disputed debt, the company must delete the information from credit bureau files within five days. Finally, the agreement would require PCM to report as "disputed" all accounts where consumers have disputed the information with PCM. The Commission vote to file the complaint and proposed settlement was 5-0. The proposed settlement will be presented to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, which is overseeing PCM's bankruptcy. If approved, the agreement will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Butch, How is PCM "related" to AA? Is PCM operating? Their phone number is disconnected and I saw the bankruptcy info in that FTC press release... I tried to Google to find their relationship and couldn't. And I see their RAs are different. So I am just wondering... Thanks sooooo much... I'll tell Santa you have been good!
PCM and AA may not be related businesses, however, the settlement outlines what FTC considers the proper way to handle consumer disputes and investigations, imposed on a CA who clearly was blatantly crossing the lines. The requirements do not appear to be any more stringent than what the law requires, however by placing specific requirements based on the law in what will become a court order, the FTC intent appears to be to force PCM to both comply and clean up the mess they have created, so that a simple clear violation of what is in the court order can result in accelerated action by an administrative proceeding. Since waiver of the fine is a component to the agreement, violation of the agreement would appear to reopen the issue of the fine, should FTC find it necessary.
Good analysis Ontrack. But I believe it's more of a statement by the FTC on how they expect ALL CA's to operate throughout the whole country. Not just fixing the PCM mess. Also imporatnt is that it was unanimous. Great point tho. Both the fact that they are CA's and both in CA., is why I thought the PCM case valuable Chick. Not because they're related. PCM is defunct anyway, I think. .
Okay... sorry I missed the "connection". I was thinking there was more to it that I missed. Since this is now showing on my reports as a June 03 collection and they can't seem to validate, I want it off. How can I sign the fraud statement when I have nothing in writing besides the fact I owe a certain company $XXX? There is no documentation. They haven't provided a thing to me. That speaks for itself.
