OK, so I'm about ready to send out a letter to the collection attorney. My question is this: if I'm questioning the validity of the debt, why is it that they will answer all these questions (in effect, interrogatories) if, as I write the letter, I'm questioning the validity of the debt/that it's mine to pay? Wouldn't all those questions be answered later, once he confirms that I'm the right party? I can sincerely question the debt, because I don't even recognize the name of the supposed "original creditor" (MBNA) and the current account number assigned by CACV of Colorado (the entity which, I assume, purchased the debt off of MBNA. Could be that the original creditor later was bought-merged with MBNA, but I don't recognize the amount and don't recall any bills from MBNA (could be the card went by another name). Seems they could cut out a step if they would list the original account number ..... Sorry to ask what may seem a really dumb question. Thanks in advance.
I admit, I'm not comfortable sending out the letter from the sample letters. I use a different version (I think I found it here as well). 1.Tell me what this money that you say I owe is for. 2.Show me how you calculated what you say I owe. 3.Give me copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe. 4.Show me that you are bonded in my state, and give me any registration number. **a requirement in my state to collect is a bond*** 5.Stop contacting me about this or any other matter you have, except to provide me with proof that I owe what you say I owe. CACV is a bottom feeder. That debt they are alleging. It probably is something like what you are guessing, if it is even yours at all. Chances are they can't/won't violate. They also have a network of CA attorneys they hide behind. One is Curtis O. Barnes. What? and make it easy on the consumer LOL! Don't worry, your question isn't dumb.
The firm is P. Scott Lowery; specifically David Michael (who, according to Martindale (Hubbell), is around 72 years old -- perhaps it's the only work he can find). I just don't understand why anyone would disclose all the particulars the validation letter seeks if they aren't in fact sure it's mine (can't produce documentation). And the business about my having to answer them within 30 days of receipt of the letter -- how do you go about calculating the latest date by which you can safely send a reply? Do they really hop on suing you on the 31st day? (I know the summons would reach me, as they have my new address ... vs. the one from which I moved last June.)
Re: Re: ? re Validation I got an inkling in your first post, but now I'm pretty sure, I think your logic is backwards. (This was not meant to be an insult). If they aren't sure its yours? CA's work under the premise of guilty until proven innocent. They are sure its yours, and until you request validation, in which they have to go back to the original creditor (VERY 1ST ORIGINAL CREDITOR--not some assignee or purchasor), and ask for this proof, they are sure you are the right person. Thats why all those questions are asked. You want them to prove what they think is right, and you think is wrong. The 30 days - that is in the FDCPA. It should say "30 days from receipt", be smart and don't take too long as you don't want this on your report. You want to stop them in their tracks.
