Today I got two responses to my non-pp letters. 1) Terrible CA This will acknoledge receipt of your letter concerning the above account. Please be advised that our agency is no longer handling the above account (s) . Please remit all future correspondence to the above-mentioned client. Sincerely, We're stupid ~ Now, in my non-pp letters, I never referenced an account number, they had no entries on my report. That was the whole issue with non-pp. What to do now? Resend and reiterate. 2) Dumb CC Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding an inquiry showing on your credit report. If you feel this inquiry was fraudulently made by an individual trying to obtain credit in your name please, contact the fraud departments at the following credit bureaus. blah blah & blah ~ Can these people not read? I asked for "PROOF" of a permissible purpose. If you suggest to me that someone applied for credit, then show me a copy of it. Where do I go now?
Did the first CA provide an OC name and account number to indicate who they were collecting for when they pulled your report? If this was in fact your account, they may have had PP at the time they pulled.
Who knows anymore? I have never been contacted, and they list an OC on the letter, and reference an account number, but I don't know that they were the CA? I don't have any accounts on CR with that CA. I do have accounts with the OC as a collection account. That enables the OC to pull the record, not some company claiming to represent them, which if they did, I've never received a phone call, or letter. Never heard of them before.
If you had an account with that OC then they were acting as the CA for that client, most likely, on the day that the inquiry was pulled. With some CA's a pull is the first thing that they do, then they analyze the pull to decide whether you are worth persuing, if not they either send it back to the OC possibly marked "UNCOLLECTABLE", or if they purchased the account, "QUICK FLIP" it to the next company that buys accounts from them.
Darn Jam, I just wanted a quick 1K... And a deletion from the bureaus. Thought I could fight this one...
I know... I hate to rain on parades, especially when I am trying to find the best way to cash in on a money-filled cloud of my own...
My attorney told me to stop writing nasty letters citing different codes and such. He told me to tone it down, and be nice, saying thank you in each letter. He rained on my parade too. Since I've never heard from the little CA, I assume they have no PP. I never agreed with them to anything. What do they have to show that they had an agreement with OC? I could spout off a complaint to BBB and to FTC just to stir the pot... (c: NEW IDEA: I'm going to incorporate, and subscribe to the CRA's and then create false accounts for all the OC's and CA's and post heavy, huge delinquencies for them each over $500,000.00 180 day past due. When they ask me for Validation, I'll just note the file as "in dispute" and tell them to just pay their bill. When they respond and say it isn't our bill, I'll say tough, pay it anyway, like you tell your "debtors" I think it would be great for giggles, but I'll have to get some good E&O coverage. You like?
Re: Re: Responses to Non-PP Unfortunately, yes... They have a permissible purpose under Section 604(3)(A) from the second they are assigned, or purchase the account; UNTIL the second they receive a consumer demand for validation under Section 809 - Section 809(b) prohibits collection activity, so while the PP still exists, it is an FDCPA violation to do it; UNTIL after they have obtained and mailed the validation to the consumer; UNTIL the account is TRANSFERRED, SOLD or ASSIGNED to any other company.
Re: Re: Responses to Non-PP FABULOUS JOB NO GOOD. A classic example of a concept known in law as a "patently absurd conclusion". This concept is VERY important. Grasping this concept can save a lot of interpretive folly. One of the Cannon's of statutory interpretation is to avoid a "patently absurd conclusion", at all cost. Any conclusion which permits such a ridiculous result (as NoGoods example) is "patently absurd". A conclusion which conflicts with common sense, common law, or is in conflict with other sections within the same statute, is patently absurd. Any conclusion that runs counter to the public good is patently absurd. etc., etc.. If NoGoods adversary's interpretation were correct, what would stop her from starting her own Corp. and doing exactly what she describes? STOP! Think about it for a sec. If you lose your right to dispute after the first 30 days, what stops me from starting a company, billing YOU for $100,000, and waiting until AFTER the first 30 days before I tell you about your "new obligation"? Preposterous! Answer = NOTHING. Except maybe Fraud Statutes. If I can't dispute it does that mean I have to just "shut up & pay it"? The conclusion of some of these mentally ill CA's who say you lose your rights is therefor a conclusion which is Patently Absurd.
