Second Validation Letter?

No demand for payment? And you have never received a demand for payment from them?

That is not even the point. The point is that they did not send it to you as a result of any contact with you nor did you send your demand for validation as a result of any contact with them. You initiated the contact, not them. Therefore I believe that you have reasonable grounds upon which to ignore what they sent you since it carried no demand for payment or action on your part.

That is more or less the "theory of operation" however if you went to court with that viewpoint I am afraid the judge would rule in their favor saying they did send you validation and the argument they didn't validate would be seen as nitpicking and thrown out of court. Getting back to the "theory" sending a second demand for validation would not be appropriate for the above mentioned practical reasons.

I believe that you should wait the 30 days for your demanded validation to be answered and then send a simple denial of their allegations worked into the first part of estoppel. First a statement that you demanded validation and did not receive it followed by statement that refutes their allegations in the "validation" they sent you without acknowledgeing that you received anything at all from them. Don't admit it. Don't mention it, only refute what was said in it. Then let the estoppel continue without real change.

That will make it a bit longer but no biggie. Simply state "I did not live at 1234 Shady Tree Lane" or "I have never had an account with Dewey Cheatum and Howe" or whatever.

But never mention the "validation they sent you." Let them figure out how you know what the debt is about.

Don't worry about that. They accused you so it is up to you to refute. Don't worry about proving your refutation yet.

Forget demanding a second time what you did not want in the first place.

Don't argue just refute.

That does not prove that you did not also have one with them at the same time. You have to state that you never had one with them.

 

Re: estoppel letter

«Your Name»
«Address1»
«Address2»
«City», «State» «Zip»

«Company»
«Address1»
«Address2»
«City», «State» «Zip»

«Date»

RE: Dispute Letter of <insert date>

Dear Sir/Madame:

As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date>, and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists.

In a good faith effort to resolve this matter amicably, I restate my demand for proof of the debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, as well as proof of your authority in this matter. Absent such proof, you must terminate this collection action and correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine.

For the record, I state again that as I have no account with you, nor am I your customer, nor have I entered into a contract with you, I must ask for the following information:



Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 (e) and 15 USC 1692 (f) in this alleged matter.

What is your authorization of law for your collection of information?

What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?

Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in the state of Florida.

Please evidence proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature.


You have fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice to respond. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, will work as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and will entitle me to presume that you sent your letter(s) in error, and that this matter is permanently closed.

Your continued silence is unacceptable. Either provide the proof or correct the record to remove the invalid debt from my credit files with the three primary credit-reporting agencies. You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Failure to respond within 15 days of receipt of this registered letter will result in a small claims action against your company. I will be seeking $5,000 in damages for the following:



Defamation

Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud

Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act


After obtaining the judgment against your company, I will obtain a Writ of Execution from the Sheriffâ??s office in your county and I will begin the process of attaching property or funds to satisfy the judgment.

For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should any further action be necessary. This is a request for information only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.

I affirm under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the Land for the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Sincerely,


«Your Name» Typed Don't sign.


The END ************************* LB 59

 

Re: estoppel letter

Let us make a couple of changes that I think will improve that a bit and then you add your own at the top as I suggested earlier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
«Your Name»
«Address1»
«Address2»
«City», «State» «Zip»

«Company»
«Address1»
«Address2»
«City», «State» «Zip»

«Date»

RE: Dispute Letter of <insert date>

Dear Sir/Madame:

As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date>, and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists.

In a good faith effort to resolve this matter amicably, I restate my demand for proof of the debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, as well as proof of your authority in this matter. Absent such proof, you must terminate this collection action and correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine.

For the record, I state again that as I have no account with you, nor am I your customer, nor have I entered into a contract with you, I must ask for the following information:

You have fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice to respond. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, will work as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and will entitle me to presume that you sent your letter(s) in error, and that this matter is permanently closed.

Your continued silence is unacceptable. Either provide the proof or correct the record to remove the invalid debt from my credit files with the three primary credit-reporting agencies. You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Failure to respond within 15 days of receipt of this registered letter will result in a small claims action against your company. I will be seeking damages for the following:

Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud

Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act


After obtaining the judgment against your company, I will obtain a Writ of Execution from the Sheriffâ??s office in your county and I will begin the process of attaching property or funds to satisfy the judgment.

For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should any further action be necessary. This is a request for information only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.


Sincerely,


«Your Name»

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
So in your case even this shortened version is going to need some addition and revision to make it fit your specific situation which will make it even longer than it currently is. You should write up whatever your denial is keeping it to as few words as possible and insert it wherever it seems to fit best, usually right in the first or second paragraph.

Most all letters you will ever get need at least some minor changes and you just have to do the best you can. After all, they are all considered to be more or less form letters and will need review and revision to make them fit your particular situation.




So

 

Re: estoppel letter

I'm not sure I understand your question correctly. But I would not advise getting any wild ideas about get rich quick court trips just yet which the tone of your message makes it seem that you may be.

Defamation is one of the hardest cases to prove according to what any lawyer I've ever talked to has told me. Sometimes the rich and famous will file one of those cases and quite often lose it so if they aren't all that successful at it what chance does the little man have?

As I understand it the theory is that because they have come up with false information pinning something on you that isn't yours they may also have released that information to someone else and that someone else might do something to you as a result of having your personal information. The term has been bantied about here in the past quite a bit and there have been a few cases actually filed in the courts but in general its a concept that only a very few lawyers understand well enough to file suit on it. The legal profession itself isn't all that well solidified on it as of yet. They still seem to be testing the waters so to speak as far as I know. I've seen a couple of attorney internet discussions on it and that seemed to be the consensus of their opinions and that's really all I know about it. But who cares about all of that. If it scares the P out of them and they get scared and run then the bluff worked. That's all that really counts.

Well, that is palpable damages, isn't it?

You best forget damages and estoppel letters. The estoppel letter is little more than a practical joke.

Any good law library. You aren't likely to find it on the internet. Its an old Western District of Missouri case dealing with a 25 foot wide strip of private roadway. Has nothing in the world to do with debt collection. I found it quite interesting but only because of it's useage in this context. Its about like some of the biblical jokes. Noah looked out of the arkansaw so Arkansaw is the only American state mentioned in the bible. Or St. Peter was the smallest man in the bible because he slept on his watch. He had to be pretty small to do that, now didn't he?

That don't mean it don't have practical uses and it sure don't mean it don't work because it has a very practical use which I won't discuss and it does work and often times works quite well.

The estoppel letter is much like bluffing in a poker game. It wins the pot lots of times and some times it don't.

 

Re: estoppel letter

I did and I have been posting messages about the estoppel letter and it's validity for a long time now. There have been a lot of discussions on this and other message boards for the last year or so talking about the estoppel letter.

This is the first message board that I know of where it was introduced as being the hottest thing since barbeque bricketts.

Its not my scam and I have been the one to be so vocal about telling people the truth about it.

So don't accuse me of giving out false information or worthless advice. It came from here and here is where the worthless advice came from, not me.

Its not my worthless advice, it is the worthless advice posted here on creditnet long, long ago.

I was the one who tried to point out that it was worthless and I am the one that got ostracized for telling people the truth about it.

And now you want to lay another load on me for telling you the truth about it? Get real.

And I am also the one that said that even though it has no basis in legal fact and is pure fraud and fiction it does work sometimes. Much more than one would imagine after being told the truth about it.

And I am the one that said that even though we know what it is, if it works enough of the time to be useful then use it if you want to.

I'm just about fed up to the eyeballs with people who slam me for telling the truth and being able to prove it.

You have been flimflammed by the experts who are the collection agencies and you cry about worthless information?

You get flimflammed by the experts who are the credit bureaus and then you cry about worthless information?

Here is your statement:

Is that not false and worthless information? Their statement that you owe the money for a debt you claim you don't owe? What did they send you but false and worthless information? And that worthless false and worthless information scared you half out of your wits.

So if they can send you false and worthless information for the sole purpose of bilking you out of money then what is so wrong with giving them a dose of their own medicine?

If you had fallen for their scam you would have paid out good money because of it.

You got something that you can fire back at them for free and I explained to you that the letter posted by and recommended to you by lbbrown59 (not me) was nothing but a scam and because I told you the truth about the letter that LBbrown59 drug up here and posted for you to grab onto and use is nothing but bunk you want to jump me for giving you worthless information?

Ididn't post the so called worthless information up here, LBbrown59 did that, not I. I just told you the truth about it. You want to jump somebody about posting worthless information then you jump LBbrown about it, not me. And where did LBbrown get his worthless information? LBbrown got his worthless information from right here on creditnet. That's where he got it, not off of me nor off of any of my websites nor from my message board.

So quit bum-rapping me!
Pal, I think you owe me an apology big time.

 

Re: estoppel letter

OK. I just did. And I can see where this whole thing got or is getting out of hand.

True enough. But you were going to send them a second validation letter which in my opinion is absolutely one of the worst things you can do. You needed something totally different than demanding validation a second time. You needed some way to refute what they claim to be true but which you say isn't. A second demand for validation isn't going to get that done. It isn't going to refute anything. What they are doing is to hope they can catch you off guard and make you pay. It usually works for them. Scare the daylights out of people and make them pay up and if they don't owe the debt in the first place maybe they can scare people bad enough to make them pay up just to make the hounding go away. You probably would not believe the number of times people have paid up even though they didn't owe the bill at all. In fact the practice was/is so prevalent that it was one of the prime reasons FDCPA was put in place to start off with. To stop such abusive practices if at all possible. It says just exactly that right in the act if I remember correctly.

The estoppel letter correctly reworded so as to refute their charges against you stands a good chance of doing the same thing to them they tried to do to you. Flimflammery though it may be, it has been proven time and time again by people right here on creditnet to work. Many people have posted their success with it.

My point is that if it works then use it, but just be well informed of it's weaknesses and possible pitfalls so the person using it will have some idea of why it didn't work in those instances where it don't work. My thinking is that since they use scare tactics on us then we need some scare tactics to throw back at them. That is the whole point behind useing the estoppel. Use it but know it's weaknesses and it's possible pitfalls before you use it. The worst that can happen from using it is that they just ignore you. My experience is that they ignore the sender about half of the time. In your case you would also be denying their allegations and throwing the burden of proof back on them on top of whatever scare value the estoppel letter might accidently have on them. I don't think that is bad.

At your request.

That's because it's been posted so many times one gets to assuming that people do their homework and have at least a pretty fair idea of some of the stuff that has been posted here in the past. People who have been around here naturally assume that most of the stuff that is here should be pretty well common knowledge but to the newcomers it isn't common knowledge at all. And that's my advantage because I pick up all the good ideas and strategies and package them along with instructions on how to use them and I research the laws to see to it that they have validity and if they don't but still work then I start looking for the reasoning behind their use. What I end up with is a compendium of the knowledge and experience of the best minds on this and many other boards and message forums.

Over time I get a pretty good feel for the good, the bad and the ugly and I can present it in a form that is easily understandable. Doing that takes more time and more work and more effort than most folks ever put into their efforts to begin with.

I not only keep up with boards such as creditnet but many others like it as well. And I keep up with message boards that are populated with bill collectors, attoneys, auto repo specialists and others in the industry. That way I get a perspective almost nobody else does.

That's pretty much the way message boards work. Conversations start on one thread and before long it has usually strayed all over the place. In many cases one has to go back over and review the important points and sort it all out in their minds. The conversation gets heated at times and we forget to do that in our haste to answer the posts. Regrettable at times but life's like that sometimes.

That is correct

As I said, after things have been discussed over and over and over again the older posters get the idea that some things just about ought to be common knowledge after a while and don't need to be discussed yet again. Obviously I must have subconsciously imagined that such was the case here.

Obviously not.

Probably not. Seems to me that I do owe LBbrown59 an apology here if anybody needs an apology. Please accept.

Be that as it may, let's get on with your problem.

Mabe I can state the case a bit better.

Estoppel has many faults but it does work quite often, it's faults not withstanding.
In your case it is my opinon that even though it does have it's faults it would still be a whole lot better than sending another demand for validation but you need to add your refutation of their allegations right at the top, first pop out of the box. And I think that if you just make up a letter which only refutes their arguments it is likely to end up just getting rejected or ignored and you end up getting even more embroiled in more argument whereas the estoppel may just give them something else to think about.

Derail their train of thought if at all possible and I don't know of any better way to do that.

 

Re: Re: estoppel letter

Probably not. Seems to me that I do owe LBbrown59 an apology here if anybody needs an apology. Please accept.
==============================
No problem bill



The END ************************* LB 59

 

Re: Re: estoppel letter

1*Just because they have a statement from the original creditor, that has the same name as mine, doesn't validate that the debt is mine, does it?
2*I need a sample letter for a second validation to the CA so I can respond after the 30 days of the first validation request.
3*Something along the lines that the information they sent me does not validate the debt
4* and again demanding that they send validation.
5*I've looked over the sample letters, but didn't see one that fit my circumstances.
ikya
===============
1*Sure it does: If your name is Sally Sue and the statement has Sally Sue on it every Sally Sue in the country owes them the debt. Now what do you think??
2*Why do you need another Val.L. for them to ignore. How many validation letters do you plan on sending with the same result?
3*What will it get you by telling them what they all ready know?
4*They didn't have it the first time so where are they gonna get it the second time.
5*Sure they do: You're not unique.
=================================
Folks start the validation trip in the wrong train on the wrong tracks heading south to nowwhere.
To reach your destination you must be on the right train following the right tracks head north to resolution.


The END ************************* LB 59