I have been dealing with a CA for the past 3 months. Did all the usual routines, etc. They never validated properly, asked again, never heard from them, sent estoppel, sent EQ a procedural request since of course they validated. Anyway, EQ sent me my updated report now showing this account as Paid. I then sent off an ITS to the CA. I then recieved a letter from their legal dept. They state they never changed it to paid. They state they have followed the FDCPA, FCRA, and here is a real kicker. They mentioned Florida Statute 836.05 about my ITS letter. What is this all about? Is this just more BS? Here is a link. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/in...y_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0836/Sec05.HTM This means that EQ must have marked the account the paid, based on my procedural request. Can they do that? Any suggestions at this point would be greatly appreciated.
That is a no no. Specially about the part mentioning the extortion laws. Per the FDCPA 1692e paragraph 7: (7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer. In addition, if the letter from the legal dept didn't have a mini miranda notice you got them on that too. Time to put foot to ass and sue the CA.
Re: Sent ITS to CA, they sent back Mini Miranda is the little paragraph that all the letters from a CA have to BY LAW contain. It goes something like this "This is an attempt to collect a debt. If you wish to dispute the debt yada yada yada. Basically a collection agency MUST in any and all coorespondences to you inform you that the letter is an attempt to collect a debt, and that they are a collection agency collecting a debt. Look at any of your old coorespondences from a CA (especially the first contact ones) and you will see what the Mini Miranda is. ChrisB
The Florida Citation refers to CRIMINAL ACTS, yours is a CIVIL case In addition, you did not act with malice of forethought, you are just trying to exercise your rights under the FDCPA, and FCRA
Thats what I thought about the Florida Statute. So, is this a definite violation as dixidriftr stated? As for the mini maranda, in their first reply to me when I requested validation, they did have this, however on the two letters they sent afterwards, including this latest one, their is no mention of it. Does it need to be on every correspondence? Thanks.
Seems to me, that initial WRITTEN communication is the only one that needs to carry the full mini-miranda, and not subsequent letters. Subsequent letters must simply convey that the communication is from a debt collector. I'm not a legal beagle, so someone else chip in ...
