I recieved a letter from a CA last weekend. OK, nothing strange about that. It is a very disputed account that I have no intention of ever paying. The letter's Mini-Miranda reads: "This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for taht purpose." Then it goes on to give additional info for California residents, and licensing information for Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin and New York City - none of which I live in. Missing is the statement required by FDCPA 809: (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. FDCPA gives them five days after the initial letter to send me that information. They didn't. ITS time?
I guess that depends how much they want me to go away. They are trying to collect less than $100, so it should be real easy making their situation a "no-win" one.
THAT "notice" ONLY needs to be in the INITIAL communication with the consumer UNLESS IT WAS GIVEN ORALLY. ANY SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATION ONLY NEEDS TO INCLUDE THEY ARE A DEBT COLLECTOR. PERIOD These laws can be confusing. CONSUMER NEED TO READ EVERY PART OF IT and not pick and choose parts that seem to suport their claims. You forgot the START: "§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- " IF the debt was "long disputed" as indictate, chances are this WAS NOT the initial communication HAPPY TO SUE IS OK. SUE HAPPY IS NOT
And you can't read. Just read the bold part over and over until the difficult concept sinks in..... They have 5 days after the date of first communication to give me my mini-miranda... repeat that over and over..
Sorry, didn't bold the appropriate part. The original dispute was filed with the OC, then CA #1 now CA#2.
Hiding... Do you actually believe that an account could not have been in dispute with the alleged original creditor?
you should sue....doenst matter why..just sue Ive given up trying to help Take ONLY the parts of the law that benefit your situation. SUE SUE SUE ..let me know how it turns out.
You seem to be the only person who is so blinded by following the FDCPA/FCRA 'by the book' to the extreme of not listening to logic. Anyone else can grasp the concept that an account can be disputed BEFORE it goes to collections. But you are alone in thinking that the only way that an account can be disputed is via the FDCPA/FCRA, so if the account has been long disputed, it can't be within the 30 days since the CA's initial contact. Dispite what some CA's try to say when they report, the day that they get the account is NOT its OPEN date. An account can be in dispute long before the CA is even in the picture.
Re: Re: Should I sue? There is another consumer protection law that hiding 90 is over looking. 'It's the fair billing act.Under it you have rights that are complely independant of FDCPA/FCRA.
Re: Re: Re: Should I sue? Only if your dispute is sent so that the creditor receives within 60 days of the date of the initial billing that contained the error. Chances are if an acct is in collections the 60 days has long since passed.
