Get this. July 26 I get a call from a lawyer to call them. I call back and they say oops you should call this number instead. It turns out to be a CA over a gas bill. I call the CA and we agree I fax over a dispute/validation. On august 16th I get a call from the Ca's litigation department asking if I would like to settle on the account before they bring suit against me(during validation). I remind him of all this and he called after I sent TWO cease and desist letters and he said he never got them. Yah right. Even after I told him I sent the c/d letter he still tries to collect. I call a supervisor that day later on and he said he would make sure nobody called me and would handle it personally. He also assured me it would never go to a CRA. This morning it hits equifax and I lose 42 points. I call up and the first lady tells me the case is closed now. The second says it is open but under dispute. I am then told the first sup is on vacation but another would call back. I called just now and he tells me it is closed but it will remain on my credit report and they would just give it to another CA. I told him it does not work this way but he refuses to take it off. I told him it is illegal to put it on my credit report during validation and he says they sent it over in april(yes, 5 months ago) and it just musta hit. BULL@%^#. He says the account is not worth their time but he will leave it on as unpaid. I then ask him if his company put it under dispute and he tells me it is my responsibility to make sure it lists on the CRA that it is in dispute. WHAT? He then tells me if I push it they will go ahead with the validation. I told him ok, they have 2 full days and then I will file a lawsuit against then, the lawyer representing them, and the OC for fraud. STUPID STUPID PEOPLE
You're right. They are stupid and they should pay accordingly. I hope you're taping the convos, though.
I taped only the last conversation. It is hilarious. He even told me they left it on as punishment. IDIOT ALERT
I gave him until monday to remove. They actually have 2 more days to validate. When I told him I would sue if he did not remove the closed account he told me fine then, he would reopen it and call the company for validation. All he had to do was delete. He has until saturday to call them, get complete validation, and send it to me. I wish them lots of luck.
You're better than me. I would've filed when they told me they kept it on as punishment. And you've got in on TAPE? They's settle in a heart beat. Did you get the convo about him reopening it on tape as well? Or was it the same one?
Pic, Don't forget to include this mgr. in your suit. As of 96 you can sue a "person". That means the co. AND/OR the individual. Let me know if I can help you.
Yep I have him saying he would reopen it. Ohio is a one party consent state. I would file now but I want to make sure I can use the '30 days to validate' and it has been 28 days only. They may so we never got the 30 days and I never give anyone a way out.
"How to Put Audio Files on the Internet" "(And it can all be done for FREE! Well, real close to free...)" http://www.auburn.edu/truthseekers/audio/audiomake/audio.html Let me know if you need any help.
I'm in CA and I can tape without their knowledge as well. I have the compliance manager for Genesis Financial over a barrel due to some things she said in our conversation. She admitted that her company was wrong. So a week before court on the 6th I'm thinking about letting her know that I can PROVE what she said in a court of law, so she'd better remember what she said and not perjure herself.
I've always understood California to be a "dual consent" state. You may want to double check that. Someone posted a link once where you can quickly check the status of each state. Hopefully they'll post it again.
I just checked and you are correct. However, I find it to be a powerful tool. It's up to the judge if he wants to hear the conversation or not. California law states that it is against the law if the other party "has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded". But since they work for a collection agency, it could be expected that the phone calls that come in AND go out would be recorded, especially if they are speaking about settling a case in which they are being sued. I have been in contact with collection agencies lately that give you the "this is a collection agency and phone calls can be recorded" speech when the person at the front desk answers, when you are on hold and when the customer service person answers the phone.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ I called bud hibbs and I wonder if he will call back. These guys are so horrible I could barely type I was shaking with anger so bad.
It is a best practice to inform the other party that you are recording the conversation regardless of the rules in your particular state. They may be in a two party state etc.. I like to give the little speech at the beginning of the conversation if I know it is a CA; " this call may be recorded for training purposes, your continued communication confirms your acknowledgement and approval". That way you CYA'd yourself in your state and theirs. I have heard if you record another party in a one party state they can file charges against you in their jurisdication. Then if you ever visited you could get in trouble, if you got caught - a long shot, but possible.
The CA lives 45 minutes away from me so I know they live in a one party state. Actually, they also state at the start of their recording that this conversation may be recorded for quality purposes heh. The word quality and CA just does not go together.
The idiot today told me the 30 day validation doesn't apply to him and he can extend it if he feels like it- which he just did. filed complaint with: 1)BBB 2)FTC 3)Ohio attorney general 4)public utilities board Just sent out intent to sue. I have never seen anything like this. They just refuse to comply and they probably think I will back off like all the rest of the sheep that usually call them. Note to CA- I will not.
I had my contact in equifax fax them a letter asking about the account. I also called the law office that represents them. The guy over there told me the idiot CA I talked to was just doing that' talking. The head of the whole department is gone on vacation until monday and he told me to call him when he gets back.
I read something last night while I was going over laws for court Monday. I'll have to find it for you again. (I was tired, I should have saved it. Sorry.) You can sue the representative that you've been speaking to, not just the company. I'll look for it for you this weekend. Court is at 8:30 with Providian. I'll post after I get home.
