The collection agency wants PROOF!

That's funny!

No, that isn't a valid response. If I were you, send out the second validation letter. There are samples on this website of it. Who knows? Depending on their response to the second letter, you may be able to get this CA on some FDCPA violations!

Good luck!

 

Let me show you something Joe;

• Here, without question is one of the most revealing interviews in history, on MANY fronts.
  
  Pay close attention to the "standard of proof" this former 60 minutes producer believes, in the deep dark crevasse of her pathetic mind, is appropriate for investigative journalism.
  
  
  Fired CBS News Producer UnrepentantJournalist at Center of Controversial Report on Bush's National Guard Duty Speaks Out
  
  Nov. 8, 2005 â?? In her first interview since being fired, former CBS News producer Mary Mapes maintains that her controversial "60 Minutes II" story on President Bush's National Guard service was "true" and that "no one has proved that the documents were not authentic."
  
  Mapes was fired after an independent panel found her basic reporting was "faulty."
  
  
  In her interview with ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross, to be broadcast Wednesday morning on "Good Morning America," Mapes says she is unrepentant about her role. "I don't think I committed bad journalism. I really don't," she says.
  
  Mapes is author of a newly published book about the controversy, "Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power" (St. Martin's Press).
  
  
  Mapes says she believes the panel's findings were used by CBS President Les Moonves as a pretext to remove Dan Rather as anchor of the "CBS Evening News."
  
  "Les Moonves viewed the news department as being kind of an uppity group of folks who thought they worked in news rather than television news," she told Ross. "And he wanted them to work in television."
  
  Mapes says Rather did not have "any obligation to resign" from his position, as CBS correspondent Mike Wallace recently suggested.
  
  Mapes says she is continuing to investigate the source of the controversial documents whose authenticity was seriously questioned by the CBS panel. She tells Ross that she had no journalistic obligation to prove the authenticity of the documents before including them in the "60 Minutes II" report. "I don't think that's the standard," she said.
  
  Mapes says one of her few regrets in handling the story was her phone call to a member of Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign staff prior to the broadcast. "I wish to God I hadn't done it, because I think it was so wildly misinterpreted." She says she made the call only as a way to gain favor with the source who provided her with the documents.
  
  Mapes rejects suggestions she had political motives. "I did not have it in for George Bush," she said.
  
  Mapes also criticizes other reporters for spending too much time on her story and other flawed journalism. "I think the media's had more fun beating itself up in the last five years than it has asking hard questions of the administration or government officials, and I think that's wrong," she said.
  
  Mapes tells Ross she feels in no way responsible for what happened at CBS News in the wake of her "60 Minutes II" report.
  
  "If you're talking about an investigation that basically gutted a news organization, and turned people one against another and made people afraid of each other, and really scooted the country's most experienced anchor out of his anchor chair, and now has the evening news casting about for some kind of format that will be zippy and new, I didn't do that. I had absolutely nothing to do with any of that," she said.
  
  Yet, in a statement, CBS News maintained that Mapes' actions damaged it as an organization. "Her disregard for journalistic standards â?? and for her colleagues â?? comes through loud and clear in her interviews and in the book that attempts to rewrite the history of this complex and sad affair," the statement said. It also pinpointed Mapes' notion that a news organization has no obligation "to authenticate such important source material" as only one of the "troubling and erroneous statements in her account."
  
  ABC News' David Scott contributed to this report.
  
  
  Butch: Let me get this straight; it's perfectly ok to report bogus news, using fake documents, 2 weeks before a national presidential election, and it's someone else's responsibility to prove the bogus report is bogus.

HOW DOES ONE EVEN BEGIN TO RESPOND TO THAT?

This massively liberal nitwit is precisely the kind of shear stupidity you find yourself up against.

Shifting the burden of proof may have worked beautifully in the past, it's not working anymore. That's why these people in the main stream media (MSM) are completely losing it.

The real problem is MSM has been in control for so long they've stupefied so many people, that CA's are using this tactic. Unfortunately I personally have no doubt it works, and they collect money "approximately" half the time.


At this point you may do pretty much anything you want. You have proof IN WRITING of a violation of 92(g).

Tell us what you wanna do.

: )

PS. This post is NOT about Dan Rather memo's. it's about burden of proof.

lol

 

APPROX. how much is this for btw.

???

 

Re: The collection agency wants PRO

Ok,


Here's how to perceive this;

Most CA's who collect do so on contract, for, at best, HALF, (50%) of what they collect. In other words this account is worth a whopping $265. They won't fight you very hard over a lousy 250 bux. (Of course JDB's are in it for somewhat more).

Also - there is NO REQUIREMENT in FDCPA to offer your adversary more than ONE chance to provide validation, so why do it?

 

Re: The collection agency wants PRO

So here's step #2:

• 
  This is critical --->
  
  FCRA:
  
  § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]
  
  (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.
  
  (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall
  
  (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
  
  (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];
  
  (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and
  
  (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.
  (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information.

There IS a deadline within which the DF MUST COMPLETE their investigation pursuant to FCRA. 30 days! NOT 31.

Only by following this investigation plan can the mandated investigation be deemed "reasonable".

If at the end of that investigation time limit, all the CA can produce is a silly letter asking YOU to prove your case, then it becomes CLEAR that proper validation will not occur. In these cases we then turn to the FTC's opinion on what should happen.

• For Release: August 24, 2000
  California Debt Collection Agency Settles FTC Charges Of Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
  
  Where PCM learns during an investigation that account records no longer exist for a disputed debt, the company must delete the information from credit bureau files within five days.

From day ONE, (when the CRA gets your dispute) count forward 36 days. That's 30 days for the dispute and 5 for deletion. (plus one extra for good measure). If it is discovered that "original documents" do not, no longer exist, and the item is still on your CR, It's time for a strong ITS.


Afterall their very own regulatory agency, to which all DF's are subscribers, the Consumer Data Industry Association, (CDIA) puts the FTC vs. PCM case RIGHT THERE ON THEIR OWN freakin WEBSITE, SO EVEN A MONKEY CAN UNDERSTAND IT. (assuming they can read).


CDIAonline.COM -> FTC Consent Decree related to Consumer Dispute Responses


Complaince Announcement from CDIA:

• The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) governs credit reporting agencies, also known as credit bureaus, as well as credit grantors and data furnishers. If you dispute the accuracy of any piece of information in a credit report, you can dispute that information directly with a credit reporting agency. Once a dispute is received by a credit reporting agency, the credit reporting agency and the data furnisher must follow certain procedures to reinvestigate that dispute in a set period of time.

...

 

Re: The collection agency wants PRO

So here's the process I've followed to kill more TL's than I can count;

I get my adversary on the phone and have them walk through a simple exercise; take them to the CDIAONLINE.com site and click forward to the FTC v. PCM case, and then read to them, SLOWLY, the pertinent section;

Namely:

• Where PCM learns during an investigation that account records no longer exist for a disputed debt, the company must delete the information from credit bureau files within five days.

So - you have exactly 5 days to order a deletion, AND COPY ME ON IT, or I'll sue your a$$ into the next millennium.

Any question?

: )

(PS. ... and yes ... I have a tendency to say it just like that. ... but that's me).

.

 

Re: The collection agency wants PRO

.

Now - you guys over here are giving your adversaries entirely too much leeway by your desire to resolve your issue without too much fanfare. Unfortunately, it's the "fanfare" that gets the results.

NEVER give them more than ONE chance to comply.

Remember what Sun Tsu said in the "Art of War"

• "The best way to avoid war is to not be afraid of it".

 

Re: The collection agency wants PRO

Butch, I am confused...

does the letter you send go to the CA or the CRA, as you state in your above post "when the CRA gets your dispute", yet the origianl poster sent his letter to a CA...

whenver I have disputed with a CRA, I usually just get a "this has been verified" response, so do I need to start asking for a name, addy, and all information used to verify info statement into all my letters?

 

Re: Re: The collection agency wants PRO

That's an excellent question. Good catch.


Before we have a legal argument with a DF (Data Furnisher) we MUST dispute with the CRA's, whom, in turn, forward your dispute, along with all information you provide, to the DF, who then performs a "reasonable" investigation.

Step out of line with this carefully prescribed process and you'll lose your argument.

The responsibility to perform a "reasonable" investigation is in FCRA 623, NOT FDCPA.


Joe finds himself in a slightly different situation. He has proof in his hot little hands of a violation of FDCPA 92(g), which stands on it's own at this point. FDCPA is a strict liability statute.

Studying statutes and case law is a little tricky at first, but it'll all "pop" into place one day, soon.

Just study hard.

: )

 

Re: Re: The collection agency wants PRO

It looks like they are covering their a$$e$.

Their first reply letter clearly was not validation, and you called their bluff.

Their second is not the complete validation you requested, is not validation at all if it did not come from the OC, and may be nothing more than the OC and amount from their records, but they may be assuming you don't know that.

If it was not actually validation obtained from the OC, and your request was sent within 30 days of the initial communication, it may also be continued collection without validation.

How much are they bluffing? Does the OC say they no longer have the records, or are there other discrepancies between the OC's records of the debt, and this CA's claimed debt? What do you know about this debt, and how old is it?

In other words, what is their motive to bluff?

 

Re: The collection agency wants

Is this Associates the Associates National Bank whose accounts were bought by Citibank?

How long has it been from the last payment, and from the date of first delinquency?

 

Re: Re: The collection agency wants

Have you tried looking on your credit report, in the section which tells you the addresses of those who are reporting information to your file?