I am trying to help my neighbor with a collection letter he recieved. I can't help but laugh...it was addressed to his first initial only "D". So he called and Allied tried to get all his personal info which he refused. When he called he said this is "david" so now they have his first name. I gave him the info and had him send the validation letter to Allied. In response,Alegis Group aka Sherman Acquisitions sent a letter stating "The court case of xxx VS. xxx and the case number states this is sufficient for account verification"..... "verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confiming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt" Attached was an affidavit of debt: (byer) it gave the amounts due and when Sherman Acquistions bought it from OSI. Signed by an Attorney in fact. So, The names of the court case are in no way related to him in anyway. They did not bother to give the name of the county or state where this supposed court case took place. Most all cases are online now and matter of public record. I find it funny that all they have is this mans first initial and address...and POOF...he owes 1127.71 I understand his fear in releasing personal info to allied such as his SS#.... K...Credit Guru's what would be my next step to help this man out? He is a good and decent person...never had any credit problems in his life. It's almost like they got his name&addy off a mailer somewhere....they don't even know his last name. Thanks so much, I hate to see wrong things happen to good people. Abby
Chaudry is a case cited by CA's, JDB's, and ACA to attempt to claim that all they have to do is barf back the basic info which they claim and say that it is verified. Unfortunately Chaudry has nothing to do with 99% of debt validation circumstances. In Chaudry, what was being demanded of the CA were information which would be (a) covered by attorney-client privelege, and (b) an amount which could not yet be determined because it had not yet incurred. Obviously the court for logical reasons ruled that neither of the above was a compoent of validation, but the CA's and JDB's spearheaded by ACA cling to that less than one paragraph component in the ruling.
Have him file a complaint with your state's AG, to start a paper trail, as well as making more visible Sherman's Chaudry letter. Someone there might get a laugh about a CA trying to collect from people named "D", while claiming no obligation to substantiate their claim in any way. Especially after there were complaints against Camco for trying to collect from non-debtors based only on their similar names. They might want to establish a precedent where the CA's case is very weak.
