I sent a validation request to Unique National Collections. They responded with a computer printout of a patron record with my name address and telephone number as well as a billing statement of books I supposedly owe the library. Is this considered validation? They also enclosed a letter from the library stating that the books were not on their shelves. Note: Unique National Collections is not reporting this account as "in dispute" on my credit report. Also the letter they sent me in response to my validation request says on the very top: This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Isn't this collection activity? And isn't collection activity illegal during the process of validation? Would this make two violations? Please advise as I will probably take this one to small claims court.
Do you guys think I should go straight to the lawsuit and send an intent to sue letter or should I try another attempt at validation first. Opinions please...
You and I are on the same page with this one, R. They probably got our validation letters the same day! Who signed yours? I haven't gotten mine back yet, but I know they are got some sort of validation back from the library, because I called the library to see who I would need to talk to to iron this out with in case I couldn't work it out with U. I know that most CA have a signed something with the CR to say that the CR can't work it out, but I think with libraries it *might* be different. It looks like they tried to fudge the date on the green card as well by making it indecipherable. And they didn't placed a disputed comment on mine, either.
DanceRat: The person that signed my letter was Kenes C. Bowling, Director of Customer service. I would not suggest trying to work it out with the library. I tried and got the run around. I will not tolerate this crap from them. I am keeping a resord of their violations and I plan to sue for everyone of them. I think I have (2) so far so that's $2,000.00. I think I may be able to settle with them for $1000.00 and a deletion. If they want to go to court over this I am willing and the law is clear $1000. per violation so I can't see how they can get out of that. Any how I'm not certain what my next step should be. Should I go straight for the intent to sue letter or should I give them another shot at validation and why? I hope someone on the board can shed some light on this for me.
My plan is to challenge the validation if I don't have a signature citing the Wollman letter, and racking up a violation by citing the Cass letter. I am sure that if they didn't place yours in dispute, they probably didn't place mine in dispute either, but I want to nail this down in small claims. So... I will make sure that the date of the credit report I have is postmarked for one week after they signed the green card. I would think any judge would say oh, yeah, they had time. I am not sure if there is a time specified they HAVE to report it disputed by, but I would think 7 days would be a good number to have. When I challenge the validation I will notify them that they just racked up a violation, and re-ask them for correct documentation which I am permitted by the FDCPA. If they refuse to give me that information, and still continue to post the item on a credit report, that is a violation, I believe. Someone correct me here. I really just want to get them in a position where they will hand my account back off to the library and then I will take care of it with them.
I too will challenge the validation. However, I will not notify them of their violation until after I get a response from my challenge letter. Then I will notify them of their violations in my intent to sue letter. It is their responsibility to know the law and I have no obligation to point it out to them until I am good and ready. I also am printing copies of my credit report every day for the next week as supporting evidence that it is not being reported "in dispute". The online credit reports are dated and I also have a credit report postmarked March 8 that was sent from TransUnion with no notation. I have already got them on this violation so I am not worrid about this aspect. I do want to know if the letter with "this is an attempt to collect a debt" emblazoned on the top will also meet the requirement for collection activity in court. If so this is violation number 2.
The board seems to be really slow btw. My signature says K Spainlour(sp?) I tried talking to U and they wouldn't budge on anything. Even marked paid as agreed. The library, well, I don't know, I called and talked to a circulation clerk who was really really nice. She was pretty understanding when I said hey, 7 years for two missing books when I didn't even KNOW about it? I personally think a judge would be understanding as well. But I am definitely doing a second val, giving them lots of opportunity to hang themselves. You have to understand. They *can* collect on a debt. This is something I have recently learned. It's not that they can't collect, validation notices aren't made to be where they have to prove there is a contract between them and you, they have to prove their was an agreement between the library and you, AND they have to prove there is an agreement between them and the library and they have to show it as in dispute while they do this, and what we are really doing is going on a big fishing expedition hoping they will violate and then using the violations as leverage. You get that, right? I am not sure one could just storm into small claims court armed with one letter of validation. There has to be a real paper trail of notices and violations. That is my perception anyway.
Well. Since both of us are handling this at once I had better rethink my idea of letting them know about their violation in my second letter, (which I am already composing now that I know what you got). You are right. They should know the law and to have them get up in front of a judge, and state they didn't know the law would be tantamount to saying "take away my collection agency license"... So I will not clue them in. Just re-write them stating the Wollman letter. In my intent to sue, I suppose I would have to cite the Cass letter and do you have any idea of how your intent to sue letter is going to look like? You do realize it will probably come to small claims, because these people are either entirely clueless or they know something we don't know they are planning on whipping out at the last minute with regard to municipal county law and library fines. Was yours a city or county library?
I definately agree that it would probably be in my best interest to create a longer paper trail by sending another validaton letter. I am sure they will not vlaidate anyway so I really have nothing to lose, However, I disagree that they can collect. The law is very clear that they cannot pursue collection activity while the account is in the process of validatio or in dispute. The fact that they continue to attempt to do this will ultimately only hurt them. Yes I will send another validation request. This time they will have only (15) days to respond with credible proof that i owe this debt. i.e. my signature on a contract. If they do not provide it at this time then the next letter they receive will be my intent to sue.
Oh, I wanted to ask. What did you ask for in your initial val letter and what did they send? What did they say in the letter?
It will probably come to small claims but that is ok because when I get to court I will no longer be asking for validation of the debt because they had ample time to provide it. I will be asking for $1000. per violation and deletion of the tradeline based on their inablity or refusal to provide proper validation. I too will include a copy of the wollman letter only I will block out wollman's name of course and just call it the FTC opinion letter regarding this matter. I would wish you luck regarding this matter but the fact is they have already violated the law regarding collection activity so you don't need luck on that issue and neither do I. I do hope however when I sub,it the intent to sue they will decide to save themselves the trouble and just delete the tradeline. I think they probably will. Why pay me $1000. per violation for a $100. debt?
Here is a copy of the validation letter I sent: To whom it may concern: This letter is being sent to you in response to a listing on my credit report. This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that your claim is disputed. This is a request for a validation made pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Please complete the attached form and follow its instructions and your claim will be processed as soon as the information is received. Please be advised that I am not requesting â??verificationâ? that you have my mailing address, I am requesting a â??validationâ?, that is, competent evidence that I have some contractual obligation to pay you. You should also be aware that reporting such invalidated information to major credit bureaus might constitute fraud under Federal and State law. You may wish to consult with a competent legal advisor before your next communication with me. Please also be aware that if any negative mark is found on any of my credit reports from your institution, or any institution that you represent, this will result in my filing an immediate lawsuit against you for: â?¢Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act â?¢Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act â?¢Defamation of Character â?¢Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud Pending the outcome of my investigation of any evidence that you submit, you are instructed to take no action that could be detrimental to any of my credit reports. Under the FDCPA, once a consumer attempts validation of an alleged debt, all collection activity must cease and desist. This includes listing any account with a credit reporting repository that is inaccurate and invalidated. If you do not respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of this request, all references to this account must be completely removed from my credit file. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter. I strongly suggest that you get your records in order before I am forced to target you for legal action. Best Regards, This is the first validation letter. I am composing the second one as we speak.
I am searching for what constitutes proof of debt. I really don't think a statement of missing library books constitutes proof of debt, but I could be wrong.
I thought the Wollman Letter supported the fact that a computer generated bill was not proof of a debt. Also, I am sure there is some case law to support this. Now would be a good time for the board members to pitch in with some help.
The "this is an attempt to collect a debt" part is not a violation, if that were NOT on there it would be a violation. CA's are required to put this on any letter that they send to you, unless it is a "we are deleting this file" letter. How long ago was this debt? What are they charging you for, amount wise? The Wollman letter can be sent with your estoppel. You can either acknowledge that they even sent this printout to you, or simply ignore it. Unfortunately, the only violation I see is they haven't noted it on your CRA's that it is "disputed", right now your paper trail is not quite long enough to make them fold, if you were to file suit right now. I would send the estoppel at the 30 day mark from when they signed for the first letter, also send the Wollman letter with it. You CAN state in your estoppel that you have them on FDCPA violation(s), if you'd like. After the estoppel, if they don't send you anything with your signature, send the demand letter/intent to sue letter.
Mine was for two missing books and some fines. Roughly a little under a hundred dollars. I sat down last night and did the timeline of when I moved and figured my ex-roommates probably got the mail and didn't give it to me. I don't know, they aren't around to ask. I didn't put in a change of address until I was sure I was staying with this person I had moved in with, so thinking maybe that's why I didn't get any mail? I mean, this does seem like a fairly legitimate CA as far as CAs go. But I am like c'mon - these books could be anywhere, they could have been misplaced when brought in, the records could be wrong, and this is a HUGE library. We are talking thousands and thousands of books. But anyway, what can construed as proof of debt? Doesn't the debt need to be proved with a preponderance of evidence? I am establishing a paper trail basically stating that even though I really shouldn't be obligated to pay this disputed debt, that I was more than willing to work with the collection agency to even have it marked just plain old "paid", but I shouldn't have to drag it around for 7 years. If I go to small claims for the violation and state that they can't even mark it "in dispute" to satisfy FDCPA, the validation is not correct, and yet I have the paperwork that shows I really tried to work with them, I hope I will get a sympathetic judge that will say, "okay, case dismissed, you can't show that this woman owes anything..." Are library fines and missing books legal debts without a signatue? I can't find anything that lists what evidence of debt is supposed to be. It's more elusive than I thought...
Wow, R, I guess we are screwed. This majorly sucks. I looked all through my state codes and statutes and came up with zilch. They probably know this as well. I suppose I could try and hit them with BBB for non resolution... I am sending my grovelly letter to the library. This one is confusing all to hell. You would still think that they would have to prove ownership of debt however. For instance, in parking fines, it's physical. There is a car, there is a registration for it, there are signatures, you owe the fines because its YOUR car. Perhaps this would be better taken to another type of board. Does anyone have any suggestions on board type? Thanks!
Okay, for the benefit of future peoples that have probs with library fines and credit reporting. Basically, it's this - I wrote on a law board asking for an answer and this is what I got: "You may contact the reporting agency and challenge any entry that you believe is incorrect. The reporting agency will then contact the creditor, and the creditor must be able to demonstrate some proof of the debt. If the creditor cannot demonstrate proof of the date, the reporting agency must then remove it from your report. I don't know exactly how library fines are treated or reported. I know that I have never signed any kind of "contract" saying that I will pay the fines, but library fines are always an understood part of borrowing from the library. I think the fines are considered the same as any other municipal fine, such as a parking ticket would be (you never sign a contract for parking tickets either, but if you incur them, you must pay them). My suggestion, if you have fines that you do not believe are accurate, would be for you to contact the library directly and question them about it. " So apparently, library fines are treated the same as other municipal fines. So, what's the deal on that? If one pays parking fines do they leave your credit report immediately or what? I am hoping yes, because then I could argue to the judge that these should be handled as other municipal fines are handled once paid. But then there is the collection agency which is brought into the equasion which makes it all so very complicated.
