I sent the validation letter to a CA and a week later disputed with CRA. The CRA completed the so-called investigation before the 30th day of the validation letter. It came back as verified. However, I haven't had any response from the CA about the validation letter! Once the 30th day arrives, do I proceed with the second validation letter or can I send the estoppel? Should I ask the CRA's how the account was validated?
Hello Dogman! I had planned to go to Las Vegas but I probably won't be able to make it. I was thinking you would be there since it's not far from SF. I pray things are going great for you. I'm still battling this credit thing. However, one day it will be over.
NO no no!!! You need to make it a point to be there. We need to get as many people as possible to show up. As far as I know, up to this point, Saar and myself are the only to committed to being there.
You're a nice person to have the name Killer - probably talking about your looks LOL! Actually, I WAS in LV last weekend at Bellagio - but only for a night.... I think the LV convention would be neat - but I probably won't make it - although there are a BUNCH of people I'd like to meet face to face I too am still now chipping off all the negatives while the Chap 13 falls off in Dec 2003. But doing fine and hope this email finds you in good spirit and health! aaarrrf to you Killer - dogman
Re: Validating/Disputing Simultaneo Killer, while a CA is validating a debt they are not allowed to report to CRAs. Moreover, they are REQUIRED to inform CRAs that the debt is being disputed by the consumer. If the CA has not done this, then consider that to be a violation of the FDCPA. If the CA ignores your validation request, that is another violation of the FDCPA. You can either send a second validation request or go directly to estoppel. I have seen excellent strategic arguments for both. In a nutshell, the larger the paper trail you create, the better your case will appear to a small claims judge. ("Your honor, I made multiple attempts to request lawful validation of this alleged debt.") On the other hand, there is no requirement that you send a second letter, so you could go directly to estoppel if you so desired, and that will shorten the process by at least 30 days. Your call. As for the CRA dispute, that is a separate action altogether. Certainly, you can request procedural information regarding the so-called verification. This adds to the paper trail against the CRA should you end up going to court against them. Even better, though, and possibly of more immediate benefit is that by verifying the debt DURING THE PERIOD YOU HAVE REQUESTED VALIDATION FROM THE CA, the CRA has confirmed for you that the CA has acted maliciously. In other words, not only did the CA ignore your lawful request for validation (negligence at best), they even went the extra mile by taking action and VERIFYING the disputed debt (clear malice). Good luck to you, Killer! Doc
Re: Validating/Disputing Simultaneo I looked at CE and a statement has been added that I am disputing the debt. Thanks for you information Doc. So the CA should have not provided so-called verification while I was requesting validation. In addition, they ignored me but responded to CRA. Thanks again. I will keep a papertrail. I think I will skip the second letter and go with estoppel.
Re: Validating/Disputing Simultaneo Oh I think I will do request for procedural information regarding the so-called verification. I think in this case it will help prove that the CA ignored me but responded to CRA.
