Re: No Estoppel That is my question. What if all of this is ignored? How would you go about getting the CRA to remove. What if they contact and "verify".........
The Presumption Hi Shirley: Establish a presumption. Simply put reliance upon the estoppel principal is of no use, unless some duty to perform is establishedâ?¦ Which is right in line with your question, yet still not entirely dependant on estoppel as a defense. To establish a presumption what a consumer would essentially do is, draft another (follow-up) letter indicating such. For example the consumer could state, â??If I donâ??t receive a response in [so many] days, a presumption may exist that you cannot validate (the above-referenced debt)â?¦â? The implication (hence: presumption) is the consumer will believe the debt to be invalid (and may even come right out and say so). This is far and away different from estoppel and (in my opinion) much more effective if litigation results (from either party). Now upon receiving the letter a collection agent would be put-on-notice, so to speak, and somewhat obligated to respond or risk the affects of presumption (if the consumer litigated, for instance). Yes I realize this may appear confusing, albeit presumption is different than estopple.
Re: The Presumption Yep! you hit it right on the head as usual. Actually more ways than one. Basically, the only effective reason to use the estoppel letter is to elicit a response when none is otherwise forthcoming, and I really never care in the slightest what that response might be. The outcome is always the same.
Re: No Estoppel Is a validation letter considered a dispute letter? I notice in the sample validation letters that the word dispute is on there. Well, 3rd party debt collectors in Texas (and maybe other states?) are required by state law to respond to a consumer dispute within 30 days of receiving the dispute letter. Just wondering if this law would apply to a validation letter.
Re: No Estoppel You know Linda, maybe I'm all wet and as green as a gourd and dumber than a fence post, but the way I read it is that a collection agency has 30 days within which to validate a debt and return the results of that validation to the creditor. Actually, whether or not that is true is of very little importance. What is important is what chance would one have going into a court of law and sueing a creditor because he failed to validate and respond in say, 35, 45, 60 days? After that, maybe he might stand a slim chance of convincing a jury that the collection agency could not validate the debt or would not and make his case, whatever it might be from there. I'd say his chances would be slim to none. Now then, if he could prove that he had made numerous attempts to get the debt validated with no success whatsoever AFTER the collection agency filed motion for summary judgement I'd think he might have somewhat of a better chance of beating the motion, but even that seems kind of iffy to me. *************************************** Is a validation letter considered a dispute letter? I suppose that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. I've never seen a time when they weren't smart enough to figure that out for them selves real quick, and that's what I want them to do. Figure it out for themselves. That way, if there is need, I can always come back and tell them I didn't dispute anything. All I asked them to do was to validate the debt. I only presented a reasonable request for action and if they somehow read something else into it, that's their problem, not mine. That comes in pretty handy sometimes. Always let the other guy assume what he wants to assume. I notice in the sample validation letters that the word dispute is on there. Not on mine it isn't. Not for the Collection Agencies and not on the validation letter to the Credit Bureaus either. I want them to assume it's a dispute. Put yourself two hyphens in the proper places and you will soon see what assume can do for -u- ------------------------------ Well, 3rd party debt collectors in Texas (and maybe other states?) are required by state law to respond to a consumer dispute within 30 days of receiving the dispute letter. As far as I know, it's federal law too. ***************************************** Just wondering if this law would apply to a validation letter. If they assume that it's a dispute letter and notify you of the fact that they are treating it as a dispute letter in writing then it seems logical to me that it then becomes a dispute letter whether it ever was or not. Since they are required by law to notify you that they have received your notice of dispute and that they will not contact you again until the dispute is settled, that's what they almost always do. Make sense?
Re: No Estoppel I have never personally dealt with a third party collector who has bought the alleged debt. It seems to me that although they have the right to collect for the debt, they do not have any real substance to their claim in a court room if you approach it right. The contract between the debtor and the creditor is not valid between the collector and the alleged debtor. How can a collector enforce a contract that you did not sign with them. Also they cant even really backup their claims due to their true inability to validate the debt. The original creditor cannot even participate due to the fact that they have been compensated by the collector. Any thoughts?
Re: No Estoppel There are situations where the debtor has signed the original contract which had a clause in it allowing the creditor to sell or transfer the acount to any 3rd party of their choosing. If that was not in the contract, then you are absolutely correct.
Re: No Estoppel This does get confusing, but even thought you may agree to the transfer of the debt, if the original contract is not adhered to then it becomes null in void on the original creditors part. They no longer have a right to collect and the third party collector can only get you if you submit to an agreement or contract with them. If you give them anything in writing or a payment then you are agreeing to the new terms.
Re: No Estoppel ...plus there is the thing that both parties are supposed to benefit from a new agreement. I forgot what this was called. Validation is key.. just send the validatoin letter, follow up, then threaten to sue them. Then provide this proof to the CRA that the debt is invalid and if they refuse to remove it, then you got many cases and a paper trail.. JUST DO IT.
Linda: Definitely, a validation letter IS considered a dispute! A third party collection agent must also comply with applicable state law, as well as FDCPA with respect to validation. Meaning that when I say the collection agent is under no obligation (whatsoever) to respond within a certain time frame, the connotation is with reference to Federal Law (excluding state issues). Bottom-line is that when a validation letter is sent, again under context of Federal Law, it is automatically presumed the debt is in dispute. Generally speaking, state law would have the same affect on a collector â?? from a mindset perspective: all action should be stopped until a validation is sent to the consumer. Daddy-0: Not an accurate presumption. At present there are 23 states that provide for rights of assignment, allowing a collection agent to sue in its own name â?? whether through assignment or purchase. Which means that if one resides in such a state and the collection agent is merely assigned a debt; the agent could litigate for recovery, providing such action is warranted by management.
Crdt Dfnse, I am trying to clarify this situation and your input would be helpful. If the debt collector does not provide the same product or service as the original creditor how is someone under contractual obligation if the circumstances change between the original creditor and the debtor? If I signed a contract saying that I agree to the terms(even if the terms say that it can be sold to a third party), How am I legally responsible to pay for someone that I never did business with. They have no contract between them and I. Would I be correct in the assumption that they have the right to ask for or file suite in court, but they have no real claim due to lack of contractual obligation. This would be a "breech of contract" would it not? Or can the they claim that the contract between collector and the debtor is legally the same as the original contract between debtor and creditor?
Re: No Estoppel Bill, No, it doesn't make sense to me. If a law clearly states 30 days then why do you feel you need to give them more days? If someone's not going to follow through with the legal remedies that are available to them then why even bother disputing or asking for validation?? Why not try to remedy a dispute BEFORE a judgment is filed? Suppose a collection agency has no intention of ever filing a judgment? Then you've just wasted 3 or more months hoping they'd sue so you could win the judgment. I'm not interested in dragging things out that long when the law is clearly on my side. (Bill, if you're going to respond to this post by writing a Steven King type of response (ie:excessively long) then please don't expect a response. I mean, I'd like to hear what you have to say but sometimes the sheer length of your posts are overwhelming.)
Re: No Estoppel Daddy-O: There are two (2) factors here, assignment AND purchase of debt. Both operate under the agency principle, not merely contractual law. For clarity sake Iâ??ll focus more on when a debt is assigned than purchased, because when paper is bought so too are certain rights. Since every state provides for agency laws that allow one party to represent anotherâ??s interests, like a lawyer or realtor. If a creditor has a debt against which it cannot (or will not for logistical reasons) engage recovery, that creditor may hire a professional (collection agent) under agency provisions. The agent has authority to act on the creditorâ??s behalf within limits of applicable law, expressly in the course and scope of debt recovery. The nutshell is that, while contract considerations do play a part, contracts themselves do not authorize the collection of past due monies but the â??agencyâ? principle does. Linda: What I meant was that collectors are conditioned, so to speak, to act in certain ways when certain paperwork is presented. Not that they are mindless automatons, but those acting when theyâ??re aware of what should be done in a relative situation. Which is to say, even if they were to believe a letter to be a dispute (even if it werenâ??t). It would likely be treated as one, because the collectorâ??s mindset is to cease activity during such issues. Look at it this wayâ?¦ A full grown elephant can be restrained with a thin rope (tied to one foot), because it was first conditioned by use of a chain. It perceives the rope to be a chain, therefore does not resist. Collectors are no different in this regard, whereas perception is reality.
Re: No Estoppel Anthony, Is there any legal obligation that an original creditor has, to prove a contractual agreement. In other words, Do I have a foot to stand on in demanding that I want proof of the agreement they say we have? Thanks, Pat
Re: No Estoppel It seems to me that the only way a third party asignee can collect a debt is by tricking the debtor into believing that they must pay them. Any agreement would suffice as proof of obligation. There is no agreement between the CA and the debtor. Also, I have never seen a contract that names the new asignee or purchaser of the debt. There is no consent on the debtors part in regards to the contract.
Re: No Estoppel I am not answering for Anthony, but I believe that if they can prove that you have some how derived a benifit from them, also any documents that would prove a payment history. A signature is not necessary to consemate the agreement. If they can prove that they have provided you with a service and what they charge on a regular bases for these services ,then they have a chance of proving their claim.
Re: No Estoppel This arguement against credit validation is the very reason why I believe that the collector has no rights to collect, unless you create an agreement with him on your behalf.
Re: No Estoppel I guess my question is more that I want them to prove to me that we have an agreement. If they actually can by any of the ways you listed, then thats fine, I'll leave them alone. But what magic words do I need to use to get/force them to send me that proof, not just the fact that they have my name and ss no. in their computer?
