Sent out a validation request to a CA and they sent me the standard fax copy of the Dr. bill. They also sent a letter with 3 other small accounts they say are mine. The letter is as follows: Hermit5 Culvert # 4 Backwater, USA 12345 Re: ABC file #xxxxx Dear Hermit5, Your letters to ABC were referred to me for response. A review of ABC file shows the following unpaid accounts: Account #1 $XX Account #2 $XX Account #3 $xx Account #4 $XX Account #5 $xx Enclosed are copied of creditor documentation showing proof of each listed above. Also enclosed is an ABC file showing the current balances owing. ABC and the creditors listed above consider the debts valid and your prompt payment will be appreciated. If you have any questions, please call me at @#$-@#$-xxxx. Sincerely, Confused Collector 2 of the accounts are on my reports and I have requested validation for ect. The other 3 I have never recieved any letters ect. on them, that is this isi the first contact I have recieved. So my question is since there is no Mini-Miranda on this letter it is a violation for the 3 accounts that are new. Am I correct? Also, the letter represents continued collection activity since proper validation was never given. Correct? Thanks
I think the mini-miranda only has to be on the first letter, but I'm not sure. If all you got was "mere itemization" or computer screen shots and the like, send them another validation letter with a copy of the FTC Wollman letter enclosed and see what happens. It may take a third letter. I had a CA cave today after the 3rd letter. I sent the 1st one on June 20. hang in there!
Well, to get you off to a start...write them back and say: Dear Confused collector, Thank you for your prompt response to my letter. Unfortunately, you have not provided what I asked for. I am asking you for some sort of contractual obligation I had with XYZ OC to pay the above mentioned "debts". Mere itemization is not enough to satisfy to the legal validation requirement that is placed upon you. I have no knowledge of any of these debts. This is why am requesting my legal right to validation. I have never received letters from you regarding these accounts, and this is your first contact with me. If I had never seen your negative listing on my credit report, I would have never known you were attempting to collect for these accounts. With this letter I am requesting that you #1 Provide me contractual proof that I owe the "debts" in question. #2 Provide me with with some evidence that your organization is allowed to send me notices for these accounts .... .... ...Add additional demands here. Please see the enclosed FTC opinion letter that relates to validation. .... add additional info here... Thanks you for your assisntace with this matter. Sincerely, Hermit5
Well, to get you off to a start...write them back and say: Dear Confused collector, Thank you for your prompt response to my letter. Unfortunately, you have not provided what I asked for. I am asking you for some sort of contractual obligation I had with XYZ OC to pay the above mentioned "debts". Mere itemization is not enough to satisfy to the legal validation requirement that is placed upon you. I have no knowledge of any of these debts. This is why I am exercising my legal right to validation. I have never received letters from you regarding these accounts, and this is your first contact with me. If I had never seen your negative listing on my credit report, I would have never known you were attempting to collect for these accounts. With this letter I am requesting that you #1 Provide me contractual proof that I owe the "debts" in question. #2 Provide me with with some evidence that your organization is allowed to send me notices for these accounts .... .... ...Add additional demands here. Please see the enclosed FTC opinion letter that relates to validation. .... add additional info here... Thanks you for your assisntace with this matter. Sincerely, Hermit5
Dear RBlues, Your double is only one minute apart. Next time go ahead and try hitting your blue "Edit" button and you can just put "Deleted" in there and repost. You always have 15 minutes to edit your post. Took me awhile to figure that out too. lol
Actually Smogtek is right. The full MiniMiranda is only required on the first notice. All subsequent communications must include; "This is an attempt to collect a debt, any information will be used for that purpose". This complies with the legal requirement. So they are still in violation. "The MINI MiniMiranda" lol
Thanks all. "On this particular letter there is nothing that says this is an attempt to collect a debt." This was my first letter for 3 of the debts but not for the other 2 . Proof enough that if you give them a chance to mess up they probably will. Small claims is $7500 in my state so I think I can come up with enough violations. All are beyond SOL so it shouldn't be too difficult. Thanks again for the imput.
hermit, In their letter as you posted it there is a line that says: "ABC and the creditors listed above consider the debts valid and your prompt payment will be appreciated" This is a collection attempt hence the mini-miranda should be part of the letter that they send to you, they are in violation of the FDCPA. A mere computer print-out is not validation, they should provide you a copy of a contract bearing your signature, copies of credit-card receipts with your signature, copies of letters with dates send to you wether registered or not. Even if they provide you with all that mentioned above it may not constitute a complete validation. Appears that this collection agency doesn't have their stuff together, allow them to continue to violate FDCPA and you may walk away with some $$ and a complete deletion of derogs.
Hermit, I just had a similar thing happen. Would you be willing to share the name of the CA? Just curious, maybe it is the same one. Has anything happened with this yet? Thanks and good luck!
