/ Register

Validation Vs Dispute

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by hiding90, Apr 15, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 5 of 5
  1. Apr 20, 2004 #81
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    Know watcha mean Hiding but I'm with LK on this one.

    It's tough to fight a war and play "fair" while at the same time our adversary recognizes no bottom of the barrell to their tactics.

    And yeah, LK's tactics are a little extra .. ahem ... BOLD.


    :)
     
  2. Apr 20, 2004 #82
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute


    Don't need to convince me LK.

    :)


    These people play dirty.

    .
     
  3. Apr 20, 2004 #83
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute


    Don't need to convince me LK.

    :)


    These people play dirty.

    .
     
  4. Apr 20, 2004 #84
    fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    speaking of playing dirty..

    im dealing with a CA that is attempting to cover their tracks so that they can claim in court that they have no liability due to a no fault error.

    I know there is a code for that in the FCRA < im sure you guys have it memorized by now, i dont have the time to look it up at the moment,

    just want to know if I have proof say Cr alot ofthem over the last 4 1/2 months showing this acct was not corrected or updated during the time of investigation and dispute and proof that is was just now placed on the report is this enough evidence to prove the violation or could they weasal out of it?
     
  5. Apr 21, 2004 #85
    picantel

    picantel Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    I had a CA pull a hard on me and called up. Turned out once again a past tenants bill. They told me they sent me a letter 6 months ago to an address I have not lived at for 2 1/2 years. They then told me I had lost my chance to dispute and they would not investigate because my 30 days are up. He also told me the laws just state they have to send it not that I had received it. I asked him point blank if sending it to the incorrect address would take away my validation rights and he refused to answer. I then asked him if he would like to settle this little question over validation in federal court and he quickly came around to my side of reasoning. A dirty CA will try and claim your dispute time is over but even they know how stupid that caselaw is and a simple update federal case would knock mahon out the window. On another note, JBC & Associates is famous for abusing that caselaw. They ALWAYS state they sent notices when in fact the consumer just learned of the ficticious debt. If someone pulled that crap on me and actually wanted to fight it off to court we go- no questions asked.

    on another note, in my large federal lawsuit one of the defendants(the scummiest one) is now 10 days overdue with his reply and I could go for a default. What kind of moron ignores a summons from a federal court where damages start at 75k?
     
  6. Apr 21, 2004 #86
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    "federal court where damages start at 75k?
    "

    Where did you get that from? :)

    If its under the federal debt collection statutes, the damges start at $0.00 :)
     
  7. Apr 21, 2004 #87
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    "They then told me I had lost my chance to dispute and they would not investigate because my 30 days are up."

    -This is called "misrepresenting," A consumer has the right to DISPUTE the debt FOREVER! AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN WRITING.


    "He also told me the laws just state they have to send it not that I had received it."

    -YES, this is true. It is a double standard.

    -But if the laws were 100% in favor of the consumer, the debt collection industry would have a valid claim that the law was unconstitutional.

    "A dirty CA will try and claim your dispute time is over but even they know how stupid that caselaw is and a simple update federal case would knock mahon out the window."

    -Mahon will NOT be overturned until and unless the statute itself is changed.

    -The court makes rulings MOSTLY on the "plain language of the statute" as said several times in almost every case related to debt collection.

    -In this case the plain language is "(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer"

    -"SHALL SEND" is the key here.

    As opposed to "(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing"

    -"NOTIFIES IN WRITING"


    "on another note, in my large federal lawsuit one of the defendants(the scummiest one) is now 10 days overdue with his reply and I could go for a default. What kind of moron ignores a summons from a federal court where damages start at 75k?"

    -A well educated one :)

    -Default judgments ARE NOT an end. This gives them even more time to prepare a case. A simple motion to vactate will put this case in court for years possibly.

    -This is one major problem with federal court. In small claims, they have 30 days to appeal, and 180 days or so for a motion to vacate...then its decided 30-60 days later...FINAL :)
     
  8. Apr 21, 2004 #88
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    "They then told me I had lost my chance to dispute and they would not investigate because my 30 days are up."

    -This is called "misrepresenting," A consumer has the right to DISPUTE the debt FOREVER! AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN WRITING.


    "He also told me the laws just state they have to send it not that I had received it."

    -YES, this is true. It is a double standard.

    -But if the laws were 100% in favor of the consumer, the debt collection industry would have a valid claim that the law was unconstitutional.

    "A dirty CA will try and claim your dispute time is over but even they know how stupid that caselaw is and a simple update federal case would knock mahon out the window."

    -Mahon will NOT be overturned until and unless the statute itself is changed.

    -The court makes rulings MOSTLY on the "plain language of the statute" as said several times in almost every case related to debt collection.

    -In this case the plain language is "(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer"

    -"SHALL SEND" is the key here.

    As opposed to "(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing"

    -"NOTIFIES IN WRITING"


    "on another note, in my large federal lawsuit one of the defendants(the scummiest one) is now 10 days overdue with his reply and I could go for a default. What kind of moron ignores a summons from a federal court where damages start at 75k?"

    -A well educated one :)

    -Default judgments ARE NOT an end. This gives them even more time to prepare a case. A simple motion to vactate will put this case in court for years possibly.

    -This is one major problem with federal court. In small claims, they have 30 days to appeal, and 180 days or so for a motion to vacate...then its decided 30-60 days later...FINAL :)
     
  9. Apr 21, 2004 #89
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    LK...you are such a pain :)


    I thought """"""""" were QUOTATION MARKS! :)

    And I would agree, 90% of what I post IS IGNORED :)

    GOOD LUCK with your cases by the way.
     
  10. Apr 22, 2004 #90
    fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    actually LK you can copy & paste as well instead of using the quote button just thought I would share the love :)
     
  11. Apr 27, 2004 #91
    gmarie

    gmarie Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    Newbie here...think I've finally found an answer to my question in this thread, though it's a lil hard to follow at 1am...

    Until I saw TU report wasn't aware of new CA account from what I think might be an OC debt, but since it was placed over a year ago and I can't prove they didn't notify me, i'm most likely out of 30 day validation mark. Is it best to start by disputing with the CRA since I'm not even sure what this CA account really is? Can I go ahead and request Val from the CA at same time or wait till I hear back from the CRA dispute?

    hiding90..btw, thanks for adding this link to your sig, would have never found it otherwise.
     
  12. Apr 27, 2004 #92
    gmarie

    gmarie Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    thank you for the advise LK. I guess it's time for me to get the ball rolling on this.

    gg
     
Page 5 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page