I sent a validation letter to a creditor about 2 weeks ago. Today I receive a letter from an attorneys office stating that "this is an attempt to collect a debt blah blah blah" authorized by the same creditor that I sent a validation letter to. This TL is also in dispute with the CRAs. Is this a violation? How should I proceed? Thanks for all the help..
The letter states: ----------- The Cato Coporation has given me permission to take appropriate action to collect the delinquent amount of $... for account number ..... Credit was extended to you with the specific understanding that you would repay the outstanding balance on a monthly installment basis. You have breached the credit agreement by failing to make payments when due Cato is entitled to take legal action against you immediately. You can avoid this potential legal action by mailing your payment to the above address or delivering your payment to your local cato store. Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt of any portion therof, this office will assume this debt is valid. blah blah... ------------- Keep in mind that this debt is old, about 6 years. I beleive the SOL is out of date for my state (NC). I sent Cato a validation letter about 2 weeks ago. I also disputed this with the CRAs. Thanks for your reply.
Re: Re: Violation? SOL in NC on credit cards is 3 years so you can't have "legal action" taken against you. Assuming that the law firm is not in fact a collection agency, and that the address above mentioned in their letter is that of Cato, the original creditor, then they didn't sick another collection agency on you, so it probably isn't any kind of violation. The difficulty in offering assistance to you is that you requested validation from the original creditor is a bit of a gray area. Some credit netters will say that they still can not continue any attempts to collect the debt until they've sent proof of the debt to you. Since it's 6 years old, I doubt that they will be able to come up with your original contract, and all your statements from the first bill with a balance, to the charge off date. Is the attorney's office licensed to practice in North Carolina? Notice how carefully worded the letter is. It tiptoes around the fact that they COULD persue legal action. So they aren't threatening to sue you, just letting you know that they COULD sue you. Lawyers working for collections are probably near the bottom of the food chain. I wouldn't give them any reason to fight you. IMO you should shoot off the same validation letter you sent to Cato to the Lawyer's office . . . actually since the lawyer is working for Cato I'd probably send a copy of the actual letter sent to Cato, and a copy of the green CRRR card showing proof of delivery. State in another sheet that you disputed the debt with Cato, and they haven't responded. You don't believe it's yours, and since Cato has no proof it's yours, that they shouldn't be trying to collect, or send threats of legal action through the mail. It would be a hard battle for you to get anything financially out of it, and in a year it drops off, so I think sending validation denying that it is yours to the lawyer, and after some time send the follow up validation to Cato. If you ask an original creditor for validation, and they don't provide it, and you ask again, and still they don't provide it, send the letter to the CRA with your "evidince" that the debt is not yours and let the CRA delete. ChrisB
Good quesion. One of the things I preach when it comes to Val. is this first 30 day period and what happens before and after. If we examine it very carefully we can see that something does happen on the 31st day. The CA is now entitled to assume the debt is valid. Which means before that time they are not entitled to this assumption. This 30 days is important because you have the right to argue the validity of the debt during a time when the CA is not entitled to the assumption of the debts validity, (notwithsatanding the fact that you can do that anytime). It's because they are not entitled to the debts validity that Congress didn't want your right to dispute to be overshadowed. In other words; during this time Congress did not want your rights "overshadowed" by an insinuation/insistence that you must pay immediately, (or in other ways). After this 30 days has expired your rights cannot "overshadow". See? However, they can violate in other ways. It's just not an "overshadow". Here, the atty. demands payment in the face of an unanswered demand for validation. § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g](b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Precisely because this is worded funny, in that it appears to state that ONLY if received within the first 30 days, and to clarify this confusion Congress simply inserted section (C). So the Atty. has violated. Also, one cannot insist that the CA broke the law by complying with the law. It is required by law to include the minimiranda in ALL communications. Therefore, it cannot be a violation to do so in the letter by stating: "This is an attempt to collect a debt, etc." This would place the CA in a catch 22 from which there could be no escape. A judge would not permit this.
Re: Re: Re: Violation? Chris brings up a great point of confusion here too. The law states they may not "insinuate/assert that action will be taken which cannot be taken, or is not intended to be taken". Although this appears to be a violation, it isn't. Fact is they certainly can and often do sue for debt which is beyond the SOL. It's YOUR job to profer the post SOL defense. And of course whether or not they "intend" to take the action is impossible to prove.
Re: Re: Violation? I haven't looked at the SOL for NC for Installment contracts. Be careful here, this is not an open ended account. It's a written contract. The SOL's may be different. A whole different animal and the FCBA doesn't apply. What kind of loan was this? ???
Re: Re: Violation? Hmm . . . is this an installment loan type of thing? Sorry, I was assuming since it was Cato Corporation (a clothing retail chain here in North Carolina) that it was for a Cato Store Credit Card. My wife has a paid charge off Cato Card on her report. If it was for a loan, then forget most everything I said . . . but then again you asked for validation, then they had their lawyer ask you to pay. I still say ask the lawyer to validate and state the original creditor was asked for validation and didn't provide anything. ChrisB
Re: Re: Violation? Yeah - Chris has a great strategy. I think we need to figure out what kinda debt this is first tho. It might make a difference. I don't know what Cato Store is. If it's for clothing then it probably is an open account. Most likely the product of another hasty, poorly worded letter from a "less than perfect" atty. LOL
Re: Re: Violation? Here's a thought. § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; The atty. said "Installment", insinuating a written contract. Suits have been filed on a lot less. Just thinkin out loud.
Re: Re: Violation? Butch, You truely are one of the wise ones on this board. Yes, if this debt is a credit card, gonzo could persue that angle. Or at least point that out to the law office to get them concerned that there will be legal action but taken from the consumer towards them. They work for Cato, but the liability lies with the law firm for sending that through the mail. ChrisB
Re: Re: Violation? Ok, I've been having coffee problems for two days. I think LB sent me decaf. Either that my Dear Butch, or you are beginning to type like BB. IS THAT DUNNING LETTER OVERSHADOWING OR NOT??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Violation? This debt is a credit card (small clothing deptarment store). It is not a loan. And thanks for all the help and replies! Gonzo
Re: Re: Re: Violation? Not when beyond the first 30 days. It's a tough one to grasp I admit. It has to do with Prima Facie evidence. (Thanx for the plug C., I'll make a note).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Violation? Gonzo, in your first post you said you sent a validation letter to the creditor. Did you mean Original Creditor? If so, your only response has been the dunning letter from the attorney/CA?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Violation? Yes, I sent the Original Creditor a Validation Letter. Probably not the best idea. And Yes again. The only response so far has been the atty letter. I am in the process of sending the atty a validation letter. Thanks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Violation? Just clarifying for Butch that you are within the first 30 days....all the "good" rules are in place. Yeah for you!
