quite incoherent indeed I'm sure they are quite incoherent to a fine legal mind like yours, Anthony. Most folks can understand plain english when the government says them bill collectors been out there bilking people out of their wedding rings, showing up on their doorsteps with shotguns in the middle of the night, hollering at them and calling them nasty names, putting bad raps on them that they had nothing to do with and then laughing in their faces when they holler about it, and all the rest of the skulldog tactics they pull every day. You can't understand those kinds of things, and they can't either. You can't understand how it could be those things happen all the time even when the government says it does, proves that it does and they can't understand why it is they have it happening to them, (if it isn't one thing then it's another) and you go off on some trip about how all a bill collector gotta do is claim it was just an innocent mistake and then by some kind of magic hocus pocus the shoe is suddenly on the other foot and the poor victim is on the run again. No, Anthony, after we read the facts of life as printed by the government, mix that with our own personal experiences we think somebody gotta be incoherent. And I just proved who it is that's incoherent too. And I'm comin with a whole lot more proof too. So get ready for it.
quite incoherent indeed The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) Gets Bill Collectors Off Your Back by Basil Joe Rocker Mitchell....posted 11/10/99 Are you afraid to answer the phone at your own home because it might be yet another bill collector trying to collect on one of your many defaulted loans or credit cards? Are these bill collectors leaving threatening messages without identifying themselves or the full nature of the debt they are trying to collect? Are you receiving calls and letters threatening to take away your property if the debt is not paid? Are bill collectors calling you outside the time range of 8 AM to 9PM? Are the collectors calling you at work even though your boss and your coworkers have told them that you cannot accept personal calls at work. Are the collectors sending you letters saying "pay-up in five days or weâ??ll put this debt on your credit report? A substantial number of Americans in our debt-driven economy have experienced a scenario like one of those above. It is rare in our buy now, pay later world, especially among the middle and lower-middle class, to find anyone who has not accumulated so many debts to so many creditors, that an installment payment to one of those creditors hasn't fallen through the occasional domestic administrative crack. Said crack causes forgotten creditor to raise no small ruckus. Yours truly knows all too well. But fear not my fellow Americans, our good politicians on the hill were thinking about us, or at least they were back in the late seventies, when they first enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. In §1692(a) of the FDCPA, congress acknowledged the "abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices [practiced] by many debt collectors." They further recognized the damage done to the social and economic fiber of the nation by stating that such "abusive debt collection practices contribute to a number of personal bankruptcies, marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." The FDCPA has not been a cure-all for those social ills, but it has leveled the playing field not only among all debt collectorsâ?¦â?¦but, most importantly among debt collectors and debtors (debtor and consumer tend to be used interchangeably herein) as well. As written in 1692(e) of the FDCPA, congress set out to "insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantagedâ?¦" But most likely, you donâ??t give a flying ratâ??s patoot about fair competition among the debt collectors of the universe. You are among the socially ill of the first section. Youâ??ve got $10,000-plus in credit card debt, your spouse is threatening to leave, and you just may have to put the children up for sale. These collector witches are bugging you. What does the FDCPA mean to you, the ever-indebted, ever-overextended gluttonous American uberconsumer? It can do a lot. However, it cannot not make your legitimate debts go away. Disappointed? Boo hoo. The FDCPA does however force the debt collectors to play their debt collection game in a somewhat civilized manner. No longer can the threatening bill collector curse and scream you into capitulating. How about that, Anthony? Is that too incoherent for you?
Meaningless Redundancy All: (Exhaling for patienceâ?¦) Again, the author fails to see my point (perhaps due to a severe case of myopia). I have never stated that offenses do not occur; only that knowing when one factually does is paramount to leverage. That, in conjunction with issues of which the author clearly has no inkling, makes for optimum consumer advantage. Acting otherwise by sheer â??buffâ? is dangerous! But I believe itâ??s become painfully apparent to all, that when certain folks canâ??t sustain a coherent position? They rant and rave with subterfuge that is so disjointed to the issues, it detracts from real substance. Plainly, they only wish to argue for the sake of argument and little else. Perhaps they are unwilling to pause and learn something, rather than posting repeatedly to prove how much they truly donâ??t? Nonetheless, to each his ownâ?¦ Soooo, from the department of redundancy department, departmentâ?¦ (Stand-by for another wave!)
quite incoherent indeed How about this one, Anthony. Is this common error made by your perfect collection agencies who can do no wrong also incoherent to you? (b) Disputed debts If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section 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 a 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. Although the point here might be incoherent or inconceiveable to some, most folks can understand it real well. Have you ever had a bill collector call you up after you demnaded validation and tell you that they called the creditor who said it's a valid debt and now they want you to pay up??? Lots of folks have had that happen to them, some of them have had it happen multiple times. Is that legal or is it an abuse? A violation of the law? Let us see. (b) Disputed debts If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section 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 a 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. Now then, notice that bottom part where it says "is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector??? Now then, you say he called you up and told you he had verified the debt??? And he's gonna go to court and claim he don't do those things??? That it was just an unintentional error? That he has maintenance procedures in place to insure that such things don't happen? Why he's likely to claim he never made any such a call in his whole life. Likely to claim he's been in the collection agency business for the last umpteen years and the judge and them 6 or 12 people all a sittin in a row over there behind that raill muct be suffering from delusions too. Just like me. I know I'm suffering from something and I know what it is too. A loose bat in the ivory tower.
Re: quite incoherent indeed WOW! Things is gittin real bad. He can't even remember what he said last. Another Anthony classic. That ought to make everybody's head swim. You sure don't understand what you read or type very well, do you? The only "buff" around here is a head 'buff" naked in terms of common sense. One does not bluff about what evidence or proofs of wrong doing one has in hand, but rather only whether he actually will or will not go to court and press the issue before a judge and jury if even that much. As the federal government and most folks around these parts knows full well, the abuses and violations of rights and actual law are legion and not at all difficult to come up with or prove if one goes about it properly, building a solid paper trail as one goes. Hardly any "ultra-far end of extreme!" type of thing. What is "ultra=far end of extreme!" is the day these violations and abuses do not occur, including Saturday, Sunday and some holidays. Now then, "Myopia"???? Just who is it that's narrow minded and lacking in tolerence? If I were narrow minded then I would be as totally unwilling to even look at or think about his ideas and suggestions as he is of mine. If I were lacking in tolerence I would not be able to stand this guy at all. As it is, HEY! I love the guy! He's more fun than a whole boat load of monkeys. And a while back he claimed I didn't even know what the term "ad hominum " meant, but I beg to differ for the simple reason that I am have never attacked his character rather than answering his arguments. If you ask me, this guy is suffering from an acute case of optical rectalosis.
Third Time? DING! We have a winner! Yes, folks you too can achieve agreement with patience and perseverance! (Although, has it occurred to anyone that if I, a lower life-form â??collector,â? can push his buttons this easily? How does he cope with the off-line variety? Hmmm..? Oh well, Iâ??m done!)
Re: One More Time! Alright, one more time Un mucielago swelto en el torre Now then, all you have to do is figure out who is spouting off all the ivory tower stuff and then you might finally be able to figure out how to let the bat(mucielago) out of your ivory tower(torre). Gotta translate it for you too, I guess since it's becoming all too obvious you don't understand Spanish either. It sure isn't me spouting off a bunch of ivory tower garbage trying to shove the blame for all the woes off on the wrong people.
A winner? Yeah! Right! And pray tell, how can you possibly believe that you have pushed any buttons when you obviously don't even know what optical rectalosis is? OH? You do? Then you should have no problem explaining your condition to all. Of course, one would be hard pressed indeed to explain much of anything if he is in such bad shape he can't even express complete thoughts and sentences anymore. Yep, He's done alright. Just like a christmas goose! Even comes with his own stuffing. A cooked goose don't cope with much of anything very well.
validation after 30 days What if the initial validation by the collector doesn't meet the law's standards? Does the consumer have the right to obtain clarification of the validation-- even if the thirty days are up? Is the clock reset?
Re: validation after 30 days Greg: It would just be another point of argument, nothing more. We don't ever want to go to court if it can be helped in the first place, we didn't want the validation either, much less in perfect shape and delivered in a timely manner. The only real value of the 30 days is as a reminder that it's time to escalate the situation to the next level. And 30 days later, time to escalate the pressure yet another time, hopefully the last. Although I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, I'd imagine that those 30 day times aren't really all that important in a court of law if one ever did have to go to court. From what I understand, most judges aren't really all that interesed in the fact that either the collector or the debtor missed some timeline or did some small or really insignificant point. Anthony is quite correct when he spoke about preponderance of the evidence in an earlier post or two. If you actually ever did go to court, you would pretty much have to have a pretty decent list of things that the other party did wrong to show by the preponderance of the evidence that this was a pattern of abuse and disregard for the law and your rights. And they could not just be your word against his. That's why we always use certified mail, so we can build a paper trail. That's why we always keep every letter they send us, every postal receipt where we paid for the certifieds, every green card too. We try to build a solid case against them with a long history of as many violations of the law as possible. And then in any event we can prove that the preponderence of the evidence is that the collector does not maintain any system to comply with the law, rather in fact that the preponderance is that he is type of person or company who routinely disregards the law and the rights of others. And when your attorney gets to court, he isn't going to stand up there and wave some silly validation letter in the judge's face and claim the collector failed to meet the 30 days deadline. He's going to build a case and argue that business about the preponderance of the evidence, each piece of which is just another proof of the pudding. Or he is going to argue some other major point of law. Courts are not prone to grant judgements against the collectors on the basis of some fine point of law that the collector might have accidently failed to obey. And if you are out to gather evidence in order to negate the bill collector's efforts to collect from you, then you would also have to be careful that you didn't appear to have deliberately set out to trick him into such disobedience as you claim. Just try showing up in court in front of the same judge with the same lawyer and the same perfectly built paper trail and see how fast you get bounced out the door with a judgement around your neck. As Anthony has again pointed out quite correctly, these collection agency people aren't stupid either. They've had just about every trick in the books thrown at them. So their attorney is highly likely to do a check on you to see if you have a habit of filing on collection agencies to get out of paying your bills. If he does a search on your name and comes up with the fact that you have filed a half dozen or so of these same kinds of cases, he's going to go look at those other cases and bring that up before the court too. If that happened, then as Anthony again so correctly pointed out, you would be looking at a piñata with some real teeth in it. So, we don't everwant to go to court if we can help it. And the collector doesn't want to go to court either if he can help it. Collection agencies are not "sue-happy" and they would rather bluff you or scare you into paying your bills if they can. So let's not get all hung up on these fine points of law. Let's just use those as points of argument about what MIGHT happen IF we went to court and sued the collection agency for the abuses they heaped on our poor heads. And yes, I know that I have rambled some here, but that's because there are so many possible scenarios that there really isn't any one single fit-em-all situation. The whole point is, let's not get all hung up on trying to prove or argue fine points of law. Usually they are just things that attorneys might argue about over coffee or argue in court. Let's use some common sense here and just try to build a preponderance of the evidence kind of thing that we can use to convince the collector that it's going to be far more trouble to fight over than it 's going to be worth if he wins. And if we do have to go to court, we have done things the right way to the best of our ability.
Re: validation after 30 days Greg: In context with your questions, time favoring the consumer is extended somewhat when validation requirements of §809 FDCPA go unmet. Since the collector is prohibited from engaging recovery efforts until then? If a collector failed to comply (unlikely as automated material meets the standard), no collection activity could take place until §809 requirements were met. In that sense, the consumer does have a â?right to obtain clarification of the validationâ? â?? irrespective time. The consumer need only advise the collector of the lacking information, knowing that collection activity is halted until full compliance is attained.
Re: validation after 30 days Question: if one were to send a validation request to the collection agency and then send an investigation request to a CRA, could the collection agency answering the CRA's investigation be construed as "recovery efforts" engaged improperly if the debt hasn't yet been validated? Meaning, can you trap an unvalidated debt with a CRAs request for investigation???
Re: validation after 30 days Marie: Of course you can, but it's going to be a bit tricky trying to get that done to start off with. In order to do it, you will have to prove that the collection agency actually did answer the CRA's request for verification. So you will have to demand that the CRA provide you with the name, company address and company phone number of the person having verified the debt. Getting that often proves to be about as easy as pulling hen's teeth. Then you would have to go to court or at least threaten to go to court in order to get any results. What you may well get back is a statement that they had one of their local or regional offices do the verification and then reported what the local or regional office reported to them. So you next have to go to the regional/local and demand the same from them. By that time the trail is so cold that one usually just gives up in sheer desperation of ever getting anywhere. And that's what they count on, one might easily be led to believe. Of course, the answer to that is knowing who their regional/local is and making both of them verify at the same time. That makes it a lot easier to get an honest answer out of them most of the time. Demanding validation/verification from all three at the same time also helps too sometimes when the going gets rough. I do all of those things most of the time, depending on circumstances.
Entrapment For CBR Fix Marie: Deep Sighâ?¦ Well (as if this thread hasnâ??t made it clear), some are more adapt in realms theyâ??re accustomed to. Such as selling cigarettes, promoting a web-news service, and managing over 1,500 websites! So be it, and only one reason why I do not agree with the second quoted statement. (Okay all my collection biz colleagues, pay attention.) There is NO VIOLATION of FDCPA if a consumer seeks to entrap the collection agent; hence, no real leverage in (presumably) getting a CBR hit removed. Iâ??ll explain why shortly, but first... You present two distinct issues, which combined donâ??t offer any FDCPA grounds to â?threatenâ? litigation not alone actually engage it. First is the collection agent validation and second CRA(s) verification, presumably submitted simultaneously. If oneâ??s intent is force (entrapment) to remove a negative CBR hit, success depends on several factors: i) how well one can bluff, ii) debt parameters, and iii) collection staff skill. (Collector time availability isnâ??t considered, albeit a factor, for the sake of briefer discussion.) â??Bluffâ? shouldnâ??t be solely depended on, because if one or both the others arenâ??t favorable; the jig is up. Debt parameters play a secondary role in that if the obligation is substantial enough, itâ??s a no-brainer for the collector to stick to its guns. Collector skill, on the other hand, is most critical as such can thwart the tactic even if other factors are weak. All a well-trained collections manager need do is hold ground, were s/he aware that a consumer aims to â?threatenâ? without merit. (Itâ??s an obvious thing to most.) Nonetheless, there would be no actual FDCPA violation because by requesting validation of debt, then verifying one (through a CRA). A consumer would essentially be asking a collection agent to perform one act, while potentially prohibiting it from another. This contradicts FDCPA that expressly relieves a collection agent from â??competitive disadvantage,â? and poses some risk to the consumer. Yes I know weâ??re all likely to read the inevitable (and lengthy) wha-wuz, about how legal positions donâ??t matter â?? only â??practicalâ? ones. But Iâ??m here to tell ya; there is nothing â??practicalâ? about making a situation worse by following a half-baked concept. If laws can be used by one side to achieve certain goals, they could be applied by opposition to prevent them. In short, itâ??s contradictory to allege collection (recovery) activity in violation of FDCPA §809. After requesting an act to be done, then whining after the fact because it was. That stated; I could go on explaining points of the entrapment scheme, but I think you get the idea.
Re: Entrapment For CBR Fix Surprise! Surprise! No lengthy discussions are coming from the peanut gallery on this one. Just a couple of simple little questions. How is it that your statement can be true when each act is well defined in law as being two entirely separate processes? Please explain to us what is meant by "competitive disadvantage" And don't come back with some long winded folderall about people and their money's worth because you made the statements, not I. It's you that's trying to be the teacher here, not I. So fulfill your self-appointed role or shut up.
Re: Entrapment For CBR Fix Well, since our learned teacher has obviosly decided for whatever reason not to answer my questions, let us proceed to see what the law has to say about the matter before us at the moment. While the above quote from FDCPA does not specifically rule on the question of what changes would be made in the event the debtor initiated or had initiated a demand for verification by CRA or had someone else pull his credit report (I will address that in a moment). However, it does state that creditor or collection agency may not respond to a CRA demand for verification of the debt, it does quite plainly state that they may not communicate to any person credit information which is know or which should be known to be false or to fail to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. Now then, let us see what the courts have ruled in almost exactly the same situation. In Brady v Credit Recovery, U.S. 1st circuit court of appeals, the court ruled that while Brady went for 5 years without offering dispute to Credit Recovery's demands for payment but only began to realize his predicament upon applying for credit for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage he then contacted the collection agency claiming that the debt was not his on grounds that the rent claimed due and payable by Credit Recovery was not his obligation because his wife had signed the lease and not he. In otherwords, directly from the court records, Continued in next post by me.
Re: Entrapment For CBR Fix Here is the relevant part of the court's decision in favor of Brady. We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. See Bethlehem Steel Export Corp. v. Redondo Constr. Corp. , 140 F.3d 319, 320 (1st Cir. 1998). Brady claims that defendants violated a provision of the FDCPA, which proscribes debt collectors from making any "false, deceptive or misleading representation . . . in connection with the collection of any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. More specifically, Brady argues that defendants violated § 1692e by failing to inform First American of the disputed status of the unpaid rent listed on his credit report. Section 1692e(8) explicitly states that the failure of a debt collector to disclose the disputed status of a debt constitutes a "false, deceptive, or misleading representation." Id. 1692e(8). 1 Defendants do not contest the facts. Rather, defendants argue that the facts do not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of "false, deceptive, or misleading representation" in violation of § 1692e(8) because Brady never disputed the debt in writing. This case thus turns on a narrow question of statutory construction: Should § 1692e(8) of the FDCPA -- which on its face does not impose a writing requirement -- be read to impose a writing requirement on a consumer who wishes to dispute a debt? "In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning in all but the most extraordinary circumstance is finished." Riva v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts , 61 F.3d 1003, 1007 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co. , 505 U.S. 469, 475 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the court need not consult legislative history and other aids to statutory construction when the words of the statute neither create an ambiguity nor lead to an unreasonable interpretation. Riva , 61 F.3d at 1007 (quotations omitted). In searching a statute's text to determine congressional intent, we attribute to words that are not defined in the statute itself their ordinary usage, while keeping in mind that meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if that language is taken in context. Id. (quotations omitted). Applying these tenets, we conclude that § 1692e(8) does not impose a writing requirement on a consumer who wishes to dispute a debt. Because the FDCPA does not include the terms "dispute" or "disputed debt" in the section devoted to definitions, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692a, we look first to ordinary usage. In ordinary English "dispute" is defined as a "verbal controversy" and "controversial discussion." Webster's Third New International Dictionary (3d ed. 1971). Clearly, the ordinary usage of "dispute" does not contemplate a writing. See id. Defendants argue that a writing requirement should be implied from other sections of the statute and from context. We address these arguments. First, defendants argue that we need not resort to ordinary usage because the FDCPA does in fact define the term "disputed debts." In support of this contention, defendants point to § 1692g(b) which is captioned "disputed debts." See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). 2 Although we cannot assume that § 1692g(b) defines this term simply because of its caption, see Pub. L. 90-321, § 502 (May 29, 1968), 82 Stat. 146, 147, reported as a note following 15 U.S.C. § 1601 (forbidding reliance on captions), defendants contend that the text of § 1692g(b) provides a definition of "disputed debts" that carries over to § 1692e(8). We disagree. As stated above, we must keep in mind that meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if that language is taken in context. See Riva , 61 F.3d at 1007. Viewing the language of § 1692e(8) in the context of other provisions of the FDCPA, it makes logical sense to conclude that the meaning of "disputed debt" in § 1692g(b) does not carry over to § 1692e(8). continued in next post by me.
