what is my next step?

Please explain how they are in violation of FDCPA. What section or what court decision says they are in violation?

 

Chill out. Go camping, go to work, do whatever you would do anyway. Don't worry about it.[/quote] should I send out yet another letter demanding them to remove the items from my credit report due to the fact that they did not validate the information in the allotted time frame[/quote]Allotted time frame? What allotted time frame? [/quote] or should I forward the information over to the credit agency's and have them remove the information. [/quote]Information? What information? The information that creditors who are not subject to FDCPA in the first place and have no legal responsibility whatever under FDCPA to respond to any such thing as a demand for validation have failed to comply with what you thought they ought to have done and therefore the credit bureaus have to respond to your baseless demands as well? Where have you been learning all this nonsense any way?

Even if you had sent your demands for validation to 3rd party debt collectors who are responsible under both FCRA and FDCPA they still would not be in violation of any laws simply because they didn't respond or didn't respond in the time frame that you gave them.

And why would you want to demand a second time that which you didn't want in the first place? Why would you want them to actually give you a full and complete accounting of the debt that complied with all the requirements of the FDCPA and any and all court decisions regarding debt validation? Why would you want them to do that in the first place? What would you do with the information if they did provide it to you? What do you think you could do with the information even if you had it?

Let's be realistic here. Let's say that you demanded validation from a debt collector who has absolutely no legal obligation to even acknowledge the receipt of your demand letter. So the debt collector wishes to proceed with getting you to pay up. The debt is not all that great, say $10,000 and the DC writes to the OC as he is supposed to do and asks for a full and complete accounting of the debt and a copy of the note, contract or agreement, date of delinquency and gets it all. The DC then forwards that information to you which is what he is required to do under the law. Now you have everything you demanded and maybe more. What you don't have is $10,000 or even $100 in your pocket right now. So what are you going to do with all the information you got? Wait till your ship comes in so you can pay it? Wait for your rich old granny kicks the proverbial bucket so you can get your inheritance and pay them off? Yeah, I know, the economy is bad but it will get better soon. Obummer just spent another trillion he didn't have either hoping against all hope that another trillion would bring the economy back to life which it won't do any better than the first few trillion he spent but didn't have either. Wrong. It is only going to make things worse in the end. He is sinking all our ships before they ever get to port. So forget about things getting any better. It just isn't going to happen any time soon.

So once again, what would you do if you actually got the information you demanded?

Sorry but I guess I didn't give you any advice with the possible exception of don't send validation to original creditors and don't send more than one demand for validation to any 3rd party debt collectors. After that best you either start looking for more ways to get more money to pay them with or start learning how to fight back and win.

 

I assume so. I'm working on the next step in my program which is 100% free help for those who qualify. I'm working on the terms and conditions right now but in essence, those who qualify will get my help to get rid of debt collectors and their court problems for free, no cost or obligations other than those which will all be spelled out in my terms of service contract. They will have to follow my rules and guidelines but that won't be difficult to do. They won't have to pay me anything so long as they are willing to go through with the whole process and take it all the way to a win. They will have to pay court costs if there are any and in most instances there aren't any fees at the local district court level. It should be a really good deal for those who wish to participate in the program and can qualify.

I'm working on the terms and conditions right now and will post a link to them when I am finished with them.

 

BUMP to see if I can get an answer

 

IF you request validation within 30 days of initial contact, they must cease collection activity until they send validation. But that doesn't mean they have to respond within 30 days, and it doesn't mean they have to delete it from your credit report. It just means they have to stop collection activity until they send validation.

If you don't send your valdiation request within 30 days of the initial contact, they actully have no obligation at all. They don't have to stop collection activity. If you didn't request validation within 30 days they can assume it's valid.

And the validation they are required to provided does not include all the things you find in internet letters. They have to provide the name of the initial creditor and the balance, not much more.

 

How so? I'm curious because I'm wondering how one could successfully argue a FDCPA case in Federal Court against a CA that places negative info on your CR while a validation request is pending. Are there any past cases to cite as precedents? Is it spelled out in some obscure portion of the FDCPA? Wouldn't there be a better chance of a slam dunk to pursue something like this with the CRAs via the FCRA? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just asking these questions in the interest of educating myself and helping others benefit from such answers. We'd like to think that a CA poisoning someone's CR with adverse information is a big no-no when they haven't even verified the debt per your request, but no one wants to make a fool out of themselves in court either, especially if the litigation is being handled pro se and you stand to lose $350 (and perhaps even more) when you're ineligible to present the case in forma pauperis.

 

If you need your credit score increase to qualify for a home loan, there are other ways besides removing negative items off of your credit to increase your score. You can add positive credit history to your credit report by adding authorize user tradelines. You must make sure these accounts have perfect payment history, are at least 2 years old, and have balances below 20% of their credit limit. You could ask a family member or friend to add you as a authorize user to one of their existing credit cards.

 

After much research and digging, I have found something which appears to support the premise that continuing to report on an alleged debt pending validation constitutes "continued collection activity" on behalf of the CA. To wit, sections II and IV of the LeFevre-Cass FTC letter:

It seems pretty solid, but my inner skeptic is telling me that an FTC opinion letter isn't the "smoking gun" you'd need to nail a misbehaving CA in Federal Court. If I'm in error, I will gladly welcome evidence to the contrary.

 

You are quite right in assuming that it isn't the smoking gun you need in court but there are court cases out there which say exactly the same thing. It is the court cases that you need because opinion letters are not legal conclusions and are not binding on any court of law.

 

Ah, now that's where the real challenge lies. Half the battle is finding a case on the subject, and the other half is carefully reading through long, boring texts to make absolutely sure your interpretation isn't idiosyncratic with the conclusions drawn from that case. Incidentally, I E-mailed Tom Corbett about this matter and it'll be interesting to hear what the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office has to say about it. Perhaps they can cite case precedents which will be useful, and I'll gladly post them in here should they come my way.

 

Interestingly enough I had a lengthy discussion with a student who has won a case against a debt collector in local court and then sued that same debt collector in federal and won that one. Now he has a federal against a debt collector and TransUnion.

TR filed to dismiss because he had not argued his case with sufficient specificity. The judge agreed with them and dismissed the case but also ruled that Vance could correct his errors and refile within 14 days if he chooses to do so. The judge also went to great lengths to point out what Vance must do to correct his mistakes and present a new case to the court. The judge told Vance exactly what I had told him to do before he filed the case. Vance did most of what I told him to do but rushed to file and didn't bring it back to me for my approval before filing. Even if he had consulted me before filing I probably would have missed one of the points the court made because the error was really not all that evident to start off with.

The error was that Vance had complained that TU had not conducted their investigation in such a manner as to assure him that it had conducted the accuracy of their investigation.

That will probably sail right over the heads of most of my readers here but there is no law stating that a credit reporting agency has to assure people that their reports are accurate. That's not what the law says at all yet Vance mistakenly assumed from his reading of the law that it did say that. The difference is that the law says they have to take care to assure that their investigation is accurate, thorough and complete or (whatever the law actually does say. ) So Vance has to cure that as well as a great deal more.

The lawyers said that Vance's complaints had not been stated with sufficient specificity and particularity to comply with the standards demanded by Twombly and Iqbal. They were absolutely correct, of course. Twombly is a tough new standard that now must be met in all courts, city, state and federal. Basically speaking, the Twombly concept is simple. In short, it demands that all of the elements of each and every cause of action must be stated with particularity and must be proven in order to withstand a motion to dismiss. It is a two edged sword. It cuts both ways. It basically means that a plaintiff cannot now simply state that a plaintiff is filing for unjust enrichment, account stated, breach of contract, failure to flush the toilet and failure to fumigate. (LOL).

The plaintiff can still complain about anything it chooses to complain about but cannot just state that if the court does not act on behalf of the plaintiff the defendant will be unjustly enriched.
No longer can the plaintiff successfully sue on account stated.
No longer can the plaintiff simply complain that the defendant breached the contract. He must state each and every term or condition that has been breached, when that term or condition was breached, how it was breached and what damages the plaintiff suffered as a result of the breach of that term or condition.

That will give defendants much more opportunity to demand that cases against them be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If you study, know and properly argue failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and properly use the Twombly concepts you have a much better chance to keep the wolf away from your door than before.

Of course, it also means much higher attorney fees for both parties because it is going to take a great deal more work to meet the Twombly standard so there are pros and cons as always.