I see whatcha mean Jam. Great point. LeFevre In answer to question #1: Section 809 of the FDCPA does not prescribe any effective date for a Section 809(b) verification. Therefore, providing a verification which pre-dates the debtor's dispute does not appear to be a violation of that Section. § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]: 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. Obtain: To succeed in gaining possession of as the result of planning or endeavor; acquire. Would you not agree that "obtain" and "mailed to the consumer by the debt collector", contemplates a mandate to check with the OC? Whenever an OC sends a debt to a collector they usually just send name, account #, amount, and a few basic items of info. The whole purpose of the validation system is to prevent attempting to collect from the wrong person, [or the wrong amount.] Would you agree that to "obtain" something means you don't already have it?, that it must be acquired? And that, "is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector" means that once acquired, it must pass through the CA, and then on to the consumer? It must be sent by the CA. How many times have we seen verbiage like; "The debt collector may not rely upon info. they already have in their system of records"? Failure to check with the OC, and relying solely upon that which was originally furnished to the CA, defeats this purpose. That's my interpretation. Reasonable people might disagree. (And unreasonable people definitely will ) Course you're right, we might be inadvertently engaged in semantics about the diff. between Val. and Ver.. .
Like I said, I am with you... I just wanted to be prepared so that I'm not caught by surprise if they try to pull it out of their *BEEP* and you know if in some cases CAs are prepared to pull a 9th circuit case out of their *BEEP* to prove their point, one sentence in an FTC informal opinion could more than likely be pulled out if they even did that much homework. I even read the same as you in Wollman, if you read the question asked by RMCB into the FTCs answer.
Lemme add few more things ... [color=0066FF]US DC :: Shea Defendants' dunning letter reads: "The amount of the debt: Remaining principal balance $ 114,043.92 plus unpaid accrued interest, escrow/impound shortages or credits, late charges, legal fees/costs, and miscellaneous charges." [/color]When 1692g(a)(1) requires collectors to inform debtors of "the amount of the debt," it means exactly that. An "amount" is a dollar figure, not just a description of the type of charge owed.[color=0066FF] Additionally, the "debt" that Defendants sought to collect included not just the principal balance owed, but the interest and the other charges that Plaintiffs were obliged to pay. [/color]As a matter of law then, Defendants' collection letter, which failed to disclose the dollar-amounts of the unpaid accrued interest as well as the other charges owed as of the date of the letter, violated § 1692g(a)(1).[color=0066FF] ... this Court's finding that [/color]Defendants failed to comport with § 1692g(a)(1) when they omitted the amount of unpaid accrued interest[color=0066FF] as of the date of the notice from the collection letter ... [/color]By withholding a full and complete disclosure of the "amount of the debt" owed by Plaintiffs, Defendants, as a matter of law, violated @ 1692g(a)(1). [color=0066FF]COA IN :: Spears Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he â??sent adequate verification of the debt [to Spears] in the October 30, 1996 notice of claim.â? Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). We cannot agree. [/color]The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt[color=0066FF]. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spearsâ?? loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. [/color]The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments[color=0066FF].[/color] So, reading both letters it becomes even more clear that all this information must come from the OC, not from the CA itself. In addition, I totally support the interpretation of "obtaining" and "mailing" the verification of the debt - it must be obtained by the CA from the OC after the CA receives the dispute and must be mailed by the CA to the consumer.
What if... The CA represents the dollar amount of the alleged interest, but refuses to represent under 808(1) how those fees are valid, and calculated?
Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Thanks VG. And you too Jam, for bringin up some great points. There are a lot of factors involved that work to our benefit. In your comment above, I see a HUGE point of contention. For one thing CA's are lazy. They believe that sending a scrap of paper (or two) rises to the level of validation. But to meet that level, as noted by VG in Spears, a rather healthy amount of work is involved. And they just can't/won't do it. Another of their problems is the time they're willing to expend on your case. Why would they want to go through all these hoops when just moving on to a less recalcitrant debtor may yield faster/easier money, the very lifeblood of their existence? If they refuse, and continue to demand a dollar figure, without ITEMIZED justification, I might sue them for misrepresenting the amount of the debt. EVEN IF ULTIMATELY IT SHOWS THAT THEY DIDN'T MISREPRESENT, HOW WERE YOU SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT WITHOUT THE PROOF? --> You need the contract to determine what specific charges are permitted, and you need the itemized statement to determine if the correct amount is being calculated. There's no other way to compare all this to the amount they're attempting to collect. For how else can you know these things without BOTH items? That's why we developed this thread. To show that there's almost ALWAYS "something" we can use as ammo to fight back. By the time we add up all that we learn in this board, and then apply it to the legal system to the extent that their expense to collect outweighs the benefit of collection, there's almost no such thing as a TL you can't kill. This is why you must let the amount in controversy determine which court you will use. Not the other way around. Their only hope is to provide perfected validation without breaking ANY of the laws that outline your rights. In other words they can FORGET IT!! LOL I've not been talking to just you Jam but anyone. I know you're with us on this. Anyone herein reading may be afraid, and the thought of going to court is probably a scary prospect, but you can do it. I'll cop to bieng afraid of court too. [shaking in boots] Hell, if ya think this is bad wait till the IRS invites you to an audit. Hard work, tenacity and guts may be required. Rather than dip your toes into the ice cold water of litigation you may need to hold your nose and jump in head first. But you can do it. Sun Tzu once said; "The best way to avoid war is to show your enemy you're not afraid of it". Just ask Muammar Gadafi. .
Ill be posting the info Butch was referring to here soon..had to find this thread first and bring it up "-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by hiding90 OK OK... The info about "validation" is coming str8 from "National Comsumer Law Center" publication "Fair Debt Collection" it is concidered THE BIBLE for Consumer Law attornies who specialize in collection harrasment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is exactly right gang, sorry. I knew the moment I saw that Hiding had the NCLC manual on FDCPA he'd be saying stuff that didn't seem to agree with our opinions here on CN. So far - I'm delighted to say - he hasen't, (at least for the most part). The tough thing about the NCLC Manuals is it does do "legal speak". Which as far as we're concerned around here often adds confusion rather than clarity. However, if we wish to argue with NCLC, we'll be wasting our time. In that, Hiding is right on. "
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=420258#post420258 . Ok well, ... I did some serious digging around for you guys. There are thousands & thousands of FTC Staff Opinion Letters, the vast majority of which are NOT online. So here's one that should be of profound interest to one and all. In early 1980 a resident of Prima County AZ, received a dunning notice containing his notice of rights pursuant to § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]. The consumer became confused about whether or not a written notice of dispute must be received within the first 30 days or lose their right to dispute at all. The consumer argued that the language in the dun was poorly written and implied something which Congress did NOT mean to imply. Side Note: If you've read my work on how Congress operates you would know this does happen from time to time. In fact Congress sometimes PURPOSELY injects ambiguity in law, but I digress. Seeking clarification the consumer sent the letter to the Atty. for the Prima County, Consumer Protection Division, Mr. Stephen D. Neely. Counselor Neely, unsure of the vitality of the advice he might offer the consumer, forwarded a copy of the consumers letter and the dunning notice to the FTC. In his cover, he probably wrote something like the following; It almost seems to suggest that if a letter of dispute is not sent within 30 days of the initial notice, the consumer loses his right to dispute. Therefore, the letter is misleading. Can you provide clarification on this issue. Unfortunately we donâ??t have the original dun sent to the consumer, or Mr. Neely's original request for clarification. BUT â?¦ it doesnâ??t really matter anyway, because the FTCâ??s response speaks [intrinsically] for itself. Obviously Mr. Neely wanted to do the right job for his constituent, so he waited for the FTC to answer. Staff Atty. Alan D. Reffkin's answer; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, DC 30560 April 29, 1980 Stephen D. Neely, Esquire Pima County Attorney Consumer Protection - Economic Crime Division 900 Pima County Courts Building 111 West Congress Street Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Mr. Neely: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 1, 1980 transmitting a copy of a dunning communication received by a citizen of Pima County, Arizona. In your opinion the communication misstates the language of the notice required to be provided by the provisions of Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Act") and implies that if the consumer disputes all or part of the debt written notification to that effect must be sent to the collection agency within thirty days. We agree with your analysis, [that the letter is wrong]. Section 809(c) of the Act provides that failure of a consumer to notify the collection agency within the thirty-day period as provided for in Section 809(b) cannot be construed as an admission of liability by the consumer. However, the notice in question contains a contrary impression and as such, in our opinion, would be deceptive under Section 807 of the Act. Additionally the dunning letter fails to give the full notice required by the Act. For example, the notice required under Section 809(5) has not been provided. The comments furnished are informal in nature and as such are not binding on the Commission. Nevertheless, they do represent the staff's present enforcement position. Very truly yours, Alan D. Reffkin Attorney Division of Credit Practices We can, if you want, have an analysis on this Opinion. It also [further] substantiates my position [that Iâ??ve had since DAY ONE] that if you get a letter from a CA or Atty, that says â??since you failed to dispute within 30 days, you canâ??t do it nowâ?, IS a violation of; § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e] Enjoy. ***************************************** PS1. There will ALWAYS be newbies who come along and ask about this 30 day "limit". You should refer them to the WIV Thread (linked at bottom left). Or you can send them here for the short version. PS2. JDP Pro Se, had a few comments about the WIV thread which indicated that if people followed it's advice he might be mislead about the 30 days. PS3. Or ... that Hiding90 kept insisting that after the 30 days we were POWERLESS. This should put the 30 day issue to bed, once & for all .
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=420258#post420258 . Ok well, ... I did some serious digging around for you guys. There are thousands & thousands of FTC Staff Opinion Letters, the vast majority of which are NOT online. So here's one that should be of profound interest to one and all. In early 1980 a resident of Prima County AZ, received a dunning notice containing his notice of rights pursuant to § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]. The consumer became confused about whether or not a written notice of dispute must be received within the first 30 days or lose their right to dispute at all. The consumer argued that the language in the dun was poorly written and implied something which Congress did NOT mean to imply. Side Note: If you've read my work on how Congress operates you would know this does happen from time to time. In fact Congress sometimes PURPOSELY injects ambiguity in law, but I digress. Seeking clarification the consumer sent the letter to the Atty. for the Prima County, Consumer Protection Division, Mr. Stephen D. Neely. Counselor Neely, unsure of the vitality of the advice he might offer the consumer, forwarded a copy of the consumers letter and the dunning notice to the FTC. In his cover, he probably wrote something like the following; It almost seems to suggest that if a letter of dispute is not sent within 30 days of the initial notice, the consumer loses his right to dispute. Therefore, the letter is misleading. Can you provide clarification on this issue. Unfortunately we donâ??t have the original dun sent to the consumer, or Mr. Neely's original request for clarification. BUT â?¦ it doesnâ??t really matter anyway, because the FTCâ??s response speaks [intrinsically] for itself. Obviously Mr. Neely wanted to do the right job for his constituent, so he waited for the FTC to answer. Staff Atty. Alan D. Reffkin's answer; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, DC 30560 April 29, 1980 Stephen D. Neely, Esquire Pima County Attorney Consumer Protection - Economic Crime Division 900 Pima County Courts Building 111 West Congress Street Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Mr. Neely: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 1, 1980 transmitting a copy of a dunning communication received by a citizen of Pima County, Arizona. In your opinion the communication misstates the language of the notice required to be provided by the provisions of Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Act") and implies that if the consumer disputes all or part of the debt written notification to that effect must be sent to the collection agency within thirty days. We agree with your analysis, [that the letter is wrong]. Section 809(c) of the Act provides that failure of a consumer to notify the collection agency within the thirty-day period as provided for in Section 809(b) cannot be construed as an admission of liability by the consumer. However, the notice in question contains a contrary impression and as such, in our opinion, would be deceptive under Section 807 of the Act. Additionally the dunning letter fails to give the full notice required by the Act. For example, the notice required under Section 809(5) has not been provided. The comments furnished are informal in nature and as such are not binding on the Commission. Nevertheless, they do represent the staff's present enforcement position. Very truly yours, Alan D. Reffkin Attorney Division of Credit Practices We can, if you want, have an analysis on this Opinion. It also [further] substantiates my position [that Iâ??ve had since DAY ONE] that if you get a letter from a CA or Atty, that says â??since you failed to dispute within 30 days, you canâ??t do it nowâ?, IS a violation of; § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e] Enjoy. ***************************************** PS1. There will ALWAYS be newbies who come along and ask about this 30 day "limit". You should refer them to the WIV Thread (linked at bottom left). Or you can send them here for the short version. PS2. JDP Pro Se, had a few comments about the WIV thread which indicated that if people followed it's advice he might be mislead about the 30 days. PS3. Or ... that Hiding90 kept insisting that after the 30 days we were POWERLESS. This should put the 30 day issue to bed, once & for all .
A Further Clarification; § 809(b) Re-Written We "re-wrote" section 809 B to try & make it easier to understand. I think we pulled it off. The consequences of disputing a debt AFTER the first 30 days is covered in more detail. A must read for the serious repairer.
Butch, I just HAVE to say it...you entertain the hell out of me. (not in a bad way). Your DW must be a saint. You're the type of person that when asked "what time is it" you proceed to dismantle the watch. :=) your friend, clc
LOL Know why? Cause we've all had to figure this stuff out the hard way. In the process of getting this stuff straight in my mind, all sorts of revelations have happened throughout the months. I post em. What I need to do is just go to law school and get it over with. And yes, the Foxy Mrs. Butch is a saint. She often says; "tell him something and he goes and buys a book". .
Yeah...AND he diagrams every sentence even when reading long Russian novels...lol. clc PS I don't know what the sassy v butch is all about but I have always liked both of you. Is peaceful coexistence possible or even a detente? Maybe we can all travel to Paris and have peace talks. Oh yeah, I forgot about the "boycott France" stickers...how 'bout Hoboken, NJ then...lol.
Hmmm, that sounds too familiar... I just watched all of Season 1 of Alias last week (yes, all six dvds in one week); and in the one running of the final episode, I thought I heard an oops, and then re-ran it about 10 times to make sure, then watched the episode or two before it to make sure that I wasn't the one who made the mistake, then went online to find out that the oops was well documented... I also put the DVD in the computer so I could play it frame by frame easier just so I could find the hidden Rimbaldi symbol in the opening credits (0:18 seconds in on the Pilot episode), and now my eye is focused on that one spot when I watch the opening credits. Yowsers... Now, I need to find a way to be able to splurge on Season 2, (and then Season 3, when it comes out in my birth-month). See, I'm not just a research-aholic here... BTW: the next run through I am on an easter egg hunt for how many times the number 47 is referred to...
