Great Job Chris! Keep up the good work. Just a quick clarification tho. Val docs must originate from the OC to the CA and then to the consumer. I know what you meant by the way you stated it, but it could be misundertsood by newer members. I did the same thing in my val. thread and stood corrected. It's an easy mistake to make. We don't seem to know what state DMZ is in or when the DLA is. Actually there ARE 3 states which consider it illegal to sue, or threaten same, for a debt which is beyond the SOL. MN. (I think), WI., and CA. So we need to know just a teensee bit more before we can say that "suing is permitted". DMYZ, Chris is exactly right. The CA is under the impression that they have complied with your demand for val. It's up to you to inform them of the error of their ways. Also: Even though val has been demanded and collection must cease, simply making a phone call to you is not a violation. It is the attempt to collect which is the violation. Yes, they probably do want to attempt collection, which is why they tried to call, but it's not a violation until they do. Therefore, do what Chris told you and call back. Just don't admit to anything and keep extremely detailed notes. Quite simply here's how I'd do it: "I'm returning your call, what do you want"? "We want you to pay". "Thanks, thats another violation" - CLICK! Moreover, If this were my case I would NOT give them yet another opportunity to provide validation but rather, I'd be insisting it's already too late. As in: You have been given ample opportunity to provide proper val. and have failed miserably. Now that you are aware that proper validation doesn't exist the FTC's position is that you have 5 days to remove the TL from my reports. In it's entirety: For Release: August 24, 2000 California Debt Collection Agency Settles FTC Charges Of Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations http://www3.ftc.gov/opa/2000/08/performance.htm The Federal Trade Commission today announced a proposed settlement with a California-based debt collection agency, Performance Capital Management, Inc. (PCM), under which the company would be fined $2 million and enjoined from what the FTC called "serious violations" of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the terms of the proposed settlement, payment of the fine would be waived due to the company's poor financial condition. The FCRA regulates the collection and dissemination of sensitive information about consumers by credit bureaus and other types of consumer reporting agencies. Section 623 was added by Congress in the 1996 amendments to increase the accuracy of consumer reports by imposing specific duties upon any entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency. The settlement announced today is the Commission's first enforcement action under Section 623. PCM is a California corporation with headquarters in Irvine, California. It specializes in buying and collecting consumer debt that has been charged-off by the original creditor as uncollectible. PCM is currently in bankruptcy, and the Commission has waived the $2 million civil penalty based upon the financial condition of the company. In its complaint against PCM, the Commission alleges that PCM violated a number of requirements imposed by Section 623. First, the complaint alleges that PCM provided credit bureaus with inaccurate "delinquency dates" for its accounts. Section 623 defines the delinquency date for an account as the month and year that an account first became delinquent. This date is important because it is used by credit bureaus to measure the seven-year period that negative credit information may be reported under the FCRA. According to the Commission, PCM systematically reported accounts with delinquency dates that were more recent than the actual date of delinquency, resulting in negative information remaining on consumers' credit reports long beyond the seven-year period mandated by the FCRA. The Commission's complaint also alleges that PCM violated Section 623 by ignoring or failing to investigate consumer disputes referred by credit bureaus, and by failing to notify credit bureaus when consumers disputed collection accounts with PCM. The proposed settlement would require PCM to provide correct delinquency dates when reporting collection accounts to credit bureaus. The agreement also mandates the proper investigation of disputes. Where PCM learns during an investigation that account records no longer exist for a disputed debt, the company must delete the information from credit bureau files within five days. Finally, the agreement would require PCM to report as "disputed" all accounts where consumers have disputed the information with PCM. The Commission vote to file the complaint and proposed settlement was 5-0. The proposed settlement will be presented to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, which is overseeing PCM's bankruptcy. If approved, the agreement will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. BTW - the Commission vote was unanimous in this position! Additionally, DO NOT EVER CALL ME AGAIN - PERIOD!!! ALL communication is to be written!
quote>>>We don't seem to know what state DMZ is in or when the DLA is. Actually there ARE 3 states which consider it illegal to sue, or threaten same, for a debt which is beyond the SOL. MN. (I think), WI., and CA. So we need to know just a teensee bit more before we can say that "suing is permitted". DMZ, Chris is exactly right. The CA is under the impression that they have complied with your demand for val. It's up to you to inform them of the error of their ways. Also: Even though val has been demanded and collection must cease, simply making a phone call to you is not a violation. It is the attempt to collect which is the violation. Yes, they probably do want to attempt collection, which is why they tried to call, but it's not a violation until they do. Therefore, do what Chris told you and call back. Just don't admit to anything and keep extremely detailed notes. Quite simply here's how I'd do it: "I'm returning your call, what do you want"? "We want you to pay". "Thanks, thats another violation" - CLICK! Moreover, If this were my case I would NOT give them yet another opportunity to provide validation but rather, I'd be insisting it's already too late. As in: You have been given ample opportunity to provide proper val. and have failed miserably. Now that you are aware that proper validation doesn't exist the FTC's position is that you have 5 days to remove the TL from my reports.<<<end quote some answers... So I'm from NY and the SOL here for all contracts is 6 years The DLA is Jan 98 but they cashed checks against my account Apr 98 that they say I had earlier authorised but were previously returned some questions... -so does the SOL expire this Jan or Apr? -in the first paragraph you say its up to me to inform them of the error of their ways but later you say if it were you wouldnt give them another chance to validate -an important thing is that Im not trying to get anything removed from my reports, I'm only dealing with this CA right now. -So I should tell him he failed and to buzz off? -Does he have a time limit to validate? and if he fails I can send a Cease and desist? It seems the 30 day time limit is fuzzy when they are trying to collect, I know its clearer when youre trying to get something removed from a report.
Re: Re: what to do next for validation? BTW - Keep all your questions about a ceratin account all on one thread. Prevents the bouncing around, which creates confusion.
Re: Re: what to do next for validation? thanks Butch so all I got was a printout which has a list of every charge with times dates and my phone number and then a second list of payments -when you deduct the payments from the charges the amount you get is less than what they say is outstanding -theres no explanation of why theres a larger debt claimed than what the printout adds up to -theres no letter head or any indication of where or when the printout was produced -they did not include an original contract or explain why they didnt provide it as I requested -they didnt provide their NY state liscence number to collect debt in NY or explain why they didnt provide it as I requested -they didnt provide the OC's original address anywhere or explain why they didnt provide it as I requested -in every piece of mail from this CA theyve left the last letter off of the name of the OC whenever they refer to them (just thought Id mention that) -they didnt provide any info that proves that theyve purchased or were assigned this debt from the OC so my letter should tell them to cease all collection activity since they didnt properly validate and contact me via only mail if they need to let me know anything right?
Re: Re: what to do next for validation? I will also call him to find out why he has been calling my house to get a violation on the record if the subject turns to validation I will tell him its his burden to firgure out what would properly validate I think I figured out what I'm doing next...
Re: Re: what to do next for validat Thanks for posting this- it helped me out as well. I'm kind of in the same boat. Debt being requested is higher than the contract amount. You might want to check this out: www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html Spears vs. Brennan Basically in the decision it references Misrepresentation of attorney's Fees as quoted by 15 USC 1692f(1) The collection of any amount (including interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal oblication) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the argreenment creating the debt or permitted by law. Texas Financial Code 392 has a similar statement. While in no means to I claim to be an expert,, if your contract does not EXPRESSLY allow for the differences of charges or the state in which you live does not expressly permit such-- they can't charge it. That sounds like a violation in and of itself... (not to mention they never bothered to validate the difference of amount) Interestly - It seems to be there is another part that particularly relates to that 15 USC 1692e(2) the false representation B - any servicesrendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt. Now the experts can come back at me and tell me I'm wrong... but it sounds as if you "might" be able to contend 2 violations of the FDCPA 1. if they are misrepresenting the disparte amount 2. if they have no authority to charge you such amount. I realize in Spears & Brennan it is referring to the judgement award of attorney's fees - but wouldn't the rules of FDCPA apply without a judgment. My thought is yes. The opinion states "Brennan did not violate 15 USC 1692e or f (1) when he merely requested $972.82 in attorney's fees in his debt collection claim against Spears." I bring this up and use SvB because adding the amount "extra" is not necessarily a violation- but adding an un-validated amount, a misrepresented amount or an amount that was not legally chargeable THOSE would be violations. I'm going to duck now in case I am WAY off base here. In which case, its simply my interpretation and with that and $2.90 you can buy yourself a cup of coffee (sorry Starbucks slam)
Re: Re: what to do next for validat I'm glad to have opened a thread that pertains to other people's situations in some way... those are some interesting points, we'll see what some others think of that anyway here is a rough draft of the letter I think i will send based on Butch's advice anybody can feel free to critique it; On September , 2003 I sent you a letter in response to the two collection letters I received from your office. In my letter I requested that you verify the debt you claim I owe. In return, on October , 2003, you mailed me a printout of charges that does not properly validate the debt in question. Following this, beginning on October 7, 2003, you left several messages at my house stating you were an â??investigatorâ? and that â??I needed to return your callâ?. When I returned your call on October ,2003 you revealed your intention for contacting me via telephone was to continue collection activities. I hereby request that you cease and desist from all further collection activities since you have not validated the debt. If you wish to forward any more information related to this account please do so to the address above.
Re: Re: what to do next for validat Not ready for a letter yet DMYZ. What is the status on their license and bonding issue? ???
Re: Re: what to do next for validat they didnt respond in regards for my request of their license number I cant even find out for sure if you need a liscence or what other requirements you need for NY state but Im assuming you need to be licensed at least so I should hold out for a license number or something like that before I address anything else? do I have the right to ignore this guy completely until he comes up with it since I requested it? I was going to make the call today to get on the record why hes been calling my house, should I ask for the license again now and can I tell him I dont have to deal with him whatsoever until he produces it?
Re: Re: Re: what to do next for validat Not until you are sure that your state requires a license, or a bond, if anything at all. Check your Secretary of State's site, or google around and see what you come up with. Alot of states have their statutes on line as well.
Re: Re: Re: what to do next for validat I actually tried finding out by calling my Attorny General's office I was told they couldnt tell me what was required or not and I asked a few different people there I was transfrred a few times given a handful of different numbers depending on who I spoke to and I just could not get a definative answer from any place I got through to Their site also has alot of tips about dealing with CAs etc but they never mention for you to check their credentials
Re: Re: Re: what to do next for validat ok I think I finally figured it out it appears you dont have to be licensed or bonded to collect in NYS but you have to be to collect in NYC which doesnt apply to me I guess thats why I had so much trouble finding out so that takes care of that issue letter time?
Re: Re: Re: what to do next for validat ok I think I finally figured it out it appears you dont have to be licensed or bonded to collect in NYS but you have to be to collect in NYC which doesnt apply to me I guess thats why I had so much trouble finding out so that takes care of that issue letter time?
Re: Re: Re: what to do next for validat ok I think I finally figured it out it appears you dont have to be licensed or bonded to collect in NYS but you have to be to collect in NYC which doesnt apply to me I guess thats why I had so much trouble finding out so that takes care of that issue letter time?
Re: Re: Re: what to do next for validat whoops I dont know why that posted 3x sorry so, the CA doesnt need a license or bonding to operate in NYS so I called to find out the intention of his messages and he said he had sent the documentation as I requested and his superior was giving me one last chance to settle this before they take me to court I asked if he was basically calling to collect the money then and he said yes I asked if he felt that he had validated the debt and he said "what more do you need?" and what they gave me already would stand up to law I asked where did the printout come form and he said the name of the OC he kept chuckling sarcastically throughout the exchange and finally said one last thing while I was beginning to ask something else so I didnt hear him and then he hung up on me this seems to follow the same formula that every other person used that I spoke to from the OC or subsequent CAs regarding this whole matter but I have some serious questions... Can a CA take me to court and present new documentation that he didnt share with me when I requested 2x for validation? in another words I guess he can do whatever he wants but the point is could it be used against me even though they chose not to present it to me when I asked for it in the interest of resolving this? If thats the case even if I lose the case I guess I would still have the right to sue the CA for continuing collection activity after they didnt validate the debt. right? What should I be doing in the meantime? send a letter outlining the fact that I requested in writing and then verbally for them to validate and they refused to send the proper info so they should cease all collection activities? should I mention that they are making violations or should I leave it at that and return each of their calls and write down each time they continued collection activity? this is the hard part for me, I could use the most help and encouragement now the bottom line is that I still dont know whose mistake this is but everytime Ive asked someone to prove that they have their records right they just want to play hardball and skip that part I might possibly owe money here but Im not paying a dime unless they can prove it because I really cant tell
Re: Re: Re: what to do next for validat Butch? anybody? please help! here's the letter I was considering firing off; On September , 2003 I sent you a letter in response to the two collection letters I received from your office. In my letter I requested that you verify the debt you claim I owe. In response, on October , 2003, you mailed me a printout of charges that does not properly validate the debt in question. Following this, beginning on October 7, 2003, you left several messages at my house stating you were an â??investigatorâ? and that â??I needed to return your callâ?. When I returned your call on October 14 2003,you made it apparent that your intention for contacting me via telephone was to continue collection activities. You told me you would be forwarding the account to your attorney and this was my last chance to pay you. You said that I â??can try and weasel out of thisâ? but that I would be sued for attorney and court fees as well as the debt.You then hung up on me as I was in mid sentence. The purpose of this letter and what I attempted to convey to you in our conversation is that I don't believe this debt is accurate. I also see no proof that this debt was sold to you by the original creditor and that I have any obligation to even discuss it with you. Once more I am stating that I dispute this debt and am requesting that you validate it. If you have any additional documentation please foward it via mail, otherwise I am assuming that this debt is not valid and I am requesting that you cease all contact with me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: what to do next for validat Let me tell you what I'd do if this were mine. First, write "refused for cause" on the each of the pages. Make photo copies (certified if possible) of everything they sent you, front and back, even if the backs are blank, and the env.. Then send it all back, [originals] CRRR, along with the following, [or something similar] On September [date], 2003 I sent you a letter in response to the two collection letters I received from your office. In my letter I requested that you properly validate the debt you claim I owe. In response, on October [date], 2003, you mailed me a printout from your computer of what appears to be a bunch of charges. Following this, beginning on October 7, 2003, you left several messages at my house stating you were an â??investigatorâ? and that â??I needed to return your call IMMEDIATELYâ?. Thinking you were a private investigator or something I returned your call on October 14 2003, you made it apparent that your intention for contacting me via telephone was to continue collection activities. You told me you would be forwarding the account to your attorney and this was my last chance to pay you before you file suit. You said that I â??can try and weasel out of thisâ? but that I would be sued for attorney and court fees as well as the debt. I am returning this miserably inadequate attempt at validation, as woefully insufficient. If you are unaware of the requirements of proper validation may I suggest you consult with competent legal council. I attempted to respectfully convey to you in our conversation is that this printout of yours tells me absolutely nothing, and that your attempt to collect money from me is not correct. You then hung up on me as I was in mid sentence. I have not had time to transcribe the conversation(s) but will be happy to if you will pay my fee. Since obviously you cannot be communicated with via telephone, DO NOT EVER CALL ME AGAIN. All future communication should be in writing. Should you attempt further inappropriate contact or attempted collection activity, I will seek remedy in court, in both your professional and personal capacity. Regards, DMYZ Enclosures: Your print out, and envelope. Now if you wanna work on this a little feel free. I simply wrote this out to illustrate what your position should be at this point. You're not asking for anything else. You're just basically stating obviously you cannot prove this ALLEGED debt. Others may have some input too.
