The determining factor isn't whether or not it is a 'PRINT OUT' but who made the print out. If the OC personally made the print out, then the print out would be validation (some companies can print out exact statements on computer print outs) however, if you can't tell that the print out comes from the OC, or the print out just shows the bare amounts, with no details, balances etc, then it wouldn't be complete validation.
They sent a letter staing, here is a computer printout from the previous creditor. NOT the original creditor, But the previous creditor. ALSO, this one is one that is due to fall off in one year AND when I called the OC 5 years ago, they told me that they could not lacate this account that I was trying to find. This account just recently reappeared on my credit reports out of the blue after I rightfully got it deleted 2 years ago.
Actually, it looks like the CA's printout only because it has information from 2004 on it. Information from 2004 would NOT be from the OC correct? Also, they have my current address on the printout, which is NOT what the OC would have had from approxximately six years ago when it was sent to CA. See, I moved about five times since the date of last activity....
************************************************** ""We don't have any account under your name, please send us the name of the original creditor, account number." ********************************************************** NCO asked me to validate an alleged debt as well. CAwatchdog ========================================== Wonder what would happen if you just made up a number and sent that to them ? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> Never read the fine print. There ain't no way you're going to like it.
I still believe you have no standing to ask about their tax status. Most financial records (the actual journal entries, etc) of companies are considered proprietary information. If they are publicly traded, they have to release financial statements. Individual entries, however, would only be released to government officials with proper authorization, or to auditors who sign the proper non-disclosure documents. They SHOULD tell you to pound sand, and if you tried to use the argument in court, the judge should also tell you that you have no right to this information. In fact, in some cases having proprietary information such as this could subject YOU to penalties.
As far as a sample letter, I'd say something like "In regards to your letter of such-and-such, I do not recognize this account and do not believe it is mine. I am therefore exercising my right to dispute it. Could you please send me proof, including copies of the original signed contract and a complete statement of all charges and credits incurred. Until I receive this information, I expect no further contact from you or anyone else about this debt. Please reply only in writing, as I will need to see the copies myself. I look forward to a prompt reply from you." Customize it, make it your own words. You don't want it to sound like a letter from a book or web site. You don't want them to know how much you know about the law.
I love hearing the sound of CHA-CHING in the morning... The CA paraphrased above sent a settlement offer today... So much for them not having an account... So, they're about to get four bundles of joy... 1 to the person who wrote the letter. 1 to their corporate compliance officer. 1 to each of their company's two addresses listed on the settlement offer (all of which have the same corporate complaince officer listed). Including the violations for the false & misleading representation that they don't have an account, and the continued collection activity for the settlement offer, and a warning that if they have reported the account on any credit reporting agency, each one is another $1,000.00 of CHA-CHING. The bundle includes copies of their letter that they couldn't find an account, the original validation letter, the envelope front and back which they returned as well, and the copy of the letter that they just sent. Oh, and all this is for a sub-$1,000 account, which is probably really, really, really close to the SOL...
Re: Re: Ya gotta LOVE CA's... ****************************************************** NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ******************************************************* >
Re: Re: Ya gotta LOVE CA's... Yeah, I like to hear stories of stupid CA's. I spoke with my atty. about some of the letters that I had sent to the CA's I'm working against now. He said that the best approach, when you are building a case against them, is to appear to be ignorant of your rights. I wholeheartedly agree with him; it's ok to know your rights. You just don't want to tip them off that you know your rights. Another thing he suggested is that you do give them an offer to settle, and if they don't accept it, then don't bother to threaten to sue. Just go ahead and do it. If they are ignorant enough to keep on ignoring laws, I would think that a summons would be something they could NOT ignore. But, then we aren't dealing with the brightest of people now, are we?
Re: Re: Ya gotta LOVE CA's... Well, the $ is the icing on the cake, the goal is to have them see ~$600 < $2000 EEEKS, even if this account was valid, we'll be losing money.
Major congrats. Hey I'd take the Cha Ching sound ANY time of day (or night). LOL I am learning so much from thee posts. I've never had a litigious mindset before now -- victim was more my style, but they are really starting to get to me and I'm getting ready to roar loud enough so they will hear (in court).
Re: Re: Ya gotta LOVE CA's... ****************************************** its just gets better .. heres a good one the CA sent me their " idea " of what they think validation is which was a computer printout like you stated above for a totally seperate date of service then the date they claim a bill was owed. it didn't match the OC claims at all. LOL then they had the nerve to reverify it with the CRA gee thx guys guess I will be watching 4 the other violations keep em coming.
Re: Re: Ya gotta LOVE CA's... Picture the CA as Bart Simpson writing on the blackboard... Wollman is NOT our friend... Wollman is NOT our friend... Wollman is NOT our friend... Wollman is NOT our friend... Wollman is NOT our friend...
