Okay, 30 days past green card signed first DV to CA. As you guessed, no answer. Do I now dispute with CRA? Send a delete to CRA? Send a delete and FCRA violation settle letter to CA? What would be the next best order? Thanks...
What on earth are you talking about. I'm talking about a dispute, validation, not getting a card. ????????????
Don't worry -- s/he is posting this everywhere. There is a second validation letter to send (look in sample letters) and while in know it's a pain to have to sit and wait another 30 days, do it and then if they don't respond again, mail copies of your signed green cards and your letters (think there's a letter for this too) and mail to CRA's and demand delete.
I'm a little more than concerned about your participation on these boards Stup. Out of your every breath comes an advocation of a secured card, a fast cash loan, or you outright tell people what they should do, but you really don't know what you're talkin about. Knock it off before you hurt someone. .
Do I really need to send a second validation letter? Aren't they in violation after ignoring the first one? I've seen some people say send an ITS after the first 30 days are ignored. I think it is just giving them WAY too much time to continue to violate my rights. Especially on the one's that I know aren't mine. Any thoughts?
Think about this - from what I've learned here, they don't have to prove they've mailed it. All they have to do is say they did . . .ie, not their fault if it was lost in the mail. The second validation request is to document YOU didn't receive it - giving you the leverage that you need to get the CRAs to remove it. As to the ITS letter, I don't know. Maybe someone here will know better but I thought it had to be the third step. Anyone?
Re: Re: CA 30 day, no validate NEXT???? *That's why I send the estoppel instead.It cuts the wait to 15 days instead and also serves as the 2nd validation notice for a total wait of 45 days rather than 75 days with sending 2 validation letters followed by the estoppl.----_______
Re: Re: CA 30 day, no validate NEXT???? Not validating is not a violation. There is nothing which prevents the CA from ceasing collection activity permanately, and not even notifying the consumer of that fact. (There is a debate as to whether this applies after the 30 day period, but then again some CA's try to say that even the right to dispute is lost on the 31st day.) The only violation is if the CA continues collection activity *AFTER* the validation request. There are FTC Opinions which state this, the best one to remember off hand is the Cass Opinion III (II, IV deal with reporting to the CRAs as Collection Activity, which is the main reaon people refer to the Cass Opinion), but it also states that there is nothing in the act that requires that the CA provide anything as so long as they cease collection activity until they do provide the validation. If at a later time they decide that they want to resume collection activities, then they must provide the validation requested by the consumer, before they resume the collections process. Cass Opinion http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm
Re: Re: CA 30 day, no validate NEXT???? The best solution would be to dispute with the CRA immediately as soon as you know that the CA has received the validation request (you can have the USPS e-mail you when it is received). This brings part II and IV of the Cass Opinion into play. It is legal for them to do a 623(a) automated monthly update of the credit reporting information, which provides the notice of dispute, but actually responding to the 623(b) verification request would be Collection Activity which is prohibited under 809(b).
Jumping back into the water here and catching up on mail....... Are you saying that if they do an automated monthly update, it has to include a notation that the account is in dispute? They have to do that anyhow don't they... inform the CRA that is. How can we distinguish between the CA validating and an "oh it was just our regular monthly update"? I guess I'm thinking that since they have no limit in their response time, if they time it with their monthly report, it'll look like they didn't validate (although they did). Am I making any sense?
The CRA is supposed to block (a) updates while a (b) dispute is taking place, since the DF is supposed to respond directly to the (b) dispute.
Thanks Jam (you're soooo good to me!) What does it take for the account to be listed as disputed then? Is it when I dispute w/ the CRA or the CA? And will the disputes show on PG?
