Internet's first get-out-of-debt community - 129,000 members

ok, I have been getting calls from LTD Financial. To this day, they have yet to even tell me on any of these calls what this is about. But clearly, they are a CA....

They have been calling since around April or so. Often, they call as much as five times a day. Their worst was five times in less than two hours. So, my wife has put together a full record of each call, the number it came from, day and time, etc etc etc. She even took pics of the caller id showing these calls. So, now that we have seen how many times they will call, I sent off a DV letter. This is funny...every indication so far is that they got the letter on the 4th or 5th. All of a sudden, a letter comes in the mail today. It is dated the third, but the originating postmark is almost a week later. At this point, it is obvious that they sent this letter after they got my DV request....but the earlier date on the letter itself is basically an attempt to make it look like they sent it earlier, so as not to violate the FDCPA. By the way, it is a settlement letter. Out of the blue, as soon as they see that I am using the law the way it was intended, they immediately want to settle. That's funny.

My question is this--can that postmark be used as evidence of the timing of this? It is clearly marked on the envelope as the stamp from the post office where it originated. When you bring a letter to the post office to be mailed, it is stamped when it is originally processed. Is that proof useable in court? Oh, and this is the only communication they have had with us since I sent the letter. Check that--there was one phone call, and when I notified the guy that he was in violation of FDCPA with his call, he hung up immediately.

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:17 am Subject:

I would hang on to it but I suppose that it could be argued that they sent you a different letter in that envelope as opposed to the one dated the 3rd

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:25 am Subject:

as it stands right now, I intend to file suit against them for the more than 80 telephone calls I have received at home since the end of April. I think that's just a wee bit excessive...I will be including some other choice tidbits in this suit as well. Contact which was an attempt to collect a debt after validation letter/C&D letter were received has occured twice, once by phone and once by mail. So....

1--they do not honor C&D
2--continued collection attempts even after receipt of DV request
3--WAY excessive phone calls, sometimes three within one minute!

Does this sound like a strong enough case thus far?

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:31 am Subject:

You may want to check your state laws regarding the number of calls issue. The FDCPA does not specify how many calls is too many calls. The only case I have seen on the number of calls issue was decided in favor of the debt collector because the debtor did not answer the phone, or the "caller" was an autodialer.

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:50 am Subject:

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:57 am Subject:

The opinion of the court will be a very important factor if the defendant files a motion for summary judgment or possibly even if you get to a jury.

I believe the case was decided against the debtor because the debtor failed to prove the repeated calls were made "with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass". Sorry I don't have access to more info on this case with me.

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:05 am Subject:

yeah, I was thinking about the intent as well, but IMO it is not a difficult argument to show that there really is no other purpose to making that many calls so close together. You cannot really argue that a reasonable person would consider that a good method of trying to find someone at home when they werent at home for the first call you tried. If you call at 8:01 and I am not home, is it really reasonable to think that I might be home one minute later? And then, one minute after that?

It may just be my opinion, but it sounds like a fairly soft sell. Of course, there are never guarantees, but from a reasonable point of view, that is harassment. Chuck the FDCPA out the window and make it between two private parties, and it is still harassment under the law.

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:09 am Subject:

State law may give you a lower standard, such as "causing a phone to ring repeatedly" where the intent to harass is not required.

You can still argue a FDCPA violation, just be prepared that they will argue it the other way.

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:05 pm Subject:

Sky? Were u able to contact the atty that i gave u? When i called them they were VERY nice!
Just curious!
Ang

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:45 pm Subject:

I wouldn't bother with the phone issues.You already have good documented evidence.Continued collection after timely dv & violating c&d should be enough to hang them if your evidence is good. Find yourself a good consumer attorney and dump it in their lap.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:27 am Subject:

Ang--yes, I called the one that you mentioned, in BR. He was immensely nice and helpful. I spoke to one of the paralegals, and she was awesome. I had questions, and she took the time, over the phone, to put me on hold and track down each answer on the spot....incredibly great service, and I am not even a paying client of theirs at this point!!

Cajun--yeah, here is what I have total so far on this CA....

1--tons of phone calls, as many as 5 a day, as often as calling multiple times in one minute, or within a couple minutes.

2--Sent DV/C&D letter. The receipt shows they got it on 6/4. On 6/5, I got another phone call from them, the guy on the phone immediately went into his "you owe this money, how are you going to pay it" bit. So, I thanked him for the call, informed him that he just violated the FDCPA by ignoring my validation request and continuing to contact me, at which time he promptly hung up.

3--They sent me a settlement letter, the letter was dated 6/3, but the postmark on the envelope was dated 6/8. I am not stupid, I know what that means. Funny--they called over 80 times in one month or so, but all of a sudden they seem so willing to settle?? This is what happens when they realize that you know about your rights within the law....well, no go there either.

At this point, I still dont have any proof that this debt is even mine, since they refuse to provide me anything.

Is this sufficient for a lawsuit, do you think, or should I give them more time to hang themselves? The settlement letter is so clearly an attempt to circumvent the law by putting down an earlier date on it, but the postmark doesnt lie. Even if it was written before they got that DV demand, they still sent it after the DV arrived. Any thoughts?

Guest · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:55 pm Subject:

I hate those people.

I started getting calls out of the blue for a man with the same first and last name but a different middle name/initial. Social was wrong, birthday was wrong, previous addresses were wrong, etc. I wouldn't give them any personal information on me, I would just verify the information they have doesn't match mine. It was clear that these people just find someone with the same name and harass the hell out of them until sent a screw off letter. Like you, they sent the validation letter (magically) a day before my letter got there....imagine that. I haven't heard back from them regarding the debt since.

For my part,
I reported them to the GA Governor's Office of Consumer affairs, FTC (multiple times), and since they gave me the credit card number of the Citibank card (that's a no-no) I emailed Citi. I sent the PRESIDENT of Citi a nicely worded email about how the collection agency broke federal law on his behalf but that the also were giving out private information about the account--ooh, I also told them I was cancelling my insurance I held for the past 15 years because of the debacle. I got a nicely worded letter from Citi apologizing and letting me know that they contacted the collection agency and that I would never be getting any calls from them again.

If you don't owe any money to anyone, chances are they are trying to strongarm you into paying someone else's debt. That is rampant and they seem to be a common lawbreaker.

New

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:36 pm Subject:

PLEASE SEE MORE COMPLAINTS ABOUT LTD 77074 IN THIS FORUM.

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/ltdfinancialservices.html

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:30 am Subject:

I see no reason for this case not going to court.Get an attorney versed in consumer law & file in Federal court.

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:04 pm Subject:

I'M HAPPY ABOUT LTD 77074 GOT FINED FOR FTC.
SKYDIVR7376 I MISS YOU.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!

Guest · Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:06 am Subject:

Let's not minimize this folks....

LTD Financial Services was fined 1.4 MILLION dollars. Keep reporting them when they break the law.

New

*Name:
*Email:
*Phone:
*Zip:
Debt

	* denotes required field

Internet's first get-out-of-debt community - 129,000 members

LTD Financial is trying to pull a fast one....no surprise...

Members Area

Free Debt Counseling

Ask the community

Community Photos

Featured Discussions

Featured Articles

Question of the Month

Also See

Recent Forum Discussions

Recent Blog Post