LVNV responded
Date: Tue, 10/02/2007 - 12:55
I called LVNV to see what they had to say and they said they turned it over to the law firm so now we have to deal with them.
I don't think I have to deal with them, as the validation lays upon LVNVs feet and they haven't even updated the CRA's to reflect it is in dispute..so more violations.
I am not sure what to do....if I DV the lawfirm, then that is a whole new 30 days to validate, 60 to sue...but I want to hold LVNV to the original timeframe.
I am thinking about sending a letter to LVNV and copy it to both the lawfirm and the surety company that bonds LVNV. In this letter I will restate how much time is left before the validation process must be completed and list that so far they have already violated 4 times (1 violation for continued collection, 3 violations for not reporting the dispute to the CRAs.) Also that I will be bringing suit at the end of the 60 day time frame...I do not like being messed with at all and now LVNV has pissed me off.
So...what do ya think? :lol:
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis are acting as debt collectors, not sure
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis are acting as debt collectors, not sure if they are merely managing the account for LVNV, or if they have obtained ownership. It seems a popular tactic for JDB's to sell it off when they cannot validate/collect. I'm also not sure it is legal (if they have simply sold the account) to sell the debt off. In either case just DV WW&R, if they are merely managing it then LVNV is continuing collection activity (a fdcpa violation) and if they have sold the account, then they will not have the materials to validate it if LVNV didn't either.
I would do just as JCEMT suggested. Keep sending them a debt va
I would do just as JCEMT suggested. Keep sending them a debt validation ltr until you get what you are asking for. :twisted: They are aholes.
ladybug
They are just collecting for LVNV, I asked. :) I am not going t
They are just collecting for LVNV, I asked. :) I am not going to give them one iota more time, at the 60 day mark I do intend to sue the pants off them, hell, sue the both of them.
You don't have to wait the 60 days to report them to the Texas A
You don't have to wait the 60 days to report them to the Texas Attorney General's office!!! I would go to their web site and file a complaint NOW! Chances are they are already in violation of the Texas laws!
well, they are both in violation, 2k sounds nice for your troubl
well, they are both in violation, 2k sounds nice for your troubles. heh
Are you sueing yourself or are you hireing an attorney?
Are you sueing yourself or are you hireing an attorney?
Send a DV letter to Weltman as well. Yes, you can still hold LV
Send a DV letter to Weltman as well. Yes, you can still hold LVNV to the 30 days, they are the "creditor". When Weltman starts to monkey around (and they will) sue them both. Report violations to the Ohio Bar as well and file a complaint.
I have a mind to contact a lawyer about this, but I am still not
I have a mind to contact a lawyer about this, but I am still not wholly sure. Guess it depends on how it goes.
The law firm tried to backpedal out of the conversation by telling me the letter was just a courtesy to let me know they were handling the validation from LVNV???????.yet a little bit before they told me they had no idea the debt was in dispute. ( I kinda figured that out by their letter, they gave me the whole mini-miranda about disputing???????.not to mention the letter clearly states they are collecting a debt:
That line above pretty much states they are trying to collect on this debt, so I think I got em by the shorthairs on this one.
I think I am just going to sent a letter to the law firm, CC to LVNV and explain that the debt is already under dispute and that LVNV has so many days to provide the validation. I will also give them a copy of the original letter I wrote to LVNV...that way I do not reset the validation window, I just include them in LVNV's timeframe since LVNV so thoughtfully pulled them into this.
Hmm..wonder if I can call them as a witness to attest to the fact that LVNV hired them to collect the disputed debt. I also have a recording of my convo with the law firm and them stating they had no idea the debt was being disputed. Heh heh.
Yeah, I am likely going to make a complaint about LVNV to the AG
Yeah, I am likely going to make a complaint about LVNV to the AG for sicking their law dogs on me to attempt and collect on a debt that is currently in dispute.
I don't think I have the law firm on any violations yet, as they didn't know the debt was being disputed, but now they do know so it depends on their actions from here on out now that they have been made aware. :lol:
Persuant to the fdcpa Weltman is a collector. Treat them as you
Persuant to the fdcpa Weltman is a collector. Treat them as you would any other CA. LVNV rarely collects their own (usually purchased) debts, but farms them out to others, and Weltman seems to be a favorite of theirs. If you sent a DV to LVNV, Weltman knows the debt is disputed. LVNV plays a shell game until you pay something, or sue them.
Yeah, they originally had the account with Global Vantedge, but
Yeah, they originally had the account with Global Vantedge, but I think I scared them away, so now they pull out their big guns on me, the big bad scary law firm collector. Puh-leez. :lol:
I do intend to treat them like any other CA, but I am focusing on LVNV..they can farm it out all they want, wracking up the violations..sheesh, they are hanging themselves really.
You're right, these "law firms" are themselves just large collec
You're right, these "law firms" are themselves just large collection call centers. The only reason accounts are given to them is so that the consumer will be frightened by the words "law firm", and feel that the stakes have been raised. Most of these will commit more violations than an original collector. I hear it's because there's mainly young people, and others who know nothing of the law working there on the phone banks.