For Ohio folks, and maybe other states, too...
Date: Mon, 01/05/2009 - 18:56
For those in Ohio that may run into this type of suit, here's a counter suit that came out on top. :) Hope it helps.
What happened in this counter suit Ohio case: Recovery sent Howard a preprinted form in heavy lettering, while the personal information relating to Howard was in different lighter type. The form did not mention the verification notice. Ten days later Howard sent a decease communication letter along with a request to verify the validity of the debt. Recovery never verified the validity, never contacted Howard again and after more than 6 months, returned the account back to the alleged creditor. This allowed Howard to be subject to collection activities by other collection agencies w/o knowledge of the validity of the alleged debt.
The judge was one smart cookie, IMO. He frowned on the initial preprinted form letter being in 2 different types, and said that because there was no mention of verification in that initial contact, that indicated the intention and the frequency and persistance of how Recovery communicates with comsumers.
________________________________________________
Case No. SCI 96 Lorain Mun. Ct. Lorain, Ohio May 16, 1988
Essmer Howard v. Recovery Consultant Inc.
"That the failure of a debt collector to verify the validity of a debt., when requested by a consumer pursuant to l5 W.S.C, §1629g(b), before closing and returning the account to
the creditor, is an unconscionable practice pursuant to R.C. S 1345.03"
The Defendant, Recovery, was a no show.
The Plaintiff, Howard, was rewarded $600.
What happened in this counter suit Ohio case: Recovery sent Howard a preprinted form in heavy lettering, while the personal information relating to Howard was in different lighter type. The form did not mention the verification notice. Ten days later Howard sent a decease communication letter along with a request to verify the validity of the debt. Recovery never verified the validity, never contacted Howard again and after more than 6 months, returned the account back to the alleged creditor. This allowed Howard to be subject to collection activities by other collection agencies w/o knowledge of the validity of the alleged debt.
The judge was one smart cookie, IMO. He frowned on the initial preprinted form letter being in 2 different types, and said that because there was no mention of verification in that initial contact, that indicated the intention and the frequency and persistance of how Recovery communicates with comsumers.
________________________________________________
Case No. SCI 96 Lorain Mun. Ct. Lorain, Ohio May 16, 1988
Essmer Howard v. Recovery Consultant Inc.
"That the failure of a debt collector to verify the validity of a debt., when requested by a consumer pursuant to l5 W.S.C, §1629g(b), before closing and returning the account to
the creditor, is an unconscionable practice pursuant to R.C. S 1345.03"
The Defendant, Recovery, was a no show.
The Plaintiff, Howard, was rewarded $600.
Quote:Ten days later Howard sent a decease communication letter
Quote:
Ten days later Howard sent a decease communication letter along with a request to verify the validity of the debt. Recovery never verified the validity, never contacted Howard again and after more than 6 months, returned the account back to the alleged creditor |
A cease comm and validation request are mutually exclusive events. You cannot ask for them to cease comm and validate the debt at the same time. They ceased contact as the consumer requested and returned the debt back to the OC. I don't see an issue here. Happens every day and nothing illegal about it. No "mini-miranda" will nail them everytime if you can prove it was the initial communication.
