law office collecting

Sorry that last post was me. Anyone have an advise?

yes, send a validation letter. Make sure it asks that they provide proof of license to collection in your state. If you need a sample letter, let me know

Quote:

By law, the attorney should send the details of the debt in writing within 5 business days after placing the initial contact. If the law office has not sent anything in your mail, call them and request for debt validation. Send the request in writing also for having it documented in a file. I was going through the letters and e-book section in this site. It's informative. You must give a look.

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/books/

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/letters/index.html

What if the initial contact (30 days) has passed, can I still request for validation letter?
Thanks a bunch!

After the CA sends the debt validation, you get 30 days to dispute the debt. If the CA does not get any response from you, the debt is believed to be correct and you are required to pay them in order to avoid legal actions.

If they take legal actions, aren't they required to prove that they sent you notices?
Don't they need proof of delivery too?

Unfortunately they do not, it is acceptable for civil suit to be a method of first contact. If you would like assistance with this agency/firm we will be more than happy to assist you if you can provide us with some additional information. If you can answer these questions I will be able to better assist you.

1. What type of debt is it?
2. When was the last time you made a payment on this debt?
3. What state do you live in?
4. What is the name of the collection agency?
5. What is the name of the law firm?
6. What is the status of the account, is it charged off, still open, has it been sold or does the original creditor still own it?
7. What type of contact have you had so far in regards to the agency and/or firm in question?
8. Does anything about the debt in question seem odd?

How can a civil suit be a method of first contact? That seems to be overshadowing to me, since by law the first contact HAS to have the information allowing 30 days to dispute...if they go straight to court, they circumvent your rights.

GoldenBast, I'm with you. I remember reading somewhere that a civil suit is not an acceptable form of initial contact by a CA. Can't remember where and I will do some looking and see if I can find it again.
Also, a CA can assume anything they want after the 30 day period; however, that does not make their assumption correct. The fdcpa (1692g.(c)) reads: The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. So what I understand when I read this is, the CA can file suit if you don't dispute within 30 days; however, they would still have to prove the debt is yours in a court of law.

I think I've read some people calling it "asking for proof in discovery"? Or something like that.

And, I actually found this on Wikipedia. I'm going to continue to do some looking; however, it jumped out at me when I Googled "FDCPA". It has to do, it seems, with civil suits as initial contact. I'll Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V it and let others tell me what it looks like it says. From what I'm reading it says a lawsuit is not the proper form of initial communication by a debt collector.

Notify the consumer of their right to dispute the debt, in part or in full, with the debt collector. This so-called 30-day "????1692g" validation notice is required to be sent by debt collectors within five days of the initial communication with the consumer, though in 2006 the definition of "initial communication" was amended to exclude "a formal pleading in a civil action" for purposes of triggering the ????1692g validation notice, [18] complicating the matter where the debt collector is an attorney or law firm. The consumer's receipt of this notice starts the clock running on the 30-day right to demand validation of the debt from the debt collector.

When I hear of attorney's doing that it seam to me like an abuse of the justice system. They want to jump right into suing someone without even communicating with them first and finding out what is going on? The debtor could have all sorts of valid reasons why they haven't paid their debts and being sued is not going to make them come up with any money. The CA wouldn't know this, though, as they haven't even talked to the debtor before the suit was filed. It's just a waste of time and an abuse of the court system!

Could you imaging a CA attorney showing up to court and they wheel in a huge hospital bed with a debtor on a ventilator, all because the attorney was "sue happy"? Would sure make them look stupid!

Nice to see you again, Ron! :-)

Hey! I've been around, just not a lot this past week or so. I actually had three job interviews last week, so keep you fingers crossed for me. Hopefully one of them will take pity on me. Man, they wore me out! I haven't had that much to do in over a year now; as long as I've been unemployed, that is.

Congrats, hope it works out! :-) Keep us posted!

According to what you quoted, the complaint is no longer considered an initial communication--meaning that it no longer triggers the 30 day period.

OK, so now I'm really confused. From what I'm reading then, the CA's have a way of getting around this 30-day right to dispute by filing a lawsuit?

Maybe I'm overanalyzing it, and I'm certainly not expert so I hope someone can clear it up for me.

Either way Ron, you can still request validation during discovery.

Many "law offices" are really collection agencies who have borrowed a license. If they make you think that they are lawyers, even without saying so, they can be liable for practicing law without a license. I am involved in such a case right now! I thought I was talking to a lawyer or paralegal until I heard all the call center noise in the backgroung. Turns out it was a rent a lawyer agency!

But if you read it like that, if it isn't considered initial communication, then there had to have been communication BEFORE they filed suit. Since a lawsuit is considered collection activity, it would trigger another part of the FCRA and fdcpa.