Skip to main content
index page

OK-it's like dancing in a circle

Submitted by on Tue, 08/26/2008 - 05:57
Posts: 202330
Credits:
[Donate]

I have sent 2 DV letters, the second one being the notice that they didn't send proper validation for the first one. (They sent me 2 3 year old bills-copies, with no payments made)
This is not validation-I'm looking for a contract with a signature!

SO, I get a letter telling me that a judgment was enetered against me, but the "judgement" letter has no court seal-which it says it needs to have, and they tell me they DID send me validation.
SO, I'm send ing another letter, I guess, but does anyone have a suggestion as far as wording? When I try to write my own, I wind up telling them I'm not stupid, and that they shouldn;t assume I don;t know my rights-it sounds childish. I need some good legalese that will helo me sound more savvy to their ploys.

Thanks in advance-this is getting old, and they are ruining my credit!!


Quote:



Nascar, when did statements become legal validation? I have used the DV letter from this forum several times and it doesn't mention statements as validation.


See Sec 809 of the fdcpa. Statements would fit the requirements. Too many times, consumers take the internet as an Oracle. Do your own research here and other sites.




Submitted by NASCAR_Devil on Tue, 08/26/2008 - 10:49

NASCAR_Devil

( Posts: 4671 | Credits: )


Ok, well, I was never served with anything requiring a signature. Does that mean anything? I can't see how a photocopy of a bill, which anyone could get, could be validation. Especially, if I never received this bill from 3 years ago!

I'm in NY, have lived at this address for 8 years.


Submitted by on Tue, 08/26/2008 - 11:43

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Nascar is correct about the fdcpa and its requirments for validation as shown in sec 809 5.b in this thread but those requirments are very weak and would probably not be enough evidence to get a judgment against a person if that is all the evidence a CA comes prepared with during a hearing. Personally I would keep disputing as improper validation and demand a signed contract along with a full account summary detailing every payment and how they arrived at the balance they say you owe. If this goes to court they will have to provide that anyway or they will more than likely lose assuming you get proper service and know there is a case against you.


Submitted by DOLLARSandSINCE on Tue, 08/26/2008 - 14:15

DOLLARSandSINCE

( Posts: 1078 | Credits: )


Quote:

So, you're stating that ALL information found on this site is bogus? I find it hard to believe that most moderators and others are giving out bad advice.


Not sure where you're getting that. I never stated that all the information on this site is bogus. Do you believe everything you read on the internet or see on TV? Do you take anyone's advice without verifying the veracity of the information given to you?


Submitted by NASCAR_Devil on Tue, 08/26/2008 - 17:55

NASCAR_Devil

( Posts: 4671 | Credits: )


IMO a judge should be the one to determine what should be considered "validation". If a statement is all that is needed, would you accept a statement from me stating that you owe me $50,000.00 without me having a signed contract from you? Probably not. I will continue to ask for a signed contract as "validation" from these CA's.


Submitted by on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 00:04

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


You can use the DV letter on this site and modify it to your situation. If you want you could state what you already received but you definitely want to request the contract and a full accounting statement showing how they arrive at what you owe. Neither of these items is uncommon to ask for by the way even though the fdcpa might not enforce them for validation. You are not requesting anything obscure here and if the debt is valid then they should easily be able to provide these items. If you catch them in the 30 day time period you can just continue to dispute and request validation over and over after each of their attempts to validate and it would probably be a violation of the FDCPA at that point since you continue to dispute the amount of the debt and that you owe the debt.


Submitted by DOLLARSandSINCE on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 06:28

DOLLARSandSINCE

( Posts: 1078 | Credits: )


Quote:

If you catch them in the 30 day time period you can just continue to dispute and request validation over and over after each of their attempts to validate and it would probably be a violation of the fdcpa at that point since you continue to dispute the amount of the debt and that you owe the debt.


Dollars are you referring to the 30 day time period after the dunning letter?


Submitted by Shazzers on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 06:53

Shazzers

( Posts: 17344 | Credits: )


Yeah, I was referring to the 30 day time period of the initial dunning letter. I think if you dispute in a timely manner and they attempt to validate and you continuously dispute their attempt then they would not be able to continue other collection activities until they satisfy the dispute without violating the fdcpa and the FCRA. According to sec 809 5.b of the FDCPA, If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed .... the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt. After that it becomes an argument of what is required for verification to prove you owe the amount in dispute. I would accept nothing less than a signed contract and a full accounting of charges, fees, penalties and interest especially if I knew the debt was not mine or bogus.


Submitted by DOLLARSandSINCE on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 07:14

DOLLARSandSINCE

( Posts: 1078 | Credits: )


The law is a bit confusing, it states:

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

There are actually two parts. If you rearrange the sections, it becomes a bit more clear;

1) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.


2) or...if the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

In other words, if the consumer only request the name and address of the original creditor, then that's all the collector must send. However, if the consumer request verification, the debt collector is required to confirm with the original creditor the amount being claimed is correct and that the person from whom they are attempting to collect the debt is the person who owes it.


Submitted by NASCAR_Devil on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 07:17

NASCAR_Devil

( Posts: 4671 | Credits: )


I have the same problem although I do suspect I might eventually get sued over what my wife did unless I can save up some money to settle it first. I am barley breaking even right now though so it will be a while on those debts. They are already pushing 2 years deliquent but hopefully they will not sue.


Submitted by DOLLARSandSINCE on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 08:55

DOLLARSandSINCE

( Posts: 1078 | Credits: )


My 2 deliquent debts are not even 1/2 way there yet. She charged 5k and 7k in my name about 2 years ago now but those balances have grown quite a bit. The 5k one is up to 8k now and the 7k is up to 10k. I haven't heard a peep out of the bigger one though. The smaller knows my work number so they have called a couple times but I sent them a DV with a CD attached so that shut them down. I am just trying to wait out the SOL period or if I save up some cash I might settle.


Submitted by DOLLARSandSINCE on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 10:53

DOLLARSandSINCE

( Posts: 1078 | Credits: )


What's a CD?

I'm thinking I may wait out some of the 30 days before sending the CA the request for better validation. I'm pretty positive that this is either not my debt, nor my H's OR it may be so old that the SOL may be up, but they're trying anyway. I have no recollection of this, but here's another question-if it is past the SOL, will it ruin our credit? Also, if it is past the SOL-can they indeed seek a judgement?

This is so upsetting, especially when I know we're going to need a car since the H's truck is coughing out it's final death wail.


Submitted by on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 14:32

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


I'm in NY.


Submitted by on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 07:36

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


They can sue you even if it is out of SOL, but they can????????t win if you show up and use the SOL as your defense. You would then motion to dismiss with prejudice which means that they can never, ever sue you on that same item again.

As for your credit report, SOL is different then the limit for credit reports. Those are 7 years where state law determines the SOL for when one can be sued on something. In court photo copies of a couple old bills would not even begin to be proof, as it does not show a whole accounting of the item such as what payments have been made and what charges put on. Also the contract would be needed to show your legal obligation to pay in the first place (not to mention to also prove whatever fees they are tacking on). I always say this in my letter when a CA tries the play that a few statements are full validation???????I simply respond to them that in a court of law it is not considered proper validation and that court is where this whole thing is going if they do not comply. :)


Submitted by goldenbast on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 09:08

goldenbast

( Posts: 2884 | Credits: )