CA actually offered to pay $1000 fine! Should I take it?

I'd make them sweeten the pot some more. They wouldn't be offering this deal unless they knew damn well that you had them cold.

Deal? Or no deal?

I don't know I might be tempted to take the money and run; however, UncleWulf is right. They must be afraid you could get even more if you sued.

Bring that letter with you and see an attorney...or your local legal aid clinic. Explain to them everything that has happened, all violations, even if you don't know if they are a violation. Let the attorney decide if you should accept this or not. They will know if there are more violations you're not aware of. I agree...for them to offer this and ask you to not sue them in the future...seems fishy to me.

right on swedish,if they are so willing to pay this fine,obviously there is more than meets the eye. there is a chance with a little footwork an attorney can uncover more fdcpa violations,so 1,000.00 might be a drop in the well.

Wow, thank you all for the FAST replies! You brought up an interesting point that I hadn't considered (which is why I asked.) Our major focus has not been to get $$ out of the CA, but it might be a side benefit. We really just want to settle this whole debt issue. This is definitely something for dh & I to discuss.

Thanks again.

NO, you should NOT take their offer. and here is why--

Quote:

Skydivr7673 raises a great point I had not even considered.

This CA might be offering this settlement as a sneeky way of getting you to unwittingly admit the debt is yours! The could then turn around and sue you, producing this letter as evidence you confirmed the debt is yours by signing the letter and taking the $1000.00. Even though they seemed to word the fdcpa violation case seperately from the debt, in the letter, I am still weary of it.

Talk to an attorney.

Skydivr & Ron, that's just what I wondered, if it was possible we'd be signing away some future rights. Although the wording doesn't sound like it, I know legalese can be sneaky.

What's interesting is that with this letter they claim to have enclosed validation. However, it's simply a copy of the arbitration award. This award doesn't even have Schiff's name on it, but Wolpoff & Abramson's. Sounds to me like they enclosed yet another violation in with their offer.

Kinda ironic if you ask me. Maybe I'll send them another threat to sue, because they've violated yet again and STILL haven't validated the debt. Hmmmmmm . . . .

That don't sound like validation to me.

No, I hardly think that's validation either. And they probably realize it's not satisfactory validation. Sounds to me also, like they are trying to intimidate by enclosing a copy of this supposed arbitration award.

Personally, I don't think I would give them any more chances by sending out any more letters, I would just retain an attorney and go ahead and sue them.

I'm easy to get along with. One violation of the fdcpa, to me at least, could be an honest mistake; however, it sounds like they keep making violation after violation of the FDCPA. So I would consider them out of chances.

That's just my opinion.

:arrow:

After careful consideration I sent the following letter in reply to the one referenced above.

Re: Your letter of February 13, 2008

Dear Ms. xxxxxx:
I am in receipt of your letter dated February 13, 2008 wherein you state that Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. is willing to pay the statutory fine of $1000 for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I am glad to hear that your firm takes compliance with the fdcpa very seriously. I would like to examine the paperwork you would require me to sign should I accept your offer. You may send it to the above address.

However, I believe that same correspondence contained yet another violation of the FDCPA. Enclosed within was a copy of an award from the National Arbitration Forum for MBNA America Bank c/o Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. Nowhere in this document was Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. mentioned. Neither did this document satisfactorily answer the questions I had asked in my request for validation. These included:
???? What the money you say I owe is for
???? Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe
???? Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe
???? Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable
???? Identify the original creditor
???? Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account
???? Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state
???? Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent

If your offices are able to provide the proper documentation as requested, I will require at least 30 days to investigate this information and during such time all collection activity, including telephone calls, must cease and desist.
It would be advisable that you assure that your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action. This is an attempt to correct your records; any information obtained shall be used for that purpose.
Best Regards,


Here is what I received from them:

Re: Your letter of January 31, 2008

I am in receipt of your letter. Please contact me after you have had this reviewed.

I am not sure what you mean when you say there is "another violation." The arbitration award against you was entered in favor of MBNA America Bank. Wolpoff & Abramson was the firm that represented MBNA in the arbitration proceeding. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff was sent the file thereafter to enforce the arbitration award against you in Massachusetts.

The law is clear as to what is required when we validate the debt in response to your request. We do not believe that there has been any violation here.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

After re-reading section 809b of the FDCPA, it does sound like all they have to provide is the name and address of the original creditor, NOT all things I listed. I'm not sure what to make of this. Suggestions? Clarifications?

Also, I'm very intested to see what, if anything, they send me in regards to accepting their offer of $1000.

Sending name and address of the original creditor is verification, not validation. You are entitled to request that information and since they have failed to provide it to you they have violated the fdcpa as they have continued collection activity while the debt in question was being disputed.

that is correct---the law requires that VALIDATION must be documentation that proves the debt, and that also comes from the original creditor. The CA you request DV from must contact that original creditor, get the documentation from them, and supply you with a copy. If they did not do so, then they did not validate.

The statute you mentioned gives two options--it states that you can either request validation, OR, you can request the name and address of the original creditor. Of course, you can request both as well. The statute does not say that they only need to give you the name and address.

I would reply with another certified letter, and explain that he is mistaken with regards to what must be provided to satisfy "validation". There are numerous FTC opinion letters that explain the actual intent of this law. And you can mention them in this letter to support your claim.

If you requested validation before the arbitration decision was made, and no one provided it to you, then the arbitration finding is questionable at best, because they must prove their case against you when it is challenged. This is a federal law.

Sandysewin, please read this FTC opinion letter. It'll give you a better understanding for what validation requires.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

I agree, too. They need to VALIDATE this debt to you. THEN, of course, it's decision what 'plan of action' to take. It almost sounds like you need to make a decision on which one is 'less of the two evils' kind of thing. Hope this expalins my point.