logo

Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

Another letter from Corporate Receivables

Date: Thu, 02/04/2010 - 11:51

Submitted by Nathan Onder
on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 11:51

Posts: 4 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 6


So about a month and a half ago I received a call and then a letter from Corporate Receivables about a debt I owe. I sent out a debt validation letter immediately and had the receipt from it. Fast forward a month and I just received another letter from Corporate Receivables stating my debt that I owe and that not hearing from me is the same as refusing to pay. Can someone shed some light on this matter for me and help me in what I should do. Obviously they heard from me since I have proof that the company received my letter. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.


P.S. Corporate Receivables never validated my debt or responded to my request for debt validation.


I would send them a follow-up letter including my original letter and proof of delivery. Let them keep racking up FDCPA violations. I'd also check my credit report for any derogatory information reported, and if there is, dispute that.

Either way, you're well on your way to cashing in on a nice summer vacation at their expense.


lrhall41

Submitted by on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:12

( Posts: | Credits: )


since you sent proper validation,and this is how they respond.i wouldn't wait.go to NACA.NET.find a consumer attorney in your area and sue this bottomfeeder.i like the angle mr.x,but the most the OP will get is 1,000.00.sue them now as nathan has proof right now.this is a collector that doesn't play fair,and needs to be taught a hard lesson.


lrhall41

Submitted by paulmergel on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 13:22

( Posts: 15514 | Credits: )


Thanks for the info. I'll go ahead and send out another letter along with the original and proof of them receiving the letter. I'll also check out that website and see what I can do. I know these people like to play hardball and unfairly. Let's just hope for the best. Any more advice and whatnot would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!


lrhall41

Submitted by Nathan Onder on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 14:02

( Posts: 4 | Credits: )


PaulMergel - I enjoy reading yoru posts on this board and appreciate your input in the community.

From my experience, although the $1k statutory damage limit under the FDCPA appears to be a cap, I have repeatedly been able to recover actual damages as well without proof of medical treatment. From my perspective, the more egregious the behavior the more actual damages a CA will settle for. Long story short, I like to capture as many violations as possible in order to claim more actual damages above and beyond the $1k statutory damages.


lrhall41

Submitted by on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 04:35

( Posts: | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
PaulMergel - I enjoy reading yoru posts on this board and appreciate your input in the community.

From my experience, although the $1k statutory damage limit under the FDCPA appears to be a cap, I have repeatedly been able to recover actual damages as well without proof of medical treatment. From my perspective, the more egregious the behavior the more actual damages a CA will settle for. Long story short, I like to capture as many violations as possible in order to claim more actual damages above and beyond the $1k statutory damages.


point taken,but it could also be the lawyer the OP finds in his area.some just might recommend letting the illegalities pile up,while some might bring up the 1,000.00.i do think getting a consultation would be beneficial just to give nathan some clarity on which avenue he should take.i do think we agree on this.the bottomfeeder should be sued.it's a matter of when not if.


lrhall41

Submitted by paulmergel on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 04:50

( Posts: 15514 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by paulmergel
point taken,but it could also be the lawyer the OP finds in his area.some just might recommend letting the illegalities pile up,while some might bring up the 1,000.00.i do think getting a consultation would be beneficial just to give nathan some clarity on which avenue he should take.i do think we agree on this.the bottomfeeder should be sued.it's a matter of when not if.


Agreed.


lrhall41

Submitted by on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 09:10

( Posts: | Credits: )