Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

Forums
  • Latest topic

I think I have some good news, I think! MCG

Date: Thu, 04/03/2008 - 15:31

Submitted by Shazzers
on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 15:31

Posts: 17344 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 10


My original thread below on Merchants Credit Guide.
http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/collection-agencies/credit-guide.html

Here's a quick summary:
-My first collection bill was on Jan, 3, 2008 (the amount was incorrect! much higher, naturally)
-I sent out a validation letter on Jan, 18, 2008
-I received another bill on Feb., 19th, 2008
-skydivr helped me write another letter to them reminding them they violated the FDCP, etc., and I also sent a copy of the first validation letter.
-Today, I received another bill, only this time they want to offer me a settlement (still no validation), they are offering me a settlemet of 80% of the current bill, which is still MORE than the orignal bill was. We are only talking about a few hundred dollars here, but the fact remains, I still have no proof of that debt, only another bill, which I believe is another violation? What should I do? Suggestions?


volleyballmom
Shazzers... now this is interesting. I had the same thing happen to me this week...sent a DV letter, they still havent validated they debt, but they sent me a settlement offer.

Are settlement offers not considered a "collection efort" I wonder?

Well, it does say on the letter "This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt". So yeah, it has to be, I would think. And that would be a violation, right?


lrhall41

Submitted by Shazzers on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 16:36

( Posts: 17344 | Credits: )


Yea, but I believe that verbiage (aka the "mini-miranda") is required on all communication from a debt collector...ever call a collection agency and hear it on their recording?

I just wonder if the fdcpa statute would interpret a settlement offer as an attempt to collect, since it isnt a "demand" for payment.
I dont know for sure...but like you, I would like to know since I am in the same boat. :)


lrhall41

Submitted by volleyballmom on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 16:43

( Posts: 4143 | Credits: )


I think you could make an argument that a settlement offer is 'collection activity'. It's not necessarily a 'demand' for payment, but the intent is the same: to separate you from your money. Alone, a settlement offer might not be worth the hassle of trying to prove fdcpa violations. But if it's part of a pattern of other abuses, then I'd definitely make it a separate count.

My $.03 [adjusted for inflation...]


lrhall41

Submitted by unclewulf on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 16:51

( Posts: 3172 | Credits: )


Well wulf, I have made two attempts to obtain validation from them,the first one was definitely a demand for payment, the second was offering a settlement. There is NO way I am going to give them a dime (even 3 cents lol) until they prove to me they own that debt, and also prove I owe the debt. Maybe I am setting myself up for a fall though, not sure. :?


lrhall41

Submitted by Shazzers on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 16:55

( Posts: 17344 | Credits: )


ok, this is DEFINITELY collection activity. Collection activity is more than just a demand for payment--it is any activity at all which is done for the purpose of collecting or attempting to collect on the debt. The fdcpa has been used successfully on coirt to show that reporting on your credit report is collection activity--you bet your last buck that a settlement offer is!

And remember, the law uses the "least sophisticated consumer" rule. This means that the law is applied to whatever action the CA has taken, and then the question is asked--

What would this action make the least sophisticated consumer think?

This standard has allowed people to win against CA in situations that some of us wouldnt even think of challenging--for example, the same CA that I started that "contestant #2" thread about the other day, they were sued in the 1990's because they used to use the words "Collection Division, Credit Bureau of Baton Rouge" as their company name, when operating as a CA. They were sued because this name led the consumer to believe that they were the collection division of a credit bureau, which they are not. The CA won the original case, but lost in appeal because the least sophisticated consumer would look at that and think they were something that they are not.

The least sophisticated consumer gets a settlement offer and thinks, "these people are looking for money". Thats a collection attempt all day long. And remember, the reason for validation, according to the law, is to prevent CA's from going after the wrong people, or for the wrong amount. They are required to validate. This is only optional if they dont intend to collect anymore. Clearly, these people do.

VBM, as in the PM, I will get you that letter tomorrow, I hope that will work for you. Sorry about making you wait until then, I just got in from a ball game and I need to be up in 5 hours for work.


lrhall41

Submitted by skydivr7673 on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 20:49

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )