Jump to content

retmar

Members
  • Posts

    3,433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by retmar

  1. Torden, They fight this because they know exactly what is going on with the majority of the disputes, especially when the reason given, is "reported in error". Remember, they have the mentality of Maggot Droppings. In short, they are under the impression they rule the roost, even though the OC/CA/JDB/ATTY pays for the service. They are also under the impression that once an item is reported, it must remain reported for the duration of the reporting period. One big "pile" they do is how they dispute a TL with the reporting OC/CA/JDB/ATTY. An employee paid a little above minimum sits at a computer, processes the dispute by noting a two digit number, which will represent the reason for dispute. It is sent to the proper "office", where they only check their files to see if your name and personal info is present, then respond as to the TL being reported properly. Nothing else is done. Then you receive the letter from CRA that the TL is still being reported correctly. You dispute again, same result. Even when you dispute a second time using a different reason. Yes, there have been times where the CRA changes a TL to read differently, such as noting it is now "paid in full". Some of us believe they do this to meet the 30 day window as the reporter had yet to respond. The problems all of us have faced over the years with the CRA's is partially what brought about "CHOD" (Christmas Holiday Onslaught of Disputes). By this, between Turkey Day and Christmas, we would flood the CRA's with disputes. Seeing as how many employees are away on holiday, the 30 day cannot always be met, so, they just delete. And, reinsertions were not all that bad. The few that did were easily disputed and deleted permanently. Look back in the archives here. You should be able to find several topics on this subject. Look in my earlier posts from 2003 to 2004, if it will make it easier. Look up "Ironman". If I recall, he had good info to share. He hasn't been here in several years now, but, collected some good settlements for violations. I haven't heard from him in a couple of years, but, his email is still good, as any sent to him are not returned. Methuss has good info, so does Flyingifr. Either way, we had some good threads on this topic. As to fighting multiple TL's of same item, the only way to really win that one is to prove it is true. If this is due to the claim being passed around to different collectors, the easiest way to delete is to dispute with the 1st, then, if they verify, you can nail them for reporting something they are not working, and so on. But, when different account numbers are used, it is a harder battle to fight, unless you have absolute proof up front that what you say is true, and have proof in hand. Look at the one I recently mentioned I'm helping someone on. One business, three TL's, each a different account number, same amount, same dates, everything. Main phone number is same, each office is on same floor, next to each other, of same building, only difference is the office number and hone extension. Dispute came back as verified. Now comes the big guns as I'm composing a letter to force their hand. Understand that in California I have more ammo as state FDCPA offers better protection than federal. CRA's won't fight the hand that feeds them. We, the consumer, do not feed them. At least that is their opinion.
  2. Everyone agrees this is not right, but, until we can find a way to get this stopped, we will have to continue to fight on individual claims, based on our own situation. The only idea I have right now is for you to challenge the deletion date of second TL. Prove they are reporting the same item twice, using only different account numbers. Then, demand they either delete second TL or be sued for reaging an account. Remember, the CRA's lack common sense. All they look at are numbers, not names. Thus, two different account numbers means two different accounts. I'm working on one for a friend here who has three. The company in itself is a loan servicer. When the loan went bad, they sent it next door. When the consumer did not respond, they sent it next door to their inhouse collector. Three account numbers with same amount, dates, and all. Same primary company name, but, each has a specific "title" to it, including primary name. Mind you, they are all on the same floor, with sequential office numbers. Main phone number is same, only extension numbers make it different. The CRA's are fighting this.
  3. Kevo, their response will suffice. All that is necessary is for you to keep each email sent and returned to you. This demonstrates that you and the CA did communicate with each other in regards to settling this claim in an amicable manner, in writing. Note the date and time of each email. Yes, the emails will stand in court, for one primary reason, they each contain a date and time sent and received. Yes, some have had the CA renege saying the rep was not authorized to agree to your terms. Personally, I would not worry about this, but, if you do have a concern, pay this in person, and ask for the manager when you get there. Have a copy of their email and, right in front of the rep, ask them to clarify. If the manger says no, walk out the door without paying them a cent. Let them threaten you. Just remember, if they sue, be sure and answer laying out each and every step you took to resolve, as your goal here is to destroy their credibility, or, let it go to court. You will have some real fun with them as the courts do not like these things, espcially when a consumer made all efforts to avoid any legal action. As to the 7 day claim, this may or may not happen. Most who report to the CRA's do so by computer on a set timeframe each month, for example, the 22nd of each month, someone sits down and updates. Before claiming a violation or their not honoring the agreement, you must wait at least 45 days. Yes, they may just call it in, this is just to let you know not to jump too quick. As to the comment of the CA paying their client less for a PFD, is not correct. As I said in my other post, when a CA accepts the assignment, they agree to a set amount, which could be a percentage of the total amount due, or a flat amount. If the CA and OC have an ongoing agreement, where the CA does all collecting, the amount may be less than if the CA is a first timer. And, if fees and interest are allowed by original agreement and/or state statute, sometimes this is all for the CA, thus, could also be their only payment. It all depends on the agreement with the OC. As to the comment about the OC coming after more funds if they receive less, this is also incorrect. An assignee, working on behalf of a client, accepts a settlement for a lesser amount, only after receiving permission from their client, or, is a preset discount percentage agreed upon at time of assigment. Thus, the OC does not have legal recourse to demand more. If this debt has been sold to a JDB, and, yes, this has happened in the past to consumers. Most common is JDB #1 accepts a lesser amount, then resells the account to another JDB, who comes after the balance due. This is why when dealing with a JDB on a lesser settled amount, you get it in writing that they will not sell, transfer, or reassign, to any other. If a 1099 is warranted for the difference, you may want to take it, just for the protection from another JDB. They most always do not affect your taxes that much. If you want to think about it, simply look at your last years taxes, include the discounted amount, and figure with the current taxes, to see the probable difference, if any. The only thing I think you need to add when you make the payment is that the receipt is itemized, so you know what each penny is for. Then check your state statute as well as the agreement you had with the dentist to assure any fees and/or interest is what is allowed by either. You would have to check your state's statutes regarding collections to see if the OC can be held liable for the actions of their assignee. Most states do not as they simply refer to the FDCPA. Some will have bonding required, while others only want a license. You will only want to have this info handy if the CA reneges on you, or, you find they charged you more than allowed. I doubt it as their wording is clear. Those in the medical profession, excluding Hospitals, do not report to the CRA's. It is very doubtful this Dentist will report anything. As to the comment about C&D the CA, yes, you could have done this, by stating in your letter that you refuse to enter into agreements and/or contracts with a third party CA, cannot be forced to do so, and will only deal with the OC. But, remember, the OC does not have to accept this. They can simply tell the CA to sue, or continue activity. Read FDCPA 805©(1),(2), and (3). Simply, this could just go back and forth and who ends up the loser?
  4. Sorry, Coltfan1972, you are incorrect. The mentioned TL is being reported by the CA, not the OC. The CA does have "standing" as an assignee representing their client, the OC, in this case, a Dental office. They are given the authority to act on behalf of the OC in the collection of an unpaid debt. This can be broad or limited, based on the signed agreement between both parties. This includes their fee, whether a percentage of total or a set amount, again, based on signed agreement. The CA does not need the permission of their client to delete a TL, nor, does the OC need the CA's permission to delete their own TL, if reported. One can request of the other, but, that is all. One would have to read thier state's statutes on standing in court, as some do differ, such as no CA's in Small Claims, but, can appear in Superor, or ?????. The only time a CA needs permission from thier client in the transaction, is when a consumer offers a settlement, such as 75% of total amount claimed due. On some occasions, though few, the CA already has permission to accept settlements for less, and must still communicate with the office manager of the OC. Remember, when you read most OC's agreements, they mention interest and fees regarding the collection of unpaid debts. This can be considered "playing room" when dealing with a CA, especially when the amount they claim due is greater than original amount due. Why is that on some occasions, this is "Free" money, or a bonus, to a CA, as the agreement with their client is a percentage or set fee on the original amount. I found this several years ago when disputing a medical for my wife. The idiot CA included a copy of their agreement with the Doctor's info. The end result was the office manager for the Doctor was fired, and we did not owe the debt, as the Doctor, himself, had written off the balance, as good gesture, because he was the one who would not let my wife return to work. The office manager ignored him. As to deleting negative info, this is done on a daily basis by many collectors as well as OC's. To a CA/JDB/ATTY, it is nothing more than a tactic to cause a consumer to pay up, and/or, because they can screw with a consumer's CR. Those who refuse do so out of simple spite and the fact they can report. BUT, when you read the statute, all it says is that "IF" they report, it must be true. No where does it say that a TL cannot be deleted. True, the CRA's do not like this and do complain, but, when the client, who pays for the service, requests one, using "reported in error" as reason, for eample, there is nothing they can do, as by denying, they could cost themselves a customer. We had this very discussion a few years ago. Can't recall title right now, look up my past threads, or posts. If not there, look up Americaner83 as he was the OP. As a whole, too many people read into a statute what isn't there. Most is due to speculation, or assumption, and, on occasion, finding a judge who will agree. The FDCPA is written so that the "Least Sophisticated Consumer" can understand. The FCRA is supposedly "Plain Meaning", but, I've heard others say it is also "Least Sophsicated". I haven't found proof on either yet. And, yes, I have not looked for some time now. Therefore, if someone has proof which it is, please share with the rest of us.
  5. First off, a few questions. Is your first time knowing of this CA when you pulled your CR? If yes, send them a letter disputing the debt in it's entirety. Check out the sample letters at top of this page. We can assist if needed. They cannot deny your request as you will cite FDCPA 807(8), not 809(. If no, please explain. The TL being reported. Is this the first time you knew it was being reported? If yes, and you had no prior written communication from CA, this CA is already in violation. Before they can report negative info, they must notify you in writing that they are doing so. If no, and you were notified in writing that they may report negative info, there is little you can do. Now, as to your question of offering to PFD. Yes, you can do this. Simply state that you will pay in full if they will delete entire TL. Many CA's claim thay can't do this. It is pure BS. All the law says is that IF they report, it must be true. Lastly, are you at the same address when this account was first opened? If yes, it will be up to them to prove they did not have your current address. If no, did you file a COA with the post office? If yes, hopefully you kept your postcard they sent you, as the post office only retains the records of a COA for one year. If no, you have a problem. By this, a CA is only required to send letters to the last known. And, since their normal communicaitons is by phone or mail, all they have to do is say they sent all letters to last known. No, they do not have to show that the letters were returned by the post office for whatever reason. When you respond to us, do not include personal info, just what is asked here. Please use a little more detail when you can.
  6. PRA Ombudsman, do you really think we care either way? Besides, why would you think this is revelant? None of us can find even one item that would cause even a reasonable person to respond as you did. Why don't you just sit there in your little cubicle and continue to violate the consumers, as PRA is famous for. There are many members out here who could use an extra payday this month, or year. And, we do celebrate when we hear of someone getting paid.
  7. poppet24, just an incredible CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!! to you. Way to go. Outstanding!!! When you can, please share the name of the CA. Yes, after it is settled. I cannot get past the threats to your daughter, having full knowledge she is a minor. Do file a complaint of this with their County DA as well as yours, plus, the AG of both states, as this does constitute abuse. Most important, file them on the person as well as any and all the law will allow the claim to pursue. There could be others, Fraud comes to mind, but, would have to read your state's statutes. Lastly, push for the CA to be closed down, permanently. And, listed owners are forbidden to ever own a CA, plus, this "ADUB" is forbidden to ever work in the industry again. Keep the updates coming, please.
  8. WOW, what a mess!!!!! Let me comment from another angle to see if it will clear up the confusion going on here. BV80 is correct. It is true some JDB's assign to another of their comglomerate, even though the offices sit next door to each other on the same floor. NCO is one of the worst, but, they have several addresses, and different names. Here is what you want to see on your CR. 1. When an OC sells a charged off debt, they must report the account as "Sold or transferred to another . . ." and show a zero balance due. The dates for that account must not be changed, including the first reported, first delinquency, and date account opened. The lates most always stay showing, sometimes they are removed. 2. The JDB must report the TL using the exact dates of the OC, except their date of first reporting must show the date they first reported, not the OC. They can change the account number to fit their records. They cannot reage the debt. They cannot alter any part of the claim except that one date. As to the amount claimed as due, they may only report monies they can legally collect, such as unpaid balance, allowed interest, and/or fees. That is all. 3. IF this JDB does "assign" the debt to one of their other offices, they can change the account number again. YES, we all agree this is simply unacceptable as it is obvious what their intent here is. I have yet to hear of any decision, anything, that says they can't do it. Again, it is not fair. 4. It was said that the dispute with the CRA came back as verified. You could try and file a new dispute with the CRA using "Duplicate Entry" as your reason and see what happens. Or, you could simply dispute with the JDB and/or their assignee. Your dispute here would lie with the comment as to different dates. Or, challenge the amounts. Remember, since it is known this is the same account, both TL's, no matter who is reporting, must match, period. 5. Sit down with each piece of paper received from the JDB and/or their assignee. Note all phone calls received and made. Note date, time, name of person spoken to, and main points of conversation (less important are easier to recall than important). Chronologically place in one binder. 6. Read each piece of paper to find if any of them contained the verbiage that they will, or, may report negative info. Also make sure each letter includes the proper info. Such as, did first allow for the 30 day dispute. Did the 2nd, received within 30 days of first, demand payment, without affording you the benefit of being able to dispute. This is what you look for. Once you have done this, sit down and plan your course of action. I'm saying this as the CRA's will stop responding to the same TL dispute if they determine the dispute to be frivilous. 7. If, during any phone conversations, did the representative threaten in any manner, or refuse to respond to a verbal dispute. A. If threatened, sit down and note what was said, everything. When pursuing furhter aciton, this will be included in the letter being presented. B. IF they refused to accept a verbal dispute, this is a violation in itself. Read FDCPA 807(8). This is one they violate a lot. 8. Last, but most important. The comment in the OP's first post about being "several years" brings us a very important question. How old is this alleged debt? At top of this page, click on the "Statute of Limitations" and scroll to your state. A CC account is considered an Open Account. If statute is past, this JDB does not have legal recourse and is a violation in itself. Read Kimber v. Federal Financial. The violation is at FDCPA 807(2)(a). If necessary, post your letters here and we will critique them for you. Keep us in the loop. Regarding my comment about reaging. It is true that sometimes a consumer and a creditor/collector will reage the debt so as to remove all negative info and make account current. This is done by the consumer agreeing to make timely payments, whatever, until account is paid in full.
  9. Having not read this thread for some time, I reread the OP's original post. I found I had missed something, and, will respond now. I am also responding as some others have commented incorrectly. When a CA/JDB/ATTY leaves a message, for the first time, they are forbidden to leave their company name, reason for call, etc. Primary purpose is there is no guarantee the person they are trying to reach will be the one who first hears the message. Most do state it is an "Important Business Matter", while others may say "This is not a sales call". This is completely legit. BUT, by doing so, they made the "initial communication", which now requires them to send out the letter as described in the FDCPA, with mini, names, amount, etc, within the 5 day period. Yes, they have violated, as the person who OP talked to, had knowledge the written letter had not been sent, thus, the OP was not advised of their rights as afforded in the FDCPA. This would also include if OP was not told the name of OC, the amount claimed as due, nor any other necessary info the OP would need to determine if claim is legit. Another violation would fall in FDCPA 807(8), IF, this CA/JDB/ATTY reported negative info without reporting as "Disputed", over and above not notifying OP within 30 days that they may report negative info. This is also aside from FDCPA 809, as all that is required is that they "Had knoledge the claim was disputed". Regarding FDCPA 809, the CA/JDB/ATTY is not required to respond to a DV. They are only required to cease all activity until such time as claim is validated, though, they may still file suit. BUT, here one would cite FDCPA 809©, to protect their rights. Plus, if reported, must report TL as "Disputed". Regarding the comments about pulling a CR. They are within their rights to pull a CR, whether a hard or soft, as it is considered a tool in the collecting of an unpaid debt. Though we all agree this is unacceptable, there is nothing we can do about it. In my opinon, if the claim is timebarred, then, with the legal status of the claim now void, they should not be allowed to pull a CR, period. As to filing complaints, check your state AG office. You want to know if you can file an AG complaint at your county DA, if the DA has a civil attorney on staff. California, for one, does allow this. Don't waste time with your local PD as this is a civil matter until such time as physical threats, etc., arise. File complainyts with the BBB, FTC, if law firm, with county and state bar, and any state agency who governs collectors.
  10. 1.There is no defined time period. The only requirement upon receipt of a dispute is for them to cease all activity until such time as claim is validated. Yes, some have been sued anyway. Here, you would claim FDCPA 809©, which would cause them to have to prove claim before they can proceed. 2. No, you cannot sue for that reason, primarily due to your already settling it with verizon. It could be considered fraud on your part for even attempting it. Beyond that reason, you would not be able to sue them as they must rely on their client, Verizon, for all related information. As to Verizon, you would have to prove they deliberately did not send information to their client. Since most of these transactions are done by internet, and that all creditors/collectors. most often have safeguards in place for this reason, you would not stand a chance. In short, no matter your claim, it is lost before you begin, in most cases. 3. No, refer to #1. The statutes written to protect you, also protect them. Before anyone considers suing a CA/JDB/ATTY, they must be able to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the CA/JDB/ATTY violated the particular statute claimed. Remember, all they have to do is, if they did in fact violate, tell or show the court that the problem is fixed and all procedures to assure this does not happen again is iin effect. OR, they had procedures in effect, but, something happened. It falls under the automatic presumption that since the act is in their normal business activity, you lose. For example, you claim you never received a letter from them. All they have to do is tell the court they did, and you lose. Why is that in the normal operation of their business, they use the U. S. Mail. Do consumers win on occasion, absolutely, but, the violations are so apparent, there is no excuse. By this, knowing in their own files that the claim is timebarred, yet threaten to sue, they lose. Hope this clears it for you.
  11. BV80, Same for California. The OC is liable if they try to collect their own claim. Most OC's here do not know that. PLUS, California says that IF you violate state, you automatically violate federal. Also, when filing complaints with the AG, if your county DA has a civil attorney on staff, you may file with them. Process moves so much faster. Regarding that section of the FCRA, I'm going to see what I can find as, to me, it appears they are contradicting themselves. Like you, having to reread some statutes is absolute due mainly as to how they are worded. This is why you find me mentioning to others not to read into a statute what isn't there to begin with. The 30 day dispute is the most often misunderstood section of all statutes, with the CA's being the worst violator. In fact, when I filed my claim with the state on that collector I went after, the agent, who claimed to have spent over 9 weeks training of the FDCPA, refused to believe me, until I simply asked her to show where it says a dispute is forbidden after 30 days. Yep, she apologized. Also, 807(8) is another the CA's miss. Actually, it is my favorite. I've got so many people here better resolutions using that one alone. All due to the CA calling, being informed the claim is disputed, then, did not respond accordingly. Do note there is no written requirement in that section.
  12. BV80, Thanks, I had missed that. I guess I better reread the whole thing. Normally, I use California's own reporting statute, which is the same as the FCRA, so, don't refer to the FCRA that often. I know, I'm bad. Lesson learned.
  13. You don't have a violation, YET. There is no statute written that sets a definite time for charging off and assigning to a third party collector, or, selling to a JDB. As I said before, the accepted norm is 180 days, while some use 90 days. It all depends on company policy as to how long they want to carry an amount on the books. Regarding my YET, you will have to wait until it is resolved to see how it is closed out. If they find and properly explain it was a simple error, you have no recourse. Understand that all who deal with the consumer using accounts, only have to show it was a simple error and they had fixed it to where it would not happen again. Too many times consumers have filed on simple errors only to have their claim dismissed. We all agree this is not fair, but, their accepted reasoning is they have so many accounts, it is hard, with employee turnover, etc., they can't catch every mistake that arises. This applies to CA/JDB/ATTY's also. You would have to find an absolute breach of the agreement, or, an illegal action of their assignee. Here, you would have to be sure if your state holds the OC liable for the acitons of their assignee. Some states do, some don't. Verizon does report, and will include the notice in most bills. What you will watch for now is the CRA's to see if this is reported, now or later. You will want to look for it being reported with a "paid" remark. This you will fight as it is obvious it was their error, not yours, thus, not a collection. If the collector reports without written notification, you have a claim. To include, most do not report items under $50, but, still check for a few months, to be sure. If you find any reporting after resolved, let us know and we can guide you through the next step to get it deleted. Lastly, from now on, write down each call made, using date, time, name of rep/super, and main points of conversation. Keep all paperwork in one area for quick reference.
  14. BV80, Since I had posted based on your post prior to mine, I went back through and found your earlier post as regarding the CRA's. There is nothing wrong with what you said there, and is all well and good in some cases, but, not all. If you are not aware, when a consumer files a dispute with the CRA's, they send an email to the CA/JDB/ATTY with your name and SS#, and account info, plus a two digit number that refers to your dispute, such as "Not Mine" The CA/JDB/ATTY now has a "Heads Up" that you are trying to fix your CR. They don't like that unless they get paid. You have now placed the ball in their field, not yours. In fact, this is how I got started with that CA who I beat up. The items claimed, though not my responsibility, were timebarred, so, since others had simply disputed as "Not Mine" and received immediate deletion, I felt why not. Within 10 days of my filing my dispute I got a letter from the CA demanding payment or referral to an attorney for suit. I literally did a jig around my cane. In short, doing this is OK, but, one must be prepared, just in case. Always remember you want to keep the ball in your court at all times. Even if the claim is legit, within statute, anything, your goal is to resolve amicably, but, with you the winner, not the loser. By this, if you can settle for a lesser amount with deletion, due to violations, whatever, you won. As to your comment about the attorney, again, not a problem, but, why waste money for unnecessary paperwork. Since LVNV is a collector under the collection statutes, all communications to them must be forwarded to the proper "desk". By OP having possession of a signed Green Card, his proof of delivery is documented, thus, no excuses will stand. Regarding the FCRA comment, read sections 616, 617, and 618. A consumer does have a right of action. spasquino, Reported information must be as the OC reports. Even if the debt is purchased, the original dates and amounts must show alike. The only item a new owner can report that is different is the "First Reported" date which would align with the date they first reported it. Date of delinquency must be the same as the OC, no matter if assigned or sold. If sold, the OC tradeline must show a zero balance with the words "sold or transferred", or like verbiage. Amounts must match with an acception regarding accrued interest. This amount can change monthly if updated monthly. As to your filing a COA, perfect. BUT, hopefully you saved your copy you received in the mail from the U. S. Snail Mail. You have that, you are in great shape. If not, you have a problem unless you still have other mail, with envelopes, showing the forwarded label still present. I say this as the USPS only retains this info for one year. Now would be a good time for you to go through your papers and find all you can find on these items. Then put them all in one folder or binder for safe keeping.
  15. BV80, The OP sent the DV to LVNV based on information found on his CR. Even though no written communication was received prior, whch offered the 30 day window, the OP may still dispute the clam and request validation. This is a common error made by the majority of the consumers who receive the letters. Why is that no where in the statute, FDCPA 809(, is it written that the consumer is forbidden to dispute or request the validity of a claim after the 30 days has passed. The statute only says that IF you fail to request, they MAY ASSUME the debt is valid. And, if it were true, the consumer is forbidden, then why did Congress add secton ©? Also, if you read FDCPA 807(8), you will find it does not have a specific time frame. In short, the CA/JDB/ATTY is on notice of a dispute. Remember, the FDCPA is written in words that the "least sophisticated consumer" can understand. Too many times people read into something that isn't there to begin with. When I nailed the CA involved in my problem, this is one the claims I included, SOL was primary. I won, they lost. They were fined by the state and lost the business of their client, plus, other sanctions. As to your comment about the atty, one is an assignor and the other is an assignee. They must communicate if they want to win. Miscommunication is a major problem when two parties do not commnicate. The OP would have loads of fun if this did happen, and, use it to his advantage, in offsetting the amount claimed. FYI, NCO on many occasions will reassign your account to one of their affiliates upon receipt of a dispute. This is one of their games, but, too many have now realized, and are fighting back, with several wins. If you reread my post you will find I said he could send the ATTY a copy, for information purposes, but, why waste money. Regarding your comment about notifications. Read FCRA 623(7)(A)(i), then read FCRA 603(p)(2). You will find that a CA and JDB, along with some ATTY's, do meet the burden. Key words are "AND regularly and IN THE ordinary course of business furnishes information . . . ". To include, many states have their own collection and reporting statutes, California being one. Here, it is found at CCC 1826.1 and requires of all who report. California also holds the OC liable under both state and federal collection statutes when they attempt to collect their own claim.
  16. Send them a C&D letter that clearly states you are not the person they seek. You never had the account referenced, period. Demand they close, delete, and go eat Maggot Droppings, or be sued. State that it is obvious they cannot prove the validity of their claim, so, it is in their best interest to do as you demand. Be sure and add that no phone calls are allowed and any further communications, as allowed by statute, must be in writing, and sent by U. S. Mail. Be clear and concise in your wording. If they have reported negative info, do not include it at this time. Save it for later. This will be your final attack, if needed.
  17. I'm going to begin with the very first post. LVNV most likely has bought the debt. I say this due to OP's comment of the 2009 date on CR. The comment that the debt was found on a CR, tells me that LVNV has never contacted OP by mail. If true, then LVNV may be in violation of the FCRA for not notifying OP in writing as required by statute, within 30 days before or after reporting. You do not yell "violation" now. You will wait until fair time has passed to where they have no legitimate claim to innoncence. This would apply if OP filed a COA with the post office, or, never moved from last address on file with OC on the account. LVNV's only way to avoid a violation is if neither was present. Can they claim innocence in court? Yes, but file anyway. One of two things are also clear here. Having not received prior communication from LVNV, the letter from the attorney may be their first attempt, and, it just happened to occur the day following OP's sending off his disputes. OR, they could have been lurking, and, when OP pulled his report, this sent up a flag to where they had the letter sent. Also know that the letter could also be a computer generated form letter. Either way, the actions of sending off the dispute letters to LVNV and the CRA's is sufficient and proper. There is really no need to send this attorney anything as LVNV will forward the dispute. Yes, you could send them a copy of, for information only, but, why waste the time and money. Your return receipt is your protection as proof of their being in receipt of your dispute. The attorney cannot move without permission of LVNV. To include, the comment made as to the 2009 date on CR, this is legit if it is showing as the "First Reported" date, otherwise, it is a violation. Even though LVNV purchased this claim for pennies on the dollar, they are still liable under the FDCPA, as they are a debt collector as defined in the FDCPA. DO NOT CALL this attorney for any reason. Though we all commend you for your actions on that other call, your calling does not help you and could cause you problems down the road. Only communnicate in writing, period. If you do not want them to call you, you must send them a letter that they are forbidden to call and may only communicate in writing. If thya have not started the constant calls, then, you can wait until then. In closing, if this claim is legit, Your goal is to assure that any resolution affords you the best result. By this, if you receive proper validation, and the claim is actionable, knowing they paid pennies, you would make a written offer for $.25 on the dollar to begin the process. Yes, it will go back and forth. If you find they have violated you, you will use this to offset the claim, up to and including they close, delete, and go away. Keep us in the loop and we will share your next steps as they arise.
  18. You must be notified in writing that a negative item is being reported on your CR's. They will usually say that "negative information MAY be reported . . . . " If reported, and you were never notified, you can have it deleted, and sue, if they hesitate. If this happens, let us know and we will help you. The notification must be sent to you within 30 days before or after reporting. A creditor may assign to collections at any time, though, the accepted norm is 180 days, with 90 days on others. Though you will want to speak to a supervisor at Verizon, know now the reps will give you static. Plus, you will have to hang up and wait for one to call you back. Most do not care, period. Things to ask: 1. Why didn't I receive a closing bill? A COA was filed with the post office. 2. How did Verizon arrive at the amount they claim I owe? 3. At time I cancelled my service, why didn't the rep inform me that a closing bill would be sent out? 4. Why did the rep allow me to conclude my call for cancellation without telling me there may be or was additional charges due? 5. Anything else you can thnk of to prove they blew it, not you. In short, your goal is to get them to eat the $30. If not, pay them, assuring they know you are not happy with their unprofessional and incompetent service. I was with them for over 7 years before walking away due to how they treat the consumer.
  19. As written in the Spears v. Brennan decision: "It does not matter that a debt be valid. What matters is how the debt is collected." Too many CA/JDB/ATTY's forget that when dealing with the consumer. They are under the impression they can say anything they want, without fear of retribution, as the majority of consumers have little, if any idea, what their rights are. The letters from these "ADUB's" only state the minimum required by statute, which too many consumers consider their only rights, in many cases. If the visiting Troll wants to claim I am wrong, then, they must then ask why did A$$et get spanked so hard by the FTC last week for their continued illegal activity. The FTC got them for $2.5 million. There are many other cases that can be shown here where if the CA/JDB/ATTY had followed the statutes as written, they would not have been spanked by the FTC, as well as numerous consumers who sued them, and won. This site does not promote ignoring one's obligations, only in how to resolve amicably with the CA/JDB/ATTY, whether by using obvious violations to offset amounts claimed, or, upon appearing in court, have the court resolve the matter properly, as written in all applicable statutes, up to, and including denying the CA/JDB/ATTY, any monies due them, as punishment for their illegal actions. If no violations exist, then learning how to resolve to where the consumer benefits most, such as a pay for delete, or reduce the interest, or principal, whatever, that is all that matters. Have there been some whose only goal was to avoid paying any legitimate claim, absolutely, but, the numbers are quite small when compared to the rest of the members. Therefore, for one troll to make statements, as shown here, on one person only, may be one of those very same people, or, a CA/JDB/ATTY, themselves. How do we know?
  20. antiquedave, job well done. Be Proud!!!!! As to a "sticky", send Kristy a PM and ask if she will add this to the list of sticky's. The following actually happened to one of my friends here. Due to a simple error on their part, they had a check returned. Of course, the payee had Certigy with their hand out. The day the letter arrived, the calls began. The rep was told a money order was being sent out in the morning, and they thought all was OK. Not two hours later, the phone rang again. Guess who? When told of the previous call and PTP made, the rep's response was, when asked why still calling, and I quote, "We haven't received the money yet". Over the next five days, they received three calls a day, different reps, everything. Come to find out, the reps do not put the info in the system most times. This, to me, is absolute harassment.
  21. Coltfan, thank's for catching that. It was supposed to be $1000. I found other typo's, so fixed it. I don't send a filed complaint, just include the verbiage of "you may . . . . , including, but, not limited to . . . ". Every time they will deny payment, but, to me, I still won, as, if I did file and went to court, I have proof I tried to resolve amicably so as to not tie up the courts. Credibility, anyone???? Flyingifr, I like your definition better, short and to the point.
  22. Bravo, everyone, for jumping in on this. Regarding my comment as to "10 calls in one day", I think it best to include some items. As of today, I have found no case decisions regarding when the repeated calls in one day are considered excessive, and, in violation. I agree that it would depend on the judge as to setting an amount per case, unless the consumer can prove a previous decision, or an accepted norm from either state or federal statutes. We've had several threads on this, many just single posts included in a larger post, so, hard to recall all of them. I remember some comments as to statutes that Robo Calls must have a person at time phone is answered, available. I've also heard this is not true as long as they do not state any personal info. I argue this in respects to the first communication rule. Another thread here. As we know, many consumers work, thus, are not usually home during the day, thus, unable to respond to the call. For that reason alone does it give the CA/JDB/ATTY the right to continue to call having reasonable knowledge the consumer may be at work? Most obvious here is this. Most consumers check their messages upon arriving home for the evening, then, decide who they will and will not call back. If a CA/JDB/ATTY, it is most obvious they will not call back. Even if the consumer has all intentions to returning call and resolve the situation, is it not reasonable to assume that two calls to the same number in one day would be excessive? Many say no as they consider it OK in case the consumer may have just run to the store, or slept late. Add other reasons here. Personally, if a CA/JDB/ATTY calls, Robo or not, and receives no answer in the AM, then, calling again in the afternoon, or early evening, should be acceptable. But, to call every hour on the hour, or whatever, should be in violation upon the third call. I say this as reasonable people do not sit and continue calling a number that they receive no answer, especially when the message they leave is the same as all others. Yes, I am well aware that CA/JDB/ATTY's are not reasonable. As to OP's questions, let me say this. The one year SOL does prevent you from having legal recourse, but, there is no law that says you can't complain about it, even in court. Letting the judge know the character of the plaintiff does go a long way in many cases, but, only if the consumer makes it known. As to your comment about an ATTY, if you have proof an ATTY violated you in this, file a complaint with the county and state bar. File with the AG for your state and their state. Same for the BBB. Let it be known to all you can notify. You could even throw in while in front of the judge that you find it unfair that the plaintiff had four years to sue, but, you only had one, and, since ignorance is no excuse, it is hard for you to understand how that can be fair in any situation. Never know, they may cut it in half, or some other relief.
  23. For any who do receive calls similar to this, which include alleged "Case" numbers, do not delete message, note this number, and look at account number or reference number on all written communications you have received from any CA/JDB/ATTY. You will most often find the number given on phone is identical to the number on the letters. This is a violation in itself, and actionable. Go to your nearest Radio Shack and buy their small recorders, then, transfer the message to the recorder. Next, sit down and copy word for word the message. Then compose the letter to the collector demanding they cease and desist, or else. By this, if they do not agree to close account, delete all negative info reported, and guarantee they will not sell, transfer, or reassign, to anyone, you will have to name them in a civil claim in a court of proper jurisdiction. Even ask them for $1000, just to P*** them off. If you have no letters that match the number, call your county courthouse and ask if they have a claim with that number, or, any number. Most times the number will not compare with their sequence. "Once done, sit down and compose the letter, but, now use the verbiage that upon calling your county, you found their number claimed does not match your county's own system.
  24. Personally, I would use it against them, if for nothing more than causing the judge to question it. As the statute reads, a reasonable person would agree with you. Without knowing the whole of your state's statutes, it is not easy to state as absolute. You would have to read the whole statute, and especially read all footnotes, or other items at end. See if they offer a summary. California has a summary available which describes the intent of congress. As to your case now, if it has been over one year as pointed out by another member, forget it, you have no recourse. The SOL begins on first date of injury. For example, if they called you 10 times on the very first day, it would be a violation, but, only actionable for one year from that date. My comments above are for the sole purpose of letting the court know of the incident, in hopes the court will reduce the amount of claim, accept your payment options, whatever, just as long as it benefits you, and puts a bug in the judge's ear as to this plaintiff condoning violating the consumer.
  25. Does anyone know what scores the cell phone providers use to determine amount of deposit? Even a beakdown of the scores by provider will suffice. I've been asked this on more than one occasion, and, now, am quite interested. For example, if a person has a score of 630, would they need a deposit? If so, how much? What score is needed for no deposit? And, which provider offers what, depending on the score? Any input will be appreciated. Even your own score and amount, if you know it. Send it by PM if you wish to keep it quiet.
×
×
  • Create New...