richinsea

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About richinsea

  • Rank
    Newbie
  • Birthday 04/20/1943

Profile Fields

  • Location
    WA
  1. So the OC is asking you for your information so they can determine if you owe them money. Seems like you could just give them the wrong information and they would determine that you dont owe any money.
  2. You have me wondering about validation. I thought the FDCPA required a validation shortly after it was requested as well as the name/address of the OC "if different" although how they would know if it was different than a name address I was previously given by the OC how would they know if it was different. But I digress. If the CA did not validate the debt as specified in the FDCPA then I don't think they can report it to a court or CRA as a debt without saying that the debt is disputed.
  3. The reason to say validation not verification is so that if they send a verification in response to a validation request they will have absolutely no excuse for having done so, even though they are technically wrong already. Remember that the court views the collection agent as sophisticated or knowledgeable and the debtor is allowed to be unsophisticated or not knowledgeable so even if you asked for verification in error the agent should give you validation, but you never know what will happen before a judge. There was a murder case on tru tv where they said the guilty party got life with no parole (cause one of the jurors wouldn't go for the death penalty) and he was let out in 11 or 12 years for good behavior. Go figure.
  4. In another thread R_N says, in response to a long request list a short part of which I repeat here "1.A copy of all signed documents with MY signature providing that the debt is in fact mine. 2.A copy of the original creditor’s contract. 3.A letter or statement of assignment from creditor allowing you to pursue this debt in collection. 4.A statement from you to the fact that this debt has not been written off to profit and loss by creditor's 5.as this is a Medical account a signed HIPPA Authorization form." That they are simply not required to provide any of that. Yet you say they have to send a copy of the signed application and as I look at the FDCPA 809( I don't see where it says that? Can you help explain this to me? I realize now I may be asking the same thing as transaction #1.
  5. I don't pretend to follow all the details you give, but I had a dispute with Sprint when I tried to cancel an account with nothing owing and they jsut kept on billing so I wrote to the FCC and Sprint called to cancel with zero balance.
  6. So what you are saying is if I have a letter then just send a DV, a request to validate presumably with a request for correct name/address of OC and leave the disputed and cease communications till they respond to that. So all I need to do is figure out what is the simplest DV I can write while still saying what it has to say. The answer to your question is that your post number 3 got lost by me in the other 5 or so pages of banter going back and forth on unlimited inconvenient hours and partial cease communication letters.
  7. You should read the section on false logical arguments. So I make a comment which you don't agree with and you respond by name calling. No wonder the original poster never posted again. After ten months of arguing you two are hopelessly deadlocked. You think that a limited C&D does not work and I am inclined to agree, or at least not to trust it. Your opposition takes a literal interpretation of the inconvenience clause which was preceded by an unusual clause and it seems obvious that the inconvenience clauses were inserted to define what is an unusual time anyway, well let the consumer specify when, such as if the debtor sleeps all day and works at night he may change the inconvenient hours, that is or live with the default, but it should be obvious that congress never intended a 24/7 exclusion on calling as a definition of unusual calling times. You asked if I had THE answer, and well, I can put in my 2 cents worth. I am trying. "Under the FDCPA (spelled out) 1) I dispute the entire debt. 2) I ask that the debt be validated itemizing all charges especially additional charges including copies of all documents, signed, authorizing you and all creditors named or unnamed to collect the debt and the name and address which is different from the name with no address that you provided as creditor (assuming he had given no address and I don't know it, otherwise the wording is different.) And since you are a collection agency collecting a debt allegedly occurring in the state of Washington please provide your Washington State business address and the hours you are open to the public. and that you 3) Cease All Communications" Maybe I should add that [you should assume] all telephone communications will be recorded. (WA is a 2 party state.) Although I like the idea of saying this when the call takes place but in case I forget this can't hurt. Remarks: 1 Not only do I agree with you at least to the point of saying why take a chance, but I also believe that written/other communication can be as abusive as telephone, and if you could say just telephone what if they hand deliver a notice, how would that feel. Well if you were allowed to exclude or waive say mail communication you should say it that way, cease all except mail is waived, but that is not what I would do. 2. I don't know all the things I can ask for under this but I tried. 3. OK, so if the collection agent does not respond to 2, then he is violating 3 or is he? I see it as his problem. If he only validates the debt then I probably would not accuse him of violating 3 but if he did more then that is another story. If he doesn't respond to 2 based on 3 then he can't legal proceed with collection which is fine by me. Since I put 3 before 3 it is open to interpretation that he was to respond to 2 (which he was supposed to have done in the initial letter anyway) and then do 3, cease communications. I could add "except as required by law" but the act already provides for some exceptions so adding that would be redundant. Recall the admin said 'I would go with a validation/cease communication combo."
  8. There is nothing wrong with doing what you suggest, as long as it works for you. But I don't think it will work for most people. Most people have a phone because they have friends whom they would like to be able to reach them, or they have medical issues and want to get lab results of a critical nature from their doctors. As has been suggested if they don't want to receive phone calls they simply can cancel their phone service or change to an unlisted number which might work for a while or place a message that they will not answer between 8am and 9pm but will check for messages, that way their friends can call outside those hours but the collection agency cannot. Also not a good solution for some. Or you can get a magic jack for friends which only works on a running PC I think but still takes voice mail so it can be checked periodically and you can get rid of the other line. Or use a cell phone or get caller-id at some expense to know who is calling so that even if the collectors get the number, they probably will, right, then you can monitor when they call and not answer. All of the ideas I have suggested are ideas that may work for some people but may not work for someone who wants to just pick up the phone when it rings to talk to their friends instead of being abused by a collector and they are abusive. It is all very well to say you can give them no information but that does not change the fact that the calls are abusive. For some that is easiere than others. Recall that this case is about someone who did not want to bew called on the phone so he wrote what he thought was a limited C&D letter not to be called on the phone. Remember the debtor is presumed to be unsophisticated so the court could have decided this was an unlimited C&D letter but neither party asked the court to rule on the basis of written communication, they were both happy with that arrangement so the court was silent as to whether the C&D was limited or not. The plaintiff claimed the defendant had violated his letter by making a phone call and the defendant argued that he had waived his right by a phone call his wife made, and the court saw a loophole, that the defendant's call was made by a person other than the person the plaintiff's wife called and did not have the right to use the waiver, and so ruled. If someone calls you then you should be able to call them back, to reply, but that principle does not give you the right to have someone else call them back, according to the court. Also your suggestion does not tell anyone how to answer the initial collection letter. Are you suggesting one ignore the initial letter to respond in 30 days or the debt is imputed to be valid?
  9. It is sad that no one can come here and get a straight answer to your question after 5 pages of mostly deadlocked argumentative commentary from two points of view.
  10. I see one flaw in your argument, above. Surely the FDCPA or congress would also recognize the US mail or any other communication media to be legitimate and legal for collections, but apparently all of these can be excluded iff ALL of them are excluded via the general C&D letter. Since it allows that how much importance or protection is given to any of these tools?
  11. HRRG Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group AKA TeamHealth AKA Alcoa Billing Center (is this a collection agency representing itself to be a billing center?) 3429 Reagal Drive Alcoa TN 37701-3265 (Also with lots of PO Box addresses in TN and OH. And I am in WA.) also ARS Account Resolution Services a collection agency subsidiary of HRRG