BV80

Moderators
  • Content Count

    19,008
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    225

BV80 last won the day on April 15

BV80 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,579 Excellent

About BV80

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

Profile Fields

  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

5,946 profile views
  1. In your case, the cause(s) of action has no effect on the arbitration provision. You do not have to reference the causes of action claimed by the plaintiff. Just follow the advice 8n the following thread. https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/329436-arbitration-overview-and-strategy-2018-most-up-to-date-info/
  2. They did not update until they noted your dispute. There is no violation.
  3. I’m not trying to discourage you from claiming FDCPA violations. I tend to rely on court rulings because courts explain why they reach decisions. If I knew for a fact that you have FDCPA violations, I would say so and be able to provide rulings that support your claims. If I cannot find supporting rulings, I have to look at both sides.
  4. The letter from Synchrony has nothing to do with validation. It was simply to inform you that the debt had been sold. The dates are not far apart. In any case, it would not constitute a violation of the FDCPA. As I told @fisthardcheese, Midland can claim they validated. They will be able to show that they have procedures in place to validate upon request. That is all the courts require. Courts do not require them to prove that consumers have received the requested validation. In regard to their failure to locate the account, that can be a clerical error. That happens in business. Your case was dismissed. They will not refile. Relax. 😀
  5. Ok. The OP just informed us that the disclosure was sent with the 1st letter. The 1st letter was to inform the OP that Midland had the account. If the disclosure had not been included with that letter, validation rights were not triggered. No, the 2nd letter does not overshadow due to the fact that it includes the following statement: “The opportunity to pay the amount listed above does not alter or amend your validation rights as described in our previous letter to you.”
  6. Thank you. The last page shows “important disclosure information”. Was that with the 3rd letter?
  7. That didn’t answer my question. Did the first letter contain a notice stating that you had 30 days to dispute the debt and that if you did so in writing, they would obtain validation/verification?
  8. Are they updating their entry on your credit report every month? Or have they stopped updating? Have they updated their entry on your credit report since the lawsuit against you was filed?
  9. Ok. And Midland will simply claim they did. They can show that they have procedures in place to send validation. They do not have to prove the OP received it.
  10. “Collection” is not incorrect because it is, in fact, a collection account. Why should it show “dispute”?
  11. No. The validation notice in 1692g(a)(1-5) only informs the consumer of his right to request validation. It states that the consumer can request validation within 30 days of receiving that notice. If the notice, itself, were validation, there would be no reason for it to include that the consumer has 30 days to make a request.
  12. @Brotherskeeper Are you referring to the validation notice or validating the debt after receiving a DV request?