Niner849 Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 Well, I sent out a DV for an account on hubby's CR. So I get this letter back. Ya know, we need more information from hubby. Here is the funny part, they actually highlighted these statements:Copy of Social Security CardCopy of Drivers LicenseWritten letter of dispute including your sigunautre. Now the 'your signature' is highlighted....LOL.Um, I thought I already wrote them a letter of dispute. Duh. Well, I guess I'll send them 2nd DV letter giving them 15 more days to provide validation. Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADSOFT Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by Niner849Well, I sent out a DV for an account on hubby's CR. So I get this letter back. Ya know, we need more information from hubby. Here is the funny part, they actually highlighted these statements:Copy of Social Security CardCopy of Drivers LicenseWritten letter of dispute including your sigunautre. Now the 'your signature' is highlighted....LOL.Um, I thought I already wrote them a letter of dispute. Duh. Well, I guess I'll send them 2nd DV letter giving them 15 more days to provide validation. Andi</blockquote>Sounds like a plan!!!!!. It's not your responsibility to validate for them!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 that is funny!! and interesting...i have a friend who disputed a first usa trade and the ca 'a$$et acceptance' the ca immediately fell off and first usa verified but put in dispute on credit report (as the ca would be required to do...) but the trade was marked 'no status' like maybe it wasn't affecting his score (not sure)he got in the mail a letter from first usa, similar to the one you noted in this thread...i would just laugh if it was from the ca, but with the oc sending the letter, it is a curious situation...well how long did it take for them to send that letter to you? do you have plans for a nicely written second d/v letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niner849 Posted July 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by idon'tpaythat is funny!! and interesting...i have a friend who disputed a first usa trade and the ca 'a$$et acceptance' the ca immediately fell off and first usa verified but put in dispute on credit report (as the ca would be required to do...) but the trade was marked 'no status' like maybe it wasn't affecting his score (not sure)he got in the mail a letter from first usa, similar to the one you noted in this thread...i would just laugh if it was from the ca, but with the oc sending the letter, it is a curious situation...well how long did it take for them to send that letter to you? do you have plans for a nicely written second d/v letter?</blockquote>Their letter was dated June 30, and I sent it to them on the 19th. Well, here is the thing. It's for my engagement ring from 1998. I sent this to the OC's in house CA, but their letter head said "Sterling Jewelery, Inc. dba Weisfeild Jewelers. I know it's an in house the we bought the ring from Weisfield Jewelers. I'm gonna modify the 2nd DV letter, and include something along the lines of it's not my responsibilty to validate for you. If they can't find it, then they can delete. It would be good to becuase we paid this as a settle ment (before I found this board), and it shows payment after charge-off on CR. I just find it weird that they can't seem to find anything.Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 just be glad... the only thing i am wondering though, if because they are in house does this make them an actual ca or an oc? remember how the fdcpa applies to ca's...? i wonder about that. i would direct that distinction to a pro... or just repost or change the title of this one... i mean unless you know for sure they are a CA... just a thought.is this the one you disputed with cra's and came back verified? yeah i would just hope that they can't find their info!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niner849 Posted July 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by idon'tpayjust be glad... the only thing i am wondering though, if because they are in house does this make them an actual ca or an oc? remember how the fdcpa applies to ca's...? i wonder about that. i would direct that distinction to a pro... or just repost or change the title of this one... i mean unless you know for sure they are a CA... just a thought.is this the one you disputed with cra's and came back verified? yeah i would just hope that they can't find their info!!!</blockquote>Well, two things cross my mind. It is a possibilty that they are an OC. But, seing as I live in Cali., OCs are considered debt collectors and bound by the FDCPA. Not only that but it's also past the SOL here too, which I can use to my advantage as well. So I might combine the SOL letter along with the 2nd DV letter.Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 well then you're sitting pretty, especialy if it's paid...from my understanding... these places don't need records of 'paid' collections... or if they do why do they care to 'verify'... you know? did you dispute with cra? i mean those are good odds.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niner849 Posted July 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by idon'tpaywell then you're sitting pretty, especialy if it's paid...from my understanding... these places don't need records of 'paid' collections... or if they do why do they care to 'verify'... you know? did you dispute with cra? i mean those are good odds..</blockquote>Yes, I disputed with the CRA, and came back verified, so I thought I would go the DV route. I'll post my letter once I get it worded properly. I think a strongly worded 2nd DV/SOL combo might actually get them off of hubby's report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 do a pr for the cra too...seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niner849 Posted July 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 I never thought of doing a pr for the CRA either. I'll do that and see what happens. I'll type up all of these letters tomorrow.It's so damn hot I don't want to do a thing, but I'm trying to catch up on my laundry at the same time. LOL. I'm running back and forth, it's actually kinda funny. The kids are getting a kick out it.Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 lolat least this way you can cover your bases, so to speak...good luck and keep me posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADSOFT Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by idon'tpayjust be glad... the only thing i am wondering though, if because they are in house does this make them an actual ca or an oc? remember how the fdcpa applies to ca's...? i wonder about that. i would direct that distinction to a pro... or just repost or change the title of this one... i mean unless you know for sure they are a CA... just a thought.is this the one you disputed with cra's and came back verified? yeah i would just hope that they can't find their info!!!</blockquote><blockquote>Originally posted by Niner849Well, two things cross my mind. It is a possibilty that they are an OC. But, seing as I live in Cali., OCs are considered debt collectors and bound by the FDCPA. Not only that but it's also past the SOL here too, which I can use to my advantage as well. So I might combine the SOL letter along with the 2nd DV letter.Andi</blockquote>Niner,I've been on the board for a few hours, so I'm a little tired , but if its beyond the SOL, it's against the law for them to EVEN try to collect. You just have to send them a letter that it is against the law to collect on a time-barred debt. ... As a matter of fact you might want to ask CALAWYER if you can sue them for FDCPA , ROSENTHAL ACT Violations for even attempting to collect!!!!Hope that helps, I'll post the link later, or you might be able to find it look up the member RETMAR and pull up the last post he made to the CALI LAW thread.I hope that helps!!!! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retmar Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 Here is the site Adsoft is talking about. Go to dca.ca.gov/legal/dc_2.pdl. Scroll to page 9, Article 2.6 and read #2. That should give you the answer you want. It is referring to FDCPA 807(2)(A) 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)(A) and Calfironia Civil Code 1788.17. You can go to the California Law site and read the whole of the State Laws there. You will want the California Civil Code. You will also want to read the California Code of Civil Procedures. Be sure to read CCC 1785.26, especially © and see if this can also help you.Hope this will answer your questions. Good luck![Edit by retmar on [TIME]1057189960[/TIME]] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niner849 Posted July 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by retmarHere is the site Adsoft is talking about. Go to dca.ca.gov/legal/dc_2.pdl. Scroll to page 9, Article 2.6 and read #2. That should give you the answer you want. It is referring to FDCPA 807(2)(A) 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)(A) and Calfironia Civil Code 1788.17. You can go to the California Law site and read the whole of the State Laws there. You will want the California Civil Code. You will also want to read the California Code of Civil Procedures. Be sure to read CCC 1785.26, especially © and see if this can also help you.Hope this will answer your questions. Good luck![Edit by retmar on [TIME]1057189960[/TIME]]</blockquote>Thanks for posting that. I actually printed that out. I thought it might come in handy along the line somewhere. I'll for sure have to read that civil code for sure. I haven't had time to read everything in the civil code. There is alot of stuff there. Anything I can use will be very helpful.Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niner849 Posted July 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by retmarHere is the site Adsoft is talking about. Go to dca.ca.gov/legal/dc_2.pdl. Scroll to page 9, Article 2.6 and read #2. That should give you the answer you want. It is referring to FDCPA 807(2)(A) 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)(A) and Calfironia Civil Code 1788.17. You can go to the California Law site and read the whole of the State Laws there. You will want the California Civil Code. You will also want to read the California Code of Civil Procedures. Be sure to read CCC 1785.26, especially © and see if this can also help you.Hope this will answer your questions. Good luck![Edit by retmar on [TIME]1057189960[/TIME]]</blockquote><blockquote>Originally posted by Niner849Thanks for posting that. I actually printed that out. I thought it might come in handy along the line somewhere. I'll for sure have to read that civil code for sure. I haven't had time to read everything in the civil code. There is alot of stuff there. Anything I can use will be very helpful.Andi</blockquote>Ya know what??? I just read that, and I may be able to use that. No where on here (the settlement paper)does it refer to anything about my CR. Only thing it says is failure to comply with these terms will void your settlement and will subject you to pay all amounts due, including interest.Although it does state that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit recortd may be submitted to a CRA if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligation. OK, so why would they put that on this letter, and not the settlement letter.Hmmm, another interesting tidbit, don't know if it relates or not, but this CA\OC is based in Ohio, and in their letter they said according to Iowa law they are a debt collector. Funny, cause now at least I know they are a debt collector and in Cali are bound by the FCDPA.Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retmar Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 That last one is a good one. Most out of State CA's are not familiar with it. The only thing to remember is that before you nail them, be sure of the date of entry and date of letter stating that the info will be placed. Also, EQ does not enter actual date, only month and year, so wait until following month before you notify them. I first used it on a CA from NY who had tried to say my wife owed Fingerhut. She never dealt with Fingerhut. Either way, I had a response within 7 days that account was closed, etc.BTW, I printed the Summary out myself. I didn't realize it was 30 pages until it got going. I also printed the California FDCPA. As to the CCCP, I only printed the 116. section so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niner849 Posted July 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 I didn't realize that the damn thing was 30 pages either. Well, it's good to have as a reference anyway. I'm not sure what you ment by waiting to see when it was placed on my report. It's on hubby's EX, and shows dated opened of 1/1998. I'll post the letter in a minute, so you can see excatly what it says. Oh, they also wanted me to send in a copy of his credit report, yeah right %) I'm gonna wait a little bit before I write the SOL letter. I just wish there was some sort of violation I can get them on. I know they can't collect on time-barred debt, so maybe I'll put that in the letter somewhere as well.Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADSOFT Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by Niner849I didn't realize that the damn thing was 30 pages either. Well, it's good to have as a reference anyway. I'm not sure what you ment by waiting to see when it was placed on my report. It's on hubby's EX, and shows dated opened of 1/1998. I'll post the letter in a minute, so you can see excatly what it says. Oh, they also wanted me to send in a copy of his credit report, yeah right %) I'm gonna wait a little bit before I write the SOL letter. I just wish there was some sort of violation I can get them on. I know they can't collect on time-barred debt, so maybe I'll put that in the letter somewhere as well.Andi</blockquote>Hey RetmarThanks for jumping in, I was dead tired when I made the post!!I think we should all keep on eye on each others posts: Techgoddess, Niner849, Retmar, Adsoft, any other Cali's out there..... The other members should also form GROUPS based on states too.BTW, RETMAR do you know of any cases (case law??) of people suing on CA for collecting on time-barred debts in Cali, .... if you find any let me know????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrassFan Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT but if its beyond the SOL, it's against the law for them to EVEN try to collect. You just have to send them a letter that it is against the law to collect on a time-barred debt. ... As a matter of fact you might want to ask CALAWYER if you can sue them for FDCPA , ROSENTHAL ACT Violations for even attempting to collect!!!!</blockquote>It's against the law for them to try to collect a legitimate debt if it's beyond the SOL? I hadn't heard that. I thought the SOL only meant they couldn't take legal action. I didn't know it meant they had to stop attempting to collect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoAtreides Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 I believe this only applies to California, special statute or some such.I don't think it is illegal to try to collect past the SOL elsewhere, just stupid =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrassFan Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by LetoAtreidesI don't think it is illegal to try to collect past the SOL elsewhere, just stupid =)</blockquote>Naa...it's not stupid. You can bet if someone owes me money, I'm going to keep trying to collect it as long as I possibly can. By the way, that document posted above does specify that it's a violation to attempt to collect a claim that is too old to be enforceable. However, it specifies later that it means that it's a violation to file suit or threaten to file suit to collect.[Edit by BrassFan on [TIME]1057240741[/TIME]] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts