Sign in to follow this  
Anonymous

HELP, CALAWYER, FALSE DEBT REPRESENTATION

Recommended Posts

I have a question on regarding misrepresention of DEBTS/OBLIGATIONS.

If upon asking for FULL VALIDATION(Down to the penny) and the CA can't prove/itemize the debt (inclulding signature and terms) to MATCH THE AMOUNT ON MY CR, at that point is there enough grounds to request that CA remove the TL from MY CR and resend me my mini-marandas and/or force settlement .... you know the FDCPA states that it is ILLEGAL to misrepresent a debt:

.ie,

<blockquote>§ 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

</blockquote>

AND

<blockquote>§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

(2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

</blockquote>

AND

<blockquote>

§ 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

</blockquote>

I want to use this technique to force a settlement and have the TL removed.

.... Basically, I'm going to ask for full validation, then agrue the amount was not correct because I disputed some the itemized charges or if they can't prove the amount on my CR then they have to remove it. Therefore the amount they reported to the CRA was wrong and I don't wanted CORRECTED, I want it REMOVED. At that point can I have them start over an resend me my mini-marandas for the VALIDATED amount and/or offer a settlement including removal off my credit report for the validated amount or a fraction of that amount.

.... Is the above a realistic approach ?????

[Edit by ADSOFT_DEBUG on [TIME]1056352433[/TIME]]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a much better case if the amount owing included some charge that could be characterized as illegal (ie: usurious interest/late charges in violation of state/federal law). If they change an entry that is otherwise legal, I don't think you will persuade them to remove the entire trade line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by calawyer

It would be a much better case if the amount owing included some charge that could be characterized as illegal (ie: usurious interest/late charges in violation of state/federal law). If they change an entry that is otherwise legal, I don't think you will persuade them to remove the entire trade line.

</blockquote>

Will you explain the part about usurious interest/late charges? I have Brideport Financial reporting; they claim to have gotten a judement;at any rate it started at $320 and now is $1414. Last reported 10/01 and DLA was 07/97. Can I arge the time barred thing to also try to get this off? I live in California and debt was incurred in California. I think it is a returned check.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful with the returned check scenario because the CAs are always threatening fraud prosecution. California Civil code section 1719 governs damages for dishonored checks. It only allows a $25-$35 charge unless the creditor sends the notice described in subsection (B). Here it is:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/1708-1725.html

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by calawyer

Be careful with the returned check scenario because the CAs are always threatening fraud prosecution. California Civil code section 1719 governs damages for dishonored checks. It only allows a $25-$35 charge unless the creditor sends the notice described in subsection (B). Here it is:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/1708-1725.html

Good luck.

</blockquote>

Thanks. Would this apply (fraud/prosecution) if the SOL is up? This occurred in 97. The OC was Rescue Rooter. I belive the CA is the one who claims to have taken me to court for treble damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the SOL is for criminal fraud prosections in Cal. Googling around would probably yield a quick result.

As for the rest of your message, are you saying that the CA complied with 1719(B)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this