Ronalddog

Your debt validation strategy has a flaw!!

Recommended Posts

LOL cyber! I never knew that you could feel warm and fuzzy! :D

LOL! What is that supposed to mean, Cape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

OK.. lets see. You want actual proof of success??

Ok I PERSONALLY sent a validation letter to a company (utility bill) that was over 4 years old and still on my credit report. I sent them a validation letter, found here. Their response was to send me a bill. Yes another bill with my name typed in it and the amount of money I owed.

I sent the follow up validation letter found here and told them if it wasnt removed from my credit report I would sue them.

Within 14 days I had a letter stating that they would return the debt to the CA and it was removed from all three bureaus in a matter of days.

Do I have case law? Nope..didnt need it.

Do I have copies of all the things I sent to the CA? Yep, kept them all.

Next CA.. same method.

Gone in a matter of 45 days. No case law.. Didnt need it.

You have PERFECT grounds for a lawsuit. You sent validation. They sent nothing, you sent it again.. they sent nothing and began calling.

If they say they sent an initial dunning letter when you know they didnt. Then take a letter, change the date and make it look like you sent them a validation letter way back when.

They have no more proof that they sent a dunning letter than you do and you have a copy of a dated letter. Will it hold up in court??

TEN BUCKS says they wont ever take it that far.

And if they do.. then you bring up no validation and continue to collect after validation was requested the second time.

They would have to prove they validated at some point ((At least I would think so))

That's all I can tell you to do. I am sure if you search enough you will ifind something that is on yer side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First: the Bear - it is the UCLA Bruin - my alma mater.

Second: Please chill - you guys are like attack dogs - I am just asking questions and I get jumped all over like I spit on your mother.

I want to be completely informed so I case I have to sue I am ready to do so. Also the admin and the others usually tell the people with questions that they should sue - good - I need to know what I am up against.

Also I am in law school and that is why I question "EVERYTHING".

Also - unlike the others in these boards I will publish everything I file with the court and the results - I will not agree to "confidential settlement agreements" that sell everyone else out.

Also - I have some other bad news which I have found out during my research (I am still verifying this though). You cannot sue an OC under the FRCA for placing erroneous or inaccurate information on your credit report - only state and federal agencies can sue. (I will place this in the lawsuit section for your infinite wisdom too).

So go ahead and kick me in the head again - i waiting ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOW:

...

I want to be completely informed so I case I have to sue I am ready to do so. Also the admin and the others usually tell the people with questions that they should sue - good - I need to know what I am up against....So go ahead and kick me in the head again - i waiting ....

THEN:

...

I certainly don't want to waste my time helping someone for free when she charges for her time to help with credit repair (to people who cannot afford it I might add). If she didn't charge anyone I would be happy to provide my time and my lawyer buddies to her cause.

[Emphasis mine]

She has plenty of free information at her site like many other sites. She just can't volunteer her time like most people in these forums/boards because she gives more priority to pursuing her case. She is'nt the only one who IS WILLING to give personal and customized help for a fee.

Now, why is it again that we should feel good about volunteering OUR time HELPING YOU FOR FREE ? Have you and your "lawyer buddies" been here helping anybody out ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second: Please chill - you guys are like attack dogs - I am just asking questions and I get jumped all over like I spit on your mother.

No, you're not just asking questions, asking questions means putting question marks instead of exclamation points in your sentences and actually listening to people replying to your “so-called” questions. It does not include coming off with a huge attitude of infinite wisdom when in reality, you don't know the first thing about credit repair nor the laws governing them. As I told you in this thread http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=55449&highlight=#55449 your behavior is very trollish and the way you have conducted yourself will not result in a warm welcome from any member on this board.

Also I am in law school and that is why I question EVERYTHING".

Looks like you’ll be there for a while since you’re having such hard times interpreting statutes and cases.

Also the admin and the others usually tell the people with questions that they should sue - good - I need to know what I am up against.

No, the Admin only suggest filing suit if you actually have a case. If you have questions, ask them, don’t make false and misleading statements.

Also - I have some other bad news which I have found out during my research (I am still verifying this though). You cannot sue an OC under the FRCA for placing erroneous or inaccurate information on your credit report - only state and federal agencies can sue. (I will place this in the lawsuit section for your infinite wisdom too).

Well that’s incorrect as well, here’s the thread for others to clear up this inaccurate statement http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=56414&highlight=#56414

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you’ll be there for a while since you’re having such hard times interpreting statutes and cases.

LMAO isn't that the truth!!!

Ronnie, BABY -

I suggest that next semester you go ahead and take your Legal Research class. Sounds like you need it. :shock:

You may also go look up the term "dicta"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry - the debt validation "strategy" just didn't work for me. I am interested in other people's experiences about it.

what exactly did you do to pursue the "debt validation strategy"?

My DV strategy includes:

Send CA the DV letter

1 - When they don't respond in 30 days, send them the estoppel letter

2 - When they don't respond with in 15 more days of receiving the estoppel letter, I send a Demand Deletion/ITS letter.

3 - Then I send them small claims paperwork.

At this point, they have a problem, because they either spend lots of $$$ getting a local lawyer (will usually cost them more that the debt is worth), or they lose by defaulted judgment because they didn't show up. They usually take the second option, if they can't arrange a settlement with you before hand.

The only instance that I see this not working on is when the alleged debt is large, then they will get a local lawyer, and try and get the case moved to Federal court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I am new to this site and I was just wondering how do I find out when the clock started ticking on the SOL - I have several accounts that have not had a payment on them in years and I'm just wondering how to verify this infomation? Any help or advice would be appreciated, some have gone to collection agencies others were charged off-it's a mess, do collection agencies report 7 years after the charge off? or seven years from my last payment? I have spent hours reading these threads and I am now more confused then before :(Please Help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You

How would I go about finding when i made my last payment-sounds silly but I cannot remember and I think I'm about at the seven year mark with a new collection agency breathing down my back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What state are you in? Do you know what the SOL is for your state?

If you don't know when you made your last payment, what does the CRA reports say?

If you are out of SOL for your state, then you could try this letter:

**********************************************************

[YOUR NAME]

[YOUR ADDRESS]

[DATE]

Certified Return Receipt #

[CAOC NAME]

[CAOC ADDRESS]

RE: Account #: [CAOC ACCT]

To [CAOC NAME],

You are inaccurately and incompletely furnishing information regarding the above-referenced account to the credit reporting agencies in violation of the reporting requirements of the FCRA, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information, and for which you are responsible.

I dispute your information in its entirety and request evidentiary documentation that substantiates the information you have furnished and its reporting.

Should you not be able or willing to provide me with the substantiating documentation as verification to cure this violation, within the next 30 days, please have the information deleted from each of the credit reporting agencies you initially furnished it to.

Best Regards,

[YOUR NAME]

**********************************************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e.g. Equifax says that Bank x was a charge off and that I was current until mid 99=it then must have gone to a collection agency, --the dates do not seem right , it seems to me I hadn't made a payment in 5 or 6 years to that company- the co that keeps calling every week informs me that the interest is multiplying by the hundreds each and every month and that I must make the payment over the phone to get it to stop doing that and that would be the only way, after reading several threads I now know that that is the wrong thing to do. Where do I start? I hung up on the co today- I asked him for his mailing address and he refused to give it to me-I did find the address on this site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more information before we can answer your questions. What State are you in? Are you sure that is the date of Last Activity? Is it a Crdit Card or a loan? Reason being is if this is a CC and it is more than 4 yrs, it is more than likely beyond the Statute of Limitations and they have no legal recourse to the debt. You will need to check your State's laws to be sure. If it is beyond the SOL, then tell the "ADUB" to eat Maggots and go away. Therefore, would you update your information and let us know more of your problem. Don't include any personal informaiton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my few pennies worth on Ronalddog's question and remark. I wish I had found this sooner, but, I normally don't visit this section.

My opinion of why we can't find Case Law regarding the 30 day issue is that many of the CA's, to avoid facing the issue in court, would rather close the account and return to OC, or play games, or sue without further communication. Any of these would automatically stop the possibly of facing this in court. Am I right? I don't know. But, it does make me wonder.

Next, we all agree to what FDCPA 809(B) is saying and we all agree that it is flawed. My opinion is that even though the law says 30 days, the consumer should still be able to request validation, verification, or to even dispute the debt after the 30 days. After reading FDCPA 809(B), you read ©. It clearly says that no court can construe that it is an admission of liability of the debt. Take a look at a court case where the consumer is sued by the CA. When the Magistrate (a wannabe Judge) asks the consumer if the debt is theirs and the consumer answers in the slightest way that it may be, the Gavel automatically goes down in favor of the CA. It does not matter if the debt is beyond the SOL, any other legal possibility, or even if it is the right amount. It it proper? Is it just? HELL NO!!!! At the same time, if the consumer reaponds that they don't know, the CA must provide the proof TO THE COURT at that time or it is dismissed in favor of the consumer. If this is true and how Congress planned the wording of this section, it is definitely flawed. What happened to the consumer's rights during the period from day 31 to day of Court? Everyone needs to remember that in most Courts in most States, they all pray that the issue can be resolved without going to Court. Why can't a consumer use this reason as for why they are requesting proof of debt?

As we are all in agreement with FDCPA 809 and it's problems, let's look at something else. In FDCPA 807(eight), it refers to the consumer disputing the debt. No where in there does it give a time frame nor does it say that the dispute must be in writing. A good reading for this is found in Brady vs. Credit Recovery, found at Findlaw. It offers a very good discussion about this and its relationship to FDCPA 809. For this reason, why can't a consumer request proof of the debt at any time? Do we need to change the wording to read "Dispute" in lieu of "Validation"? I don't know. If you look in the Dictionary, it says that "Verify" needs proof to be true, "Valid, Validate, and Validy" must show proof to be true, and "Dispute" is to argue or oppose to be true. They all have a relationship to some degree in their meanings, so again, why can't the consumer request proof of debt after the 30 days?

I hope I was able to shed some light on this issue and cause some of you to scratch your heads.

To Ronalddog, I will say that you did bring up a good question that deserved a good answer, but, it did appear to me that you were stuck in one gear and did not fully understand what some were trying to say. The DV letter as described at this site can afford a consumer different responses to their particular problem, many of which were described by the others. True, it is not a guarantee to solve everyone's problem, yet, at the same time, it can cause some form of action in getting the problem resolved. An example would be that the debt is beyond the SOL. You send a DV to the CA. what you are hoping for, at the least, is in their response is the DOLA which would automatically prompt you to send a C&D to go away. True, it may not get the TL removed from your CR, but, it will stop the calls and threatening letters. You need to remember about a SOL debt that a CA can send you a dunning letter for eternity, it just cannot threaten you in any fashion. Then, if they become a weekly thing, then you would pursue Civil Litigation for Harassment. At the same time, some CA's will ignore a dispute from a CRA after they know the consumer is aware of the SOL which could result in a deletion from your CR. Another thing a DV can create is the CA, or you, found themselves in violation for some reason due to your letter or other actions. Since it is within the SOL and you know for a fact the debt is yours, this will allow you to make contact and cause an offer of settlement that all parties are satisfied with, usually less than the amount they are claiming. In short, I think you could say it does serve a very important part in dealing with a CA. Another thing to remember is that the majority of CA's in this country rely on you, the consumer, to not be fully aware of your rights, pay when threatened, are easily intimidated, therefore causing them to think they are the Boss, when, in fact, they are the lowest form of life that doesn't deserve the privilige of assisting a Maggot in it's daily duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You I am in NY and the sol is 6 years I believe, the CA is calling and the man is saying he is from the legal dept of his agency-he said it was written off in 98 but he said I made a payment in 2000 I do not remember paying them anything but maybe I did under pressure, the amount was 7,000 he now says it is 17,000 and was screamimg at me, that the SOL is now 2006-any advice is still appreciated, it is a cc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is and Thank You, -reading all this info and making sense of it as it applies to your own situation is very overwhelming--I think I'm going to tackle 1 at a time-has anyone ever taped the CO and their harrassing phone calls? I told the guy last night that I was taping him and he still continued to yell and scream about my character including degrading remarks about setting a poor example for my children, this SOB has no idea what we have been through-if and when I have the time I would love to know this stuff enough to help someone else and by the time I am done I probably will!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren't taping them, you should be, that is flagrant violations, and easy to get them in court. If you have it on tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, the very first point that RonaldDog mentioned in the beginning of this long thread, specifically of the FDCPA and 30 days is right on the money.

When I first began visiting this board, I had grave doubts that debt validation could work especially how I read the FDCPA about 30 days. I personally thought such a strategy was flawed and I also felt that it was a bit misleading.

However, quite a few people tried the debt validation method and it seemed to work for those individuals. Even though I had enormous reservations, I thought I ought to try to get my five year PAID collection removed using this particular method.

Of course I got no response from the CA but I did get my return reciept in the mail. I shot off a copy of that green card to all three CRAs with a letter using the formats stated on this board about CA non-compliance. First try, Trans Union removed it. EX and EQ told me to go [EXPLETIVE DELETED] myself.

I sent out another round of DV letters to the CA. This time, I also sent a letter to the OC which happens to be my university which also has the only law school in town. In that letter, I made a number of specific demands, such as show me how you calculated what I owed, how you contacted me, and copies of a signed contract with my signature showing that I truly owed what you said I owed. The university mailed me back a letter stating that they have no signed contracts or anything other than a computer generated printout of what my past due debt was that was sent to a CA.

With my second round of green cards and a copy of that university letter, I sent out a letter to EX and EQ. EX immediately removed that tradeline.

For the next several months, EQ continued to tell me to go [EXPLETIVE DELETED] myself but they eventually gave in and removed that tradeline.

As a process, DV works quite effectively in getting the CRAs to remove a paid collection. I have helped other people do the exact same thing with very good results.

As a legal procedure, I would still harbor great doubts.

Principally for what RonaldDog said in one of his first posts in which a CA can simply lie about responding to any DV or to any request. That too, RonaldDog is absolutely right! And I believe in other posts RonaldDog had mentioned something about the courts accepting the CA's story about them using stamped enveloped in corresponding instead of the CMRRR.

I was once an office manager and an accountant for a law firm of trial lawers. And I also got to know a number of prominent local attorneys first hand. I have seen it with my own eyes. Lawyers lie. I have seen them back date documents and contracts, forge signatures, and create all kinds of false documentation and then present it in court.

We even had this slam dunk case of a woman who claimed that she injured herself at the workplace. She came to our office every time in a wheel chair. We forced a big settlement. The next weekend, she was out dancing in heels and out of terrible luck, secretaries of the opposing law firm saw her, bought a disposable camera and took pictures. Monday morning, that law firm was in our office with blow ups of the pictures. My former employer was royally screwed.

Finally though, one contention made by RonaldDog is absolutely false, which is his assertion that must be some sort of legal basis for a law suit.

That really puzzles me about RonaldDog because there are countless court cases where there is not a single shred of evidence or any of legal standing whatsoever. That happens all the time. The personal injury attorneys I worked for rarely had things that were a slam dunk (we thought the woman in the wheel chair was). Most of the time, we were full of [EXPLETIVE DELETED]. However, we forced lots of companies to write us big checks and settle out of court.

Even the press gets fooled.

Like, this one attorney that was running for office in which I was helping. His opponent was also an attorney. During the campaign, this opponent filed a lawsuit against my friend and this suit was basically about my friend stating facts. Absoutely no slander, just stating facts. The suit was bogus and most attorneys in town knew it however the press was oohed and awed by this lawsuit and generated lots of stories. Eventually, the opponent won. And guess what, the opponent also dropped the lawsuit.

Years ago, when I was sued, this attorney told me that he would find anything relevant or irrelevant to sue me on. The most ridiculous thing in the lawsuit was that I was in the same market selling my products as was the guy filing the lawsuit. The guy suing me eventually had to drop the case because his attorney didn't mind all the fees he was racking up in a worthless lawsuit.

So, you can sue for anything regardless of what kind of legal basis you have. The overwhelming number of cases get settled out of court.

In conclusion, I do find the "process" of DV to be effective. It has worked for me and has worked for lots of other people even with "paid collection" accounts.

Does DV have a legal basis? I have strong suspicions that it doesn't or at least not in the way that it is explained here. But who cares as long as the process works and it gets negative tradelines removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To retmar and Ravenous Wolf:

Excellent commentaries on this subject! Anyone who believes that they need a cut and dry legal basis for filing a lawsuit or for trying to clean their credit is living in a fantasy land (or is a student). Even the CA's know as much. The DV procedures mentioned here and on other sites....WORK! They may not work all of the time and they may not work for everybody -- but you'll never know unless you try.

I've found that in 70% of the cases in my situation - it was EFFORT more than anything else that helped remove items from my CR that I did not want there.

Share this post


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