Sign in to follow this  
sdc2027

summons from 3/24 disappeared- updates as i go(long)

Recommended Posts

The OC for this is Providian which has either dropped off on it's own or been deleted in one of my many disputes. I don't have any CR's from over a year ago( I didn't start out so great in this) - but will be going to photocopy the bk papers tommorrow.

So anyway.. The DV sent back from Apollo Credit agency shows that they purchased the debt from Advantage Recovery who purchased it from Providian bank. (none of this is on Providian letterhead)

The amount of 1314.46 was verified with my name and SSN with an accruing interest rate of 12% (so they are charging interest on a CC debt) They are charging me 1928.55

They gave the credit card number as well..Then it ends with " The original documents that support this legal claim are stored in the archives of the assignor and are not available...The authority to seek legal recourse due to the Defendant's default results soley with Apollo Credit agency."

Today I receive a summons to appear for this debt- I will be going to check my BK papers, but here is my quandry:

Let's say the providian isn't in my bk- Are there any laws I can still use against them ? about them charging interest?

Is there anyway I can do to get further documentation from them? herauntsis

has said I

do not believe they can validate the debt without the original documents. A copy of whatever they have in their computer does not suffice. Here is an FTC opinion letter on the subject -- they have to obtain verification of the debt from the original creditor and mail it to you
. Or should I use the law and their DV on their own letterhead against them?

I need to build a case and feel so unorganized, which is just annoying and a little scary. Thanks for reading and helping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then it ends with " The original documents that support this legal claim are stored in the archives of the assignor and are not available...The authority to seek legal recourse due to the Defendant's default results soley with Apollo Credit agency."

Bull-nuts. This is not validation by even a shadow of the standards set down in case history. They must provide copies of bills and a complete accounting of every penny into and out of the account for the life of the account with the original OC with posting dates. A "disclaimer" that it is in someone's archives is bull-crap.

What they are doing now constitutes taking action without providing validation. Counter-sue for violations of the FDCPA and use the "absolute defense" with the judge since they have not met their legal obligations under Federal Law.

What they did is a common tactic of responding to DV letters with a court summons...there is plenty of case history to show this is illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Here's my update:

I found that providian was not in my BK papers- I don't have any info on Providian- came off the last report I had 11/03 with TU on a dispute(unfortunately I don't have any previous CRs)

So Now I tackle Apollo CA with violations. I have three, Tell me if I am wrong.

1. 809.5 b - (Collection agencies if they have not validated your debt and they still continue to report to the credit bureaus--Equifax 1/26 and Experian 1/24)

(Collection agencies if they do not validate your debt yet continue to pursue collection activity (file for judgments, call or write you --- Summons 3/10)

2. 807.8 - (If you dispute a debt, the collection agency fails to report it disputed to the credit bureaus-- Equifax 1/26) / They did report to experian properly though

3. 808.1 - (The charge of 12% interest on amount of 1314.46 without documentation that supports this agreement -- letter they sent to me 1/5)

Based on this I should be able to counter sue for $3k on their violations.

Is there any letter I should send them,pretrial, as an offer that they remove the TL altogether? Or just send them the ITS letter?

Am I missing anything or does this all seem pretty tight? Do you think I need a lawyer or fight it on my own?

I'll go to the Courthouse again on monday to file these so would appreciate your opinions by then. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Providian wasn't specifically listed in your BK, there is caselaw that says that anything that should have conceivably been included is assumed included.

Either way, the burden would be on the creditors to prove that they weren't included in BK rather than the other way around. It would be a moot argument anyway for the creditor unless they were secured debts that weren't dischargeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Here's my update:

I found that providian was not in my BK papers- I don't have any info on Providian- came off the last report I had 11/03 with TU on a dispute(unfortunately I don't have any previous CRs)

So Now I tackle Apollo CA with violations. I have three, Tell me if I am wrong.

1. 809.5 b - (Collection agencies if they have not validated your debt and they still continue to report to the credit bureaus--Equifax 1/26 and Experian 1/24)

(Collection agencies if they do not validate your debt yet continue to pursue collection activity (file for judgments, call or write you --- Summons 3/10)

2. 807.8 - (If you dispute a debt, the collection agency fails to report it disputed to the credit bureaus-- Equifax 1/26) / They did report to experian properly though

3. 808.1 - (The charge of 12% interest on amount of 1314.46 without documentation that supports this agreement -- letter they sent to me 1/5)

Based on this I should be able to counter sue for $3k on their violations.

Is there any letter I should send them,pretrial, as an offer that they remove the TL altogether? Or just send them the ITS letter?

Am I missing anything or does this all seem pretty tight? Do you think I need a lawyer or fight it on my own?

I'll go to the Courthouse again on monday to file these so would appreciate your opinions by then. Thanks

I think it might be more like $4000 or higher if you want to add punitives.

$1000 for each credit report that contains an inaccuracy, assuming all 3 have something wrong. $1000 for the FDCPA violations. Personal suffering for stress and anxiety, financial harm, and negligence, and defamation round out the punitives. Also, your attorney gets to take his fees and court costs right out of the CA's hide, so all the damages awarded go directly to you (no need to share it with the attorney).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact that Providian can provide those validation docs for the CA. Providian has personally sent me copies of everything, including all of the bills, and my signature on a pre-appoval contract. You shoud go ahead and sue them. From reading your thread you have them on 3 violations already. That should be enough to sue them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's the update: filled out my answer and conterclaim to file with county clerk..I go down to pay my $45 and the county clerk says, "Hmm, that's interesting. They haven't filed their complaint yet."

WHAT! so this bottom feeder(BF) is sending me a summons that he hasn't even filed yet so I can't file my answer and counter claim until they do! Plus, BF probably won't file until march 23rd- the night before I'm supposed to show up at court. So then everything will be delayed even more. Man I'm getting sick of this, but it gives me more time to make sure all my I's are dotted and T's crossed for when I stand in front of the Magistrate.

This is so much Fun! :p I guess I'll be calling the county clerk's office everyday to see if they've filed yet so I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a summons to appear and answer by a peticular date, but they haven't filed it for a case number I may be taking some other actions... was limited on what I could find out from the "friendly" county clerk.

In which case this all maybe a ruse/threat to get me to pay- who knows.

their was no case number just a file number at the top.. or maybe the "friendly" clerk just didn't know how to work her pc... I'll try again tomm. morning with it all over the phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DV the CA immediately. And hang on to that fake (if it turns out that it really is fake) summons -- that is definitely a violation of the FDCPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a DV returned already from the CA back before this summons stuff.--> see first post above

And they did NOT verify with OC info-just the CC # and the amount owed , pus interest and my SSn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have turned right around and fired out a letter saying, that was not proper validation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hindsight is 20/20-- obviously I can't do that now.. but will keep that in mind for the next DV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey we all make mistakes doing this thing called Credit Repair. Look at my sig. I started doing this head first last year, and I know 800% more now than I did last summer. Made alot of mistakes, but you live and learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DV them again -- tell them that what they sent was not proper validation and it is not your problem that they can't access the original records. You don't have to prove anything to them -- they have to prove the debt is yours and provide proper accounting.

Or, instead of waiting for them to get off the dime, you could sue them for their many violations of the FDCPA and the FCRA. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I would go ahead and sue them for violations of the FDCPA

Mainly the sections you mentioned AND the following

ยง 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

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to --

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

(B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title.

(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.

(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.

(9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval.

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.

(12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value.

(13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process.

(14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization.

(15) The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer.

(16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by section 603(f) of this Act.

These idiots have RACKED THEM UP!!

Nail em.. file against them and demand a grand!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a grand??? Byt the looks of the violations, you can get more than that unless you want them to settle then a grand plus court and attorney fees and deletion of the TLs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

FDCPA is only $1000 PER ACTION

which means per time you file a suit against them

Punitive damages might count, but then ya couldnt do small claims.

just my 2 and change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDCPA is only $1000 PER ACTION

which means per time you file a suit against them

Punitive damages might count, but then ya couldnt do small claims.

just my 2 and change

if the tradelines are not listed as disputed (or deleted) add $3000 for the FCRA violations, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

True but you almost need separate suits.. you could put it all together if the Small Claims limit is under tha amount..

Oh and see if you cant find state law that you can get them on as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the tradelines are not listed as disputed (or deleted) add $3000 for the FCRA violations, too.

Thats what I meant sorry for that missing peice.

Share this post


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