parko03 Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Quick question How long after you receive a letter from a CA do you have to respond if it says nothing. No date, no time limit.It does have the "this is to collect a debt, blah blah blah" but no reference to a time limit or anything. how can I find out. Maybe this is where I can get these guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Attorney Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 If that is all it says, you might have received other letters from them. The first needs the mini-Miranda notice. I would send them a letter disputing the account, asking for validation per teh FDCPA and tell them to respond in writing within 30 days. Tell them the letter invokes your rights under the FDCPA and FCRA. Send it CMRRR. Then, if they continue to send you collection letters w/in the 30 days, you may have them on a violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parko03 Posted October 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hmmmm,I just pulled out the first letter dated 6/30/04. On bottom it states " I may proceed with suit against you without waiting the 30 days since my client expects me to do so." Followed by the mini miranda. THe second letter is dated 7/15/04. This letter was recieved after insurance made a payment but appears to be a balance due still. Minin miranda included.8/12/04 I receive warrent in debt. Is this all legal and legit.?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Attorney Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 if you never answered them and now you are sued, well, the lawsuit is your method of valdiation. I don't see anything the lawyer did wrong if you took no action based on the letters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parko03 Posted October 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I did make phone calls and try to rectify the situation. But I sent nothing in writing or anything. I just wasn't sure if there was a 30 day rule between each correspondence, etc. These are the correspondences from teh laywers in my Warrent IN Debt post. No problem. THanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Attorney Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 oral disputes do not trigger the same obligations on the CA or lawyer. it should have raised their interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I do believe there is some level of overshadowing in that first letter. Although it is true they can sue you immediately upon getting your file, the initial communication is usually the summons. The fact that there is a threat to sue that contradicts the 30 day right of validation could be cause for an FDCPA violation.It has been more than 30 days since you go the first letter. Did he follow through with his threat to sue before the 30 day validation period is up? If not, he made a threat to take an action that he had no intention of taking. That violates section 807(5) on it's face.Regardless you should send a dispute/validate letter to ensure your rights are protected. If he files a suit after he gets your DV letter without validating, then you will have yet another violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retmar Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 I'm backing Methuss on this. Do as he recommends, but, do not disclose the violation at this time. Save it for later as it will definitely come in handy. Let us know what happens with your DV.To add, though they have the right to file during the 30 days, the wording is enough to support a violation. The client does not expect them, nor does it demand them, to file suit immediately. They only expect them to collect on their behalf, and obey all applicable laws to perform this task (of course, if the OC is a professional business, this will apply). Yes, it can involve a suit, but, it is not an absolute resolve to the debt. The wording is causing the least sophisticated person to believe they must pay now or be sued, therefore, forfeiting their right for proper validation of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts