I am SO READY!!!

[ynkewmn]

I am SO TIRED of these CA's, trying to collect when they aren't licenced too. SO TODAY, I decided to whip up this letter! Thought I might stick in on here for review and editing, and if it is legit, share it with others. I gathered up letters that others have shared and edited for my complaints.

I am sure others have the same situation!

Your Name

Address

Scumbag collector's Name

Address

RE: File No: xxxxxxxxxxx

Greetings:

I recently began an investigation concerning the alleged debt that you say I owe you. I am in receipt of a collection letter from you on June 8, 2004, a copy of which is attached. This letter is “initial communication” as defined in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 809(a) (herein called FDCPA). This letter is in violation of FDCPA Section 809(a) (3), 809(a) (3), 8099(a) (4), and 809(a) (5). FDCPA Section 809 permits the required consumer warnings to be provided “within 5 days of the initial communication sent to the consumer…”. This has not been done. If you disagree, please send to me, a copy of a previous letter dated before June 8, 2004, that is described as your dunning letter that concludes “initial communication”. I need a response within 21 days.

I have personally contacted the Illinois Department of Regulation and requested information concerning your right to collect debts and do business in the state of Illinois. Upon request, they may issue to me a “Certificate of no Record”. I also contacted the Illinois Secretary of State office, where I have found a record of your company in the Corp/LLC database/ Jurisdiction, GA. I have included copies of my discovery for your convenience. As you know, there are penalties for fraudulent collection activities. “FDCPA Rules and Regulations; Section 807. False or misleading representations, [15 USC 19623]. If you disagree, I am requesting within 21 days, a copy of your State of Illinois, License and Bond certificates.

I also have obtained a copy of my credit report(s). I have included a listing of a “hard” inquiry, dated 06/2004, from "Scumbags". I do not recall applying for credit or employment with your company, nor any reason for you to request a copy of my credit report. It is unlawful under the FCRA for a person to view a consumer report without a “permissible purpose”. Please refer to the Fair Credit Reporting Act , section 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. S 1681n], and section 617.. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. S 168lo], and the 1998 FTC opinion letter; Greenblatt, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statues/fcra/greenblt.htm, So therefore, I am also requesting within 21 days, for you to explain your permissible purpose for obtaining my credit file. As you are aware, the credit reporting agencies regard inquiries as a statement of fact and will not allow a consumer to dispute them. They maintain that if the inquiry is on file, then the company listed did in fact view the consumer’s record. I am formally requesting that you validate all tradeline notations you have submitted to the three major credit reporting agencies by NAME OF COLLECTION AGENCY or NAME OF ORIGINAL CREDITOR for me, YOUR NAME, for account number xxxxxxxxxx.. You have 5 days to cure.

Also be aware that I have a collection letter from "original OC"regarding this alleged debt ; "Continued collection will result in one of two actions:

1.Your account will be sent to a law firm empowered to file arbitration claims against delinquent cardmembers.

2.Your account will be sent to a debt collection agency."

This alleged account was transferred to another "Scumbag collecting,Inc." This account has already been frozen by my demand for validation, via FDCPA. Both you and "Old Scumbag, Inc." are in violation of Federal Law for (but not limited to) continued collection activity on an alleged debt, the collection for which MUST CEASE until valid proof sent, pursuant to FDCPA Section 809. Validation of debts [15 U.S.C. 1692g] (

For the purposes of 15 U.S.C. 1692 et esq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should any further action be necessary.

Thank you and I look forward to your resolving this most expeditiously.

Sincerely,

A Proud Debtor

I know this is rather lengthy,,,, Can anybody cut it down, and be effective? Thanks! Oh, and by the way, One day after the CA sent me the "dunning letter", I received another one from this CA, stating that they are reviewing the case for arbitration, another "assumed" initial communication letter. POINT!? Didn't OC state they would continue collection with one of two actions? THEY DID BOTH!!! Violation???

[LadynRed]

Well, its not an FCRA violation for them to pull your credit for collection purposes -they DO have permissable purpose unless you can prove their collection is entirely invalid to start with. They will stand on their permissable purpose for collections.

[ynkewmn]

BUT>> They do NOT show a license to collect in my state. I called the ILDPR today, nothing. So, assuming that they aren't licensed to collect, how can they have the authority to pull a CR?

I included it in the letter, as to ask for their "PP". I want them to explain to me, why. If they are not licensed, whammo, am I wrong?

[baglady]

Also be aware that I have a collection letter from "original OC"regarding this alleged debt ; "Continued collection will result in one of two actions:

1.Your account will be sent to a law firm empowered to file arbitration claims against delinquent cardmembers.

2.Your account will be sent to a debt collection agency."

I would take this part out. It kind of says the debt could be yours.

I wouldn't include copies of anything you discovered or the inquiry. Save it for court if it comes to that.

[anti-something]

i would remove paragraph 3 & 4, sometimes 'less is more'

[Recovering Attorney]

Less is more.

Also, let's get clear about the "not licensed to collect in my state" biz. If you find the CA is not licensed in your state, you complain to the state licensing entity and your state AG, as they would be the ones most interested in it. It's a licensing issue. You want to get them off your trail by putting a regulator's nose on their trail. Hopefully, a bureaucrat will respond and the CA will have some 'splaining to do. Their trouble equals your annoyance. That is the value.

For those creditors or CAs from out of state that sue you, you look to see if they are "authorized to do business" in your state, which is separate from licensing. If they are not authorized as a foreign corp or LLP, you have an affirmative defense to a lawsuit: plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue in the courts.