Jump to content

ca violating dv letter


agn140
 Share

Recommended Posts

am receiving calls from RMA a ca for a cap one acct. I sent them dv which they signed for two weeks ago. They never sent a letter after the initial phone contact.I usually would not talk to a collector,however, I was so amazed at their stupidity that I asked one person if they understood what a dv leter and c&d meant. their response was that even though they were calling me from their Las Vegas office and despite the fact that they signed for it there that all correspondence would be forwarded to Cap one in Virginia. They also said that I could fax the letter I sent them to Cap One in Va. I said that I would let the violations build up for my law suit and they said ok have a nice day.

I am totaly speechless.My younger son just got accepted into four law schools for next Sept and he can't find a part time job right now and these rocket scientists are getting paid.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

am receiving calls from RMA a ca for a cap one acct. I sent them dv which they signed for two weeks ago. They never sent a letter after the initial phone contact.

Who did you send the request for verification letter to?

If they failed to send the validation rights notice after the intitial phone call, and if they did not include it orally, the are already in violation of 1692g.

I usually would not talk to a collector,however, I was so amazed at their stupidity that I asked one person if they understood what a dv leter and c&d meant.

When you say "c&d" do you mean you requested ALL communication cease, or just phone calls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just phone calls on the c&d ,however, that was sent after the 5 day period that they should have sent a follow up letter to their initial phone call

The courts have held that a debt collector only needs to comply with a "full" cease communication request. However, your validation rights period began on the 5th day if the phone call was the initial communication. You can now request verificaiton on the account and they have to cease collection efforts until they send you verification, this included reporting it (other than to report it as disputed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just phone calls on the c&d ,however, that was sent after the 5 day period that they should have sent a follow up letter to their initial phone call

The courts have held that a debt collector only needs to comply with a "full" cease communication request. However, your validation rights period began on the 5th day if the phone call was the initial communication. You can now request verificaiton on the account and they have to cease collection efforts until they send you verification, this included reporting it (other than to report it as disputed)

Show us some case-law on this.

I call BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show us some case-law on this.

I call BS.

LOL I think they call it shananigins now.

But since you asked nicely:

O'Connor v. Check Rite, 973 F. Supp. 1010 (D. Colo. 1997). Where no letter or affidavit was offered to show that the consumer had requested in writing that the debt collector cease communications, the consumer could not demonstrate that § 1692(c ) was violated,

Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc. 953 F.2d 1025

Smith, an attorney, sent a letter to Transworld's Columbus office demanding that Transworld "cease and desist from all further collection activities."

Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc. 135 F.3d 389 citing above:

In Smith, this court found that a collection letter mailed shortly after receiving the consumer's cease-communication letter

Shrestha v. State Credit Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 117 F Supp. 2d 142 (D. Conn. 2000). The court ruled a debt collector only has to comply with a "FULL" cease communication request per FDCPA.

Micare v. Foster & Garbus, 132 F Supp. 2d 77 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). In order to prevail on a claim pursuant to §1692c©, a consumer must establish that he notified the debt collector in writing that he refused to pay the debt or that communications should cease; notice to the creditor was insufficient.

BUT.....This case Carrigan v. Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

494 F.Supp. 824 the court addresses the fact the consumer requested the debt collector cease further phone contact.

I cant bring it up on PACER, so I dont know if they consumer sent a "no phone calls only mail" limited C&D, or just no more calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

§ 805. Communication in connection with debt collection [15 USC 1692c]

(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt --

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location;

(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer; or

(3) at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.

(B) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

© CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.

(d) For the purpose of this section, the term "consumer" includes the consumer's spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.

It's inconvienent to call me on the phone at all. I WILL read any mail from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's inconvienent to call me on the phone at all. I WILL read any mail from you

In your case, that MIGHT be. The consumer would have to notify the debt collector WHY it is. Mere annoyance is NOT a valid reason.

The courts have also ruled that :)

But a good scenerio with this would be if a consumer only had a cellular phone. A lot of people choose to just pay for cell service as their ONLY phone. In that case, if a consumer notified the debt collector not to call BECAUSE they get charged, THEN it could be a violation.

And on the other hand, some consumers have been victims of "boxing" which is what ID Theives call stealing mail. If the consumer notified the debt colllector that MAIL was not an option due to theft etc, then MAILING could be a violation.

And why wouldnt the consumer just say "dont contact me at all" and avoid any arguement? lol

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location;

If you did a search on this section, you will see only TIME and PLACE is discussed, NOT method. The courts have ruled that calling a consumer at home is NOT inherently illegal, as opposed to at work or before 9 and after 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe more info would help. They never sent me any letter after the initial call. They never gave me any mini-miranda warning.

I sent them a dv and informed them not only of my validation request but also of their violation of the FDCPA of not sending a letter within five days of the initial communication.

I also included a c&d with regards to any calls to my home or office.

I told them that I would consider those call as harrassment as the FDCPA says numerous call can be considered.

I finally told them that I would sue if they continue this course of action without validating.

Hope this gives a clearer picture of this scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They never sent me any letter after the initial call. They never gave me any mini-miranda warning.

This is quite common. The debt collector is relying on the common consumer belief that a "collection letter" is required. It sounds to me that they have already violated 1692g (validation rights notice)

I sent them a dv and informed them not only of my validation request but also of their violation of the FDCPA of not sending a letter within five days of the initial communication.

YOU ARE AWESOME :)

What, if any, was their next action?

This is a good case :) goes right along with the "adminppdotcom method"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good case :) goes right along with the "adminppdotcom method"

Hows that James---she wrote letters instead of calling?

(i'm just pulling your chain dude...)

LOL

True...but it was the PHONE CALL which triggered the validation period ;)

And actually I am glad you pointed that out. It goes to support my opinion that an "overt" collection action is required to trigger the validation period .

Letters dont always seem to trigger the same response. There is something "magical" about a phone. People just seem to act differently when it involves a phone call. A debt collector can easily just throw away a letter sent by a consumer and go onto the next "victim."

But something about a consumer calling a debt collector which forces them to actively attempt to collect the debt. I think it must be a psychosis of some sort LOL

___________________

On a side note.......if you like this avatar...you can use it LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something in your responses. I didn't initiate any phone calls. They have called me without any letter within five days of first contact. I found out which office they were calling from using caller id and their phone number. they offered no info other than what i previously posted.I keep recording on caller id their numerous calls in violation .Itake digital pictures of them and in about a month I am going to sue their behinds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something in your responses. I didn't initiate any phone calls. They have called me without any letter within five days of first contact. I found out which office they were calling from using caller id and their phone number. they offered no info other than what i previously posted.I keep recording on caller id their numerous calls in violation .Itake digital pictures of them and in about a month I am going to sue their behinds.

Ignore the banter between adminppdotcom and I... Your doing just fine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something in your responses. I didn't initiate any phone calls. They have called me without any letter within five days of first contact. I found out which office they were calling from using caller id and their phone number. they offered no info other than what i previously posted.I keep recording on caller id their numerous calls in violation .Itake digital pictures of them and in about a month I am going to sue their behinds.

Just remember, you will have the opportunity to request phone records from the debt collector if you sue. Digital photos of the caller ID box is not really the best evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the comments,however, I have another lawsuit started against a differant ca. My attny filed in Federal and within a few days the ca's attny called wanting to settle because the constant calling was so aggregious. And with digital photos you have the date off the caller id you have the time and you have the number the call is coming from. As long as the number is listed to the ca and especially if it is on the paperwork, I think that is pretty solid evidence of calls made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the comments,however, I have another lawsuit started against a differant ca. My attny filed in Federal and within a few days the ca's attny called wanting to settle because the constant calling was so aggregious. And with digital photos you have the date off the caller id you have the time and you have the number the call is coming from. As long as the number is listed to the ca and especially if it is on the paperwork, I think that is pretty solid evidence of calls made.

I agree....however, in court, there are toooooo many questions about the photos. Think of what would be the "best evidence." Certified records of phone calls made and received, testified to by an expert from the phone co, or a photo from the Plaintiff's own camera> ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.