Response from CA

[Lorian]

I have seen somewhere in this forum that people recommend never calling the CA. Please advise on the following:

Between Nov '04 and now I had sent two letters to NH/NE Credit Svs, requesting validation or removal of the negative reports. They never responded. My last letter, of 2/20/05, stated that my next move would be court; they responded in 3 days with the following (I have a genuine identity theft clean up going on):

"We would be happy to assist you with your dilemma but you must understand that we are also bound by the thrid party disclosure laws under the FDCPA."

The rest is 'please call our toll free number to confirm your identity' 'This is an attempt to collect a debt' ...etc, etc.

My intuitive position is that they have received numerous correspondence from me, including the account numbers in dispute, and have now responded to the address that I have written them from. Why would I need to call, and second, calling couldn't possibly confirm my identity any further than my letters to them have, unless they will try to get SS numbers, etc. What are they up to, if anything, and should I simply respond with the lawsuit, or write again acknowledging their letter and reiterating my demand for documented proof of debt?

Any advice is much appreciated; I would much prefer NOT to call them unless I must.

[DocDon]

They want information from you so they can REALLY come after you (ie: continue collection activity without providing you with proper validation). Don't give them any.

If they were so concerned about communicating debt info with a third party, they wouldn't have sent their first letter.

Report them to the FTC and their State Attorney General. Demand they cease collection activity and remove any negative information from your credit files.

No need to mess with them any longer -

[Lorian]

Thanks, Doc. One note though; the above was their first letter to me; does that significantly change your response to me?

[DocDon]

Not really. I jumped the gun by assuming they had already sent you a dunning letter. My apologies.

You asked them to validate twice - they did not (which is not illegal - a CA is under NO obligation to respond to a DV), however they want you to give personal identifying information to 'confirm' who you are? How does giving this info over the phone confirm who you are? Do they have voice recognition software?

They're yanking your chain, and the only reason they want you to confirm and supply more personal information is to more agressively pursue the collection....

[Lorian]

Thanks for your time. I should add that while they did not respond to me until today's letter, Ex & TU both said they verified the debt. Of course, none of the parties involved would prove this to me.

Amazing that a consumer, trying to repair identity theft, can get no cooperation from these people. I will file complaints and wait for the result. If nothing happens after that, then I assume it's court time. At this rate, I'm going to be old before this is all repaired...lol.

[DocDon]

"They" don't have to prove it. The reports speak for themselves.

Now, if you've DV'd them and the verified the info w/ the CRA's - it's continuing collect activity without providing proper validation.

This just reinforces my belief that they are yanking your chain - they violated the FDCPA by reporting a debt as valid that they have not yet validated with you per your written request.

Send them a copy of their response with a letter stating the matter has been referred to the appropriate government agencies for further processing.

[Champion80]

Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents...

First of all, how old is the debt, Second, as far as I have understood the laws for Identity Theft is when you find out, you file a police report where you currently live, not where the debt was addressed, then you fill out an affi-david, in which you send both the the creditors and the CRA's, and they have to take certain steps to block the information from being reported. In addition to the fact that they did not respond to your letters until that last letter, did you dispute the debt on that letter as well? If so you have them on a violation in which they were so happy to cite, so another letter may or may not have an affect with the new information you are learning. Now I do not share Docs opinion on not calling them, only because it really couldnt have a negative outcome, especially when you call, you do not speak with a rep that happens to assigned to your account, speaking to a supervisor and staying candid at first, and explaining that not only did they already break the law, you are 1 day from taking them to court. Sometimes CA or OC's just dont respond exactly the way we expect and it draws this letter process out so long, it can take a couple months to finally get some kind of action. I have had actull experiences where I sent letters, and disputed items several times to no avail, and eventually got in contact by phone, and used all the laws and information gathered as leverage. Good luck.

[Lorian]

Thank you both.

I would prefer not speaking with them because I am not a lawyer, and this is fairly new to me; I do not want to naively shoot myself in the foot somehow - they must be more saavy than I about all this, and they have the advantage on the phone. While I am not a financial whiz, I DO play chess, and know not to play a champion when real consequences are on the line. (LOL)

I agree in principle with Doc - the burden of proof should be on THEM - I am a consumer who contacted them in good faith to correct a mistake; their conduct/responses are unsatisfactory, and causing me continued harm.

BTW, I certainly did file an ID Theft report with the gov: they have been told this in my first letter, along with the complaint report reference #.

[DocDon]

There's only one reason I suggest writing as the method of choice for communicating anything (not just CA's) that has to with you or your finances... "if it's not written down or recorded, it didn't happen".

'He said / she said' is not a good position to be in. I certainly understand where you're coming from though, Champion80.

[Champion80]

I understand your point Doc, and I agree with you considering the circumstances with it being finances, I just happen to have good success after a few rounds of letters and disputes, and you can get a feel for there position and situation, considering how much can be said on the telephone as compared to a letter. Even though a letters has a specific intent, in my specific experience, I was able to get a letter by fax within an hour of our conversation, stating the deletion of my account.

Doc is absolutely right though, the paper trail is crucial to our next steps.

[Lorian]

Ok...sent this letter, along with a copy of my previous letter and the NH Attorney General's/FTC complaint letters:

"Mr. xxxx,

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 25, 2005.

In response, attached please find a copy of my complaint of 3/3/05 to the NH State Attorney General's office; a duplicate complaint has been sent to the FTC. In addition, I will be filing a formal ethics complaint with ACA

International, which your company is a member of.

Please refrain from unnecessary contact unless it is to verify that my

original requests were completed in full (copy of my previous letter

attached) on or before March 20, 2005. Failure to do so will prompt an

immediate Intent To Sue served to you and your company from The State of Texas Superior Court in El Paso, Texas.

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx"

I hope that will do it. Since I was a (documentable) resident of VA when these debts were incurred in NH, I have confidence that at SOME point I will succeed with this removal...lol!

[DocDon]

I would change: "Failure to do so will prompt an immediate Intent To Sue served to you and your company from The State of Texas Superior Court in El Paso, Texas"

You're threatening to send them a threatening letter if they fail to comply.

I would simply say you "will pursue your rights to civil relief as allowed by Statute."

And, if you haven't done so, read over the FDCPA - you have to know (understand) why it is you're doing this.