Jump to content

I'm TICKED /Arrow-ACA HELP input please

Recommended Posts

I've filed an ethics complaint with ACA against Arrow. I have Arrow not validating and still continuing collection activity. I thought it would be a slam dunk. HA!

From ACA

Dear Ms. Ticked Off,

Enclosed is a copy of additional correspondence in answer to the Complaint filed by you from Julie A. Novak, Corporate Counsel for Arrow Financial Services, LLC. Please review t his information and provide ACA with your reply by completing the "Reply to an Answer" form and return it to this office with in 10 days of your receipt of this letter. If you choose not to respond within 10 days, ACA will assume that the dispute has been resolved and will close our file with no further communication.

Thank You. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.




Dear Ms. ACA,

Your letter in regards to above-referenced matter was recently brought to my attention. We have reviewed Ms. Ticked off's complaint that we failed to respond to her requests to validate the above-referenced account. Arrow Financial Services LLC purchased this account from First National Bank of Marin in Oct. 2003 and mailed a validation notice to Ms. Ticked Off shortly thereafter. According to Ms. Ticked Off, it was not until May of 2004 that she disputed the debt and requested validation. Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., Ms. Ticked Off did not timely request validation of the debt and therefore there was no obligation on our part to validate the debt.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Thank You.


Is the :!::!: just trying to intimidate me???

I need a good answer, I want to slam her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they wait like 10 years or something stupid? I waited 7 months? I don't even remember getting a letter from them. As a matter of fact, I didn't even get collection letters from them until I disputed it! I don't think they even mailed to the correct address the first time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was more to it also. They had not exactly stated the "truth" about the whole situation.

Of course CA's are simply going to use what they want out of the cite....

Still doesn't change the statute - however it may play a factor during litigation I would assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok after *calming down* my gut was telling me there was more to this than just the 30 day BS. This is what I have found so far. I need help putting the pieces of this puzzle together.


I first noticed the account when I pulled my credit report in May 2004

This account was disputed in May with the Exp. and TU and was deleted from both reports.

No collection letter was ever received from Arrow prior to July 2004. (there were three different address that they could have sent the letter to IF they sent it at all)

Collection letters started 30 days after Arrow was unable to verify with the Exp. and TU.

In Oct. of 2004 Arrow places the account on my Equifax CB and states collection activity back dating to July 2003. (exhibit E)

Also, Arrow has never reported this account “in dispute”.

Arrow claims to be the “Assignee” of FNB of Marin on my May 2004 credit report, but claim in their letter to ACA that they purchased the account back in Oct. 2003.

The OC reports

Open 8/97

Closed 05/99

DLA 8/99

Reported 11/03

Balance 0

High 891

Limit 400

Status Collection

Joint Contractual

Purchased by another Lender

Arrow reports in May

Open 10/03

History 3/04

DLA 3/04

Term 1 month

Balance 1,180

High 691

Past Due 1,180

LDlq 03/04

Individual account

Type Collection Attorney

OC AFS Assignee of FNB of Marin

This has been deleted but they are reporting on my Eq. report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you handle this is to speak to then in legalese and make them think that you know way more than them.

if this was my case here is what I would throw back at them

Dear Ms ACA,

I find it hard to believe that your company, the ACA, being one of the largest monitors of collection agencies, would fall for such a ludicris response as this.

As anyone who can read the FDCPA § 1692e(10) can plainly see the "failure of the consumre to dispute the validity of the debt may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability".

The section only reads that they must cease collection activity if I requested that validation within 30 days. Nor does it read that if my dispute comes in after that 30 days do they not have to validate.

The basic meaning of this section is that if I do not dispute in a timely matter they may continue collection activity, it DOES NOT in any way shape or form nullify the collectors OBLIGATION under said statute to prove that I owe the amount they are claiming, to show how that amount was calculated and to prove that I owe them anything at all.

If you look at the case of Diamond v. Corcoran, clearinghouse No. 48,404 (W.D. Mich. 1992)

You can clearly see that the judge felt the exact same way about the reading of the statute

"The letter contains the following statement: "Under the law, you have thirty (30) days to dispute the balance." This statement gives the false impression that failure to respond within 30 days operates as a waiver of rights under the law and accordingly violates § 1692e(10).

I think you can see that Arrow's response on this issue is exactly what the judge was referring to in this section.

I did not receive any communication from Arrow, despie their accusation that I did, until after finding their listing on my credit report. At that point I disputed the debt which, to me, had been unknown. The FTC has several opinion letters that state that reporting to a credit bureau is considered "communication" so I considered that my FIRST communication. That would then leave me well within my 30 days to dispute the debt and for Arrow to cease collections until they had properly validated the debt. Not simply parroted information from a computer screen into a letter.

It also seems to me that if Arrow had the legal right to collect on this debt and had the information about the debt in question that I asked for, such as the accounting history of the debt, the original contract with my signature and proof that I indeed owe them anything, then there would be no issue as they would have provided it instead of trying to hide behind their misinterpretation of the law.

In conclusion, this is not a satisfactory response from Arrow and I would hope that you will find their response as lacking as I do.

If you have any questions or wish to speak more with me about this matter, feel free to contact me

Ms Ticked Off Even More

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.