Jump to content

Second letter - Refusal to validate - Is this good?


iviguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am trying to compose the second letter to send to the law firm regarding their failure to validate the debt. Please take a look and let me know if I am missing anything or if there are any suggestions.

This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice received by me on April 1, 2005. On March 17, 2005 I mailed a certified letter to you requesting that you “validate” the debt according to the FDCPA and requested specific information which you failed to provide. Because you have failed to validate the debt within the 30 day period you are now in violation of the act and you must cease all collection efforts and remove any listings you may have entered to the three credit reporting agencies.

Please be advised that your reference to the court case Chaudhry v Gallerizzo, 174 F. 3. 974 (4th Cir. 1999) does not address debt “validation” but is more about debt “verification”. Also be advised that according to Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, Donald L. Wilber and Kenneth Wilber, USCA-02-C-0072, 7th Circuit Court, Sept 2004, you as a debt collector are required to “validate” the debt and according to the afore mentioned authorities you have failed to do so.

Any further collection efforts from your law firm could result in legal action according to the FDCPA Section 809 (B).

Best Regards,

Does this cover everything that needs to be covered or do I need to add something else?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they send you anything? Or just refuse.

Remember, the FDCPA refers to verification, while colloquially we refer to it as validation. I would not get hung up on the terms. Instead, remind them that the FTC's Wollman letter requires them to b eforethcoming with solid info that ties you to this debt. They do not have to give you competent legal evidence, but they have to do more than say " we checked with our client and they say you owe them, your address is correct, etc."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, there is no time limit as to when ( or if) they verfiy the account to you. The 30 days protects you, in that they cannot consider the debt valid or contiue to collect while they validate. They can choose not to validate, which means they cannot also collect. Is this a big item? Maybe the law firm thinks it's too expensive to litigate and is returning it to the client because they do not want the expense of validating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iviguy, i am assuming you are sending this letter to alegis or sherman. i just recently send them dv letters cmrrr, and received an affidavit from them regarding the chaudry case. i know ive seen a thread here refererring to that case and to dispute the affidavit asap.

on my affidavit the info they listed was the amount, my name, account #, the principal sum and interest and the total. In the second paragraph of the affidavit they list the oc and that they purchased this account in 10/02, which on my cr they are listing that as an opened date and that it is 120+ days past due, also as an open account. am i wrong or shouldnt they be listing it as the same dates the oc had this account.

also, can anyone tell me was this enough validation. they did not send any copies of any written contracts or statements, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they send you anything? Or just refuse.

Remember, the FDCPA refers to verification, while colloquially we refer to it as validation. I would not get hung up on the terms. Instead, remind them that the FTC's Wollman letter requires them to b eforethcoming with solid info that ties you to this debt. They do not have to give you competent legal evidence, but they have to do more than say " we checked with our client and they say you owe them, your address is correct, etc."

They responded to my first letter with one citing the Chaudhry case and that simple verification was all that was required. What they responded with as far as validation was the OC, amount claimed, account number and OC address. The amount claimed is quite a bit higher than what I owe and they offer no break down of the additions to that amount and what they were for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iviguy, i am assuming you are sending this letter to alegis or sherman. i just recently send them dv letters cmrrr, and received an affidavit from them regarding the chaudry case. i know ive seen a thread here refererring to that case and to dispute the affidavit asap.

on my affidavit the info they listed was the amount, my name, account #, the principal sum and interest and the total. In the second paragraph of the affidavit they list the oc and that they purchased this account in 10/02, which on my cr they are listing that as an opened date and that it is 120+ days past due, also as an open account. am i wrong or shouldnt they be listing it as the same dates the oc had this account.

also, can anyone tell me was this enough validation. they did not send any copies of any written contracts or statements, etc.

No, it is not one of the above mentioned. It is a law firm that quoted that court case. They didn't even include as much information as the one you cited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can respond that Chaudhry is not the law of the land, just the 4th Circuit. Assuming you do not live in a 4th Circuit state, you can tell them that Chaudhry is not dispositive.

Fields vs. Wilber does not really help you. Both cases stand for the limited proposition that if the collector must detail interest, costs and fees if they intend to collect them. It does not support a requirement of written contracts, etc.

If this is a JDB situation, you might be better off saying you do not owe the JDB anything and you do not recall owing the OC anything. Ask to see the proof that you owed the OC anything, see documents that show the relationship of the OC and teh JDB as proof that they can collect from you. Say the Wollman letter requires that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they send you anything? Or just refuse.

Remember, the FDCPA refers to verification, while colloquially we refer to it as validation. I would not get hung up on the terms. Instead, remind them that the FTC's Wollman letter requires them to b eforethcoming with solid info that ties you to this debt. They do not have to give you competent legal evidence, but they have to do more than say " we checked with our client and they say you owe them, your address is correct, etc."

Ok, here is the second revision of this letter. Let me know if you think this is better:

This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice received by me on April 2, 2005. On March 17, 2005 I mailed a certified letter to you, which you received on March 23, 2005, requesting that you “validate” the debt according to the FDCPA and requested specific information which you failed to provide. Because you have failed to validate the debt within the 30 day period you are now in violation of the act and you must cease all collection efforts and remove any listings you may have entered to the three credit reporting agencies.

Please be advised that your reference to the court case Chaudhry v Gallerizzo, 174 F. 3. 974 (4th Cir. 1999) does not address debt “validation” but is more about debt “verification”. Also be advised that according to Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, Donald L. Wilber and Kenneth Wilber, USCA-02-C-0072, 7th Circuit Court, Sept 2004, you as a debt collector are required to “validate” the debt.

Specifically, section 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and 15 U.S.C. § 1692f states in part that “debt collectors must still clearly and fairly communicate information about the amount of the debt to debtors. This includes how the total amount due was determined if the demand for payment includes add-on expenses like attorneys’ fees or collection costs.” No. 03-4108 also states the following: “It is unfair to consumers under the FDCPA to hide the true character of the debt, thereby impairing their ability to knowledgeably assess the validity of the debt. “

Also please refer to the Wollman letter from the FTC that backs this up and affirms the requirement that, you as a collector, validate the debt by clearly explaining the true nature of the amount that is claimed to be owed.

As a reminder to you, if you are unable to validate the debt, according to the FDCPA Section 809 (B) you are not allowed to:

1. Collect the debt

2. Contact me regarding the debt

3. You are also not allowed to report the debt to any of the credit reporting agencies according to the FCRA.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can respond that Chaudhry is not the law of the land, just the 4th Circuit. Assuming you do not live in a 4th Circuit state, you can tell them that Chaudhry is not dispositive.

Fields vs. Wilber does not really help you. Both cases stand for the limited proposition that if the collector must detail interest, costs and fees if they intend to collect them. It does not support a requirement of written contracts, etc.

If this is a JDB situation, you might be better off saying you do not owe the JDB anything and you do not recall owing the OC anything. Ask to see the proof that you owed the OC anything, see documents that show the relationship of the OC and teh JDB as proof that they can collect from you. Say the Wollman letter requires that.

Oops, posted the last prior to seeing this response. Sorry, I am still trying to learn the terminology. What is the JDB?

Let me explain what I am doing as well that may be helpful. Originally I had signed with a negotiating company that told me to stop paying and eventually they would negotiate a pay off amount. I did this because I simply could not afford the debt any longer. I was using credit cards to pay credit cards. The company turned out to be lazy and unresponsive so I fired them and am now trying to handle this myself.

My purpose is to get to a point where I can weed out the CA's and negociate a pay off with the OC's. OR if the CA's are willing to negociate, that is fine as well. I plan to pay off the debt eventually but right now it just isn't possible. I live in Texas so I am pretty well insulated from garnishments and repo's and such. I also want to repair my credit as best as I can but really that is secondary to my primary purpose to become debt free.

I hope this is helpful in your understanding of what I am actually trying to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are on the right track. You need not be coy. You can tell t hem you do not believe you owe this creditor anything, so you cannot determine if you do or not without more information. And that if the amount they claim contains costs, fees and interest, they must break them down for you. So, as far as you are concerned, they have not followed the law or Wollman, and they will violate it if they contiue to try to collect or communicate the alleged debt with anyoone else.

If it is a credit card debt, cc: the Comptroller of the Currency, which has an office in Dallas or Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are on the right track. You need not be coy. ....

If it is a credit card debt, cc: the Comptroller of the Currency, which has an office in Dallas or Houston.

Yeah, I guess you are right. It does sound coy. The letter they sent me when I requested validation was pretty coy as well so I suppose that is why I was being coy back.

What is the comptroller of the currency able to do if I cc them? Is it just more firepower?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally JDB's who legally own your debt need only request the OC fax them all of your statements as opposed to just the last statement. When they've got the entire transcript in front of judge--that's pretty damned good validation! I've got one with Sherman that was never DV'd about 18 months ago and I will allow them to continue to dun as the SOL expires in a few months and I do not want to rock the boat, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI ghacorp

I noticed your byline on your posts-

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Corporate States of America, and to the Republicans for which it stands, one nation under debt, easily divisible, with liberty and justice for oil.”

This reminds me of the old saying that big oil is bigger than the government.

Recently I have figured out that in addition to Big Oil, Big Credit Information companies, (Credit Bureaus And Data Companies like Choicepoint,) now jointly run this country....

That is why I have no sympathy for any of the creditors anymore...

I am a Former Commercial Banker and Mortgage Banker and am sickened by what I am seeing in the financial industry since I left in 1993.

Best wishes and good luck,

Jim

Radio_Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not one of the above mentioned. It is a law firm that quoted that court case. They didn't even include as much information as the one you cited.

What is the name of the legal firm? that may be yet another violation...appearing to be a correspondence from a lawyer when they may not be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you have failed to validate the debt within the 30 day period you are now in violation of the act and you must cease all collection efforts and remove any listings you may have entered to the three credit reporting agencies.

The CA/JDB doesn't have to validate within 30 days. They just have to cease all collection activity until they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there a follow-up letter to write to a ca, i received an affidavit and need to send them something and dispute this stupid affidavit. any suggestions, as to where i can start?

sorry to steal this post, i tend to do it a lot when i see things closely resembling what i am going through.

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.