What works for one might not work for another..Read !!

[tmac01]

I am going to do what a lawyer friend of mine told me to do along time ago and I have been most succesful with this formula. Dispute the hell out of everything. What he told me then was the more you give them to validate the harder it is for them to validate all that information within 30 days. I know some agree with this method and some do not but I strongly believe that different methods are more successful for others. What works for one might not work for another. So I am just going to put any negatives and inquiries and dispute away, what have I got to lose.....

[codename_fortyseven]

FYI, you need to understand what a CA needs to legally provide to validate a debt. A signed original agreement is not necessary. A running tally of the debt showing the account balance going from 0 to the current debt is.

You can ask for whatever you want, they DO NOT have to necessarily provide it.

Further, unless you live in Tx, there is no 30 day validation requirement?

[frencheese]

HUH? and i've been doing it wrong all these years.

[peabody]

yah but you can still get them for verifying an unvalidated debt with the one two punch tactic im sure. (continued collections)

[tmac01]

I have tried the 1-2 punch !! Disputing one TL at a time. Dving, MOVs, and disputing everything at once. When I disputed everything 2-3 TLs would drop off. Now I only have one CA trying to collect on me, MIDLAND , and I only have just a few TLs left. So my problem is that I have the original TL for the OC plus Midland also on my CR for the same TL. So I am getting killed here because the OC shows up for Acct #1 and then the CA also shows up for acct #1 and thats a double Wammy !! I have two TLs like this making it four on my CR..OUCH So what could happen if I dipute everything again ? I do live in TX so they have 30 days to verify...Midland as of last night put another CA on my TU report, it dropped 50 points... Thanks Midland I Love You

[bobdole369]

Continued collections won't fly unless you live in texas, OR if you've sent a TIMELY (within 30 days of the 5-day notice) DV. They can contnue collections all they want.

What you would have after you requested DV, and then disputed with the TL's, is an FDCPA violation, 1692e(8):

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

And a subsequent violation x3 each time they verified, and did not mark the debt in dispute.

[tmac01]

bobdole I'm confused on what you are saying I should do, can you explain to me in more detail ? Do you think my idea is a bad one? Remember I only have one collector after me, Midaland, who has 2 Providian accounts and a Fingerhut account...and I have CAP One, and a First Premier account with the OC so its Midland that I need to get rid of. I hope you can help

[bobdole369]

Actually I was responding to peabody saying you could get them for "continued collections". That doesn't apply unless you had sent them a timely (within 30 days of the 5-day notice) DV.

What you COULD get them for, and seem to be doing a good job of, is documenting FDCPA violations specifically 1692e( 8 )

Which is:

( 8 ) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

Essentially after you've sent a DV, even though they can ignore it and not send validation, they MUST put the account in "dispute" every time they verify, until they send validation.

If you have sent an untimely DV, AND If your disputes are "verified" with the CRA, and the TL is NOT listed as "Consumer Disputes this Debt" then you have a violation each time you dispute.

Read the FDCPA and FCRA they are your best friends.

[tmac01]

bob,

I can't find that violation anywhere on the FDCPA, what is the section # ?