Jump to content

My ITS, please comment on structure and content


Recommended Posts

Would someone please let me know if the following ITS letter is appropriate and valid? You guys help is ALWAYS appreciated.

==========================================

Medical Collection ScumBags,

Dear Legal Department,

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE

You are hereby put on notice that:

1. On or about April 3rd, 2006 I certified mailed a Dispute/Validation letter regarding collection activity from your company on my Credit Report pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809(B).

2. SCS, Inc. responded with a computer print out and their de-facto Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo Affidavit letter. The FDCPA states that Validation must come from the ORIGINAL CREDITOR (FDCPA Section 809(a) (4), a Chaudhry Affidavit by itself fails to even satisfy this minimal effort to Validate and is therefore a Continued Collection Effort prohibited by FDCPA Section 809(B) and a misleading and false statement prohibited by FDCPA Section 807(a) (2), 807(9) - an Affidavit is a legal document and your attempt to justify continued collection efforts with such a document is NOT legal and 809(10) and the Congressional Intent of Section 807 generally.

3. On or about May 8th, 2006 I sent a second certified mail Dispute/Validation letter requesting that SCS, Inc. provide Validation from the ORIGINAL CREDITOR or at a very minimum provide a single document with my signature showing I was responsible for this or ANY debt. To date SCS, Inc. has neither replied nor removed the collection entry off my Credit Report which is a violation of FDCPA Section 809(B).

4. And lastly, SCS, Inc. will be turned over to the appropriate regulatory agencies that are responsible for HIPAA violations. SCS, Inc. has provided to me protected HIPAA information about Elizabeth XXXXXXXX in the provided computer print out which is a clear violation of Federal Law since I have no legal authority to review such medical procedures given to previously stated party.

You are hereby on notice that I demand you forward to me, within 21 days of the date of this letter, Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars as Liquidated Statutory Damages for the violation of my rights under law. Failure to comply will bring legal action to enforce my rights and this claim at any time after the twenty-one (21) days, without further notice to you.

Sincerely,

Your Worst Nightmare

=============================================

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is no violation for " bad validation." It is a violation to continue to collect while ignoring a DV.

I think it is meaninglgess to argue about the lousy validation without also denying the debt. The reason for the FDCPA is, in part, to help consumers figure out if the debt is theirs. So, at some point, you have to say something like , " I do not owe any money to the OC and what you sent me does not help me decide otherwise. " or " I do not owe this creditor" or " I do not owe this amount." If not, all you are doing is arguing and that will not scare anyone.

Have they marked the item on your CR as " disputed?" If not, you may have a FCRA violation or an FDCPA for continued collection activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debt is not mine, I was only the insurance holder. The debt was incurred during a divorce in which I was no longer responsible for any debt incurred by the ex-spouse. The OC and/or the CA have no documentation to support the claim that I owed any debt because they have no signature of me accepting responsiblity for the debt. Just because I held the insurance coverage, doesn't mean I owe the debt for services rendered. The CA and the OC know this and refuse to remove the entry from my credit report. They can not validate because they have nothing to validate with.

And yes, I disputed with the CRA which did place a dispute on the account. Not sure whether or not the CA indicated as such.

But the time frame is over 60 days now. If the entry can not be validated, does this not require them to remove the entry???

Else could not the entry stay on for 7 years as disputed???

There must be something that can be done because I do not owe the debt.

And thanks for your help, AGAIN thanks...your advice is welcomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe you have a good case, supported by on point citations, why even bother with the ITS letter. Just do it. That will get their attention more than a letter.

Reconsider what RA said, and be prepared to defend yourself if you press the validation issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the divorce, temporary orders from the Court state that all debt incurred by either party is there own responsibility. I was not allowed to remove her from my insurance carrier until the Final decree. When she went to the doctor she signed the standard acceptance of responsibility stating that any cost exceeding what was covered by insurance would be her responsibility. I neither signed nor knew anything about the charges until I discovered it on my Credit Report in Feb 2006. I am not legally responsible for any financial obligation she incurred. How can I be responsibile for her incurred debt(s)?

If I am missing something I would like to know by what law(s) that would be considered as financially responsibility?

I am all ears, because I want this gone off my credit report. I don't care about making money, fines or anything to that nature. The charges are for less than $150.00 and out of SOL as of May 2006 but listed as a Collection. This is the LAST remaining attachment to the ex-spouse there is as I was also awarded sole managing conservatory of my two small children with her parental rights terminated... The CRA and CA and OC hold honest, hard working, responsible people captive with appearently no recourse from what I am hearing...

And again, this is my first true attempt to perform such action thus I am a babe in knowledge with regard to the exact next steps to do something...other than paying them and that is not going to happen, not because I can't but because of the principle of it.

And AGAIN, I appreciate all of ya's help to this regard...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with your assessment as the following supports:

The doctrine of necessaries was a part of the common law of the State of Texas, and is now set out in the Texas Family Code as follows:

"Each spouse has the duty to support the other spouse. Each parent has the duty to support his or her child during the period that the child is a minor, and thereafter as long as the child is fully enrolled in an accredited secondary school in a program leading toward a high school diploma until the end of the school year in which the child graduates. A spouse or a parent who fails to discharge the duty of support is liable to any person who provides necessaries to those to whom support is owed."

What is "necessary" varies from case to case, and is dependent upon one's station in life. At a minimum, necessaries include food, clothing, shelter, and non-elective medical care.

But seeing a Texas District Judge clearly defined our independent financial responsibility in a court order during our divorce proceedings, how would the doctrine of necessaries be in effect if the court order stated otherwise?

Again, just trying to better understand my ultimate options here.

I do appreciate you helping RA, immensely as I do not want to cause myself any further grief regarding this if I can help it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see that before but it appears I am not liable if I read this correctly?

"A spouse or a parent who fails to discharge the duty of support is liable to any person who provides necessaries to those to whom support is owed."

Since I did "discharge the duty of support" via the temporary orders from the Texas District Court prior to services being rendered, I would believe my financial obligations to the necessaries clause would prove I am not financially responsible.

Is that not how you see it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wording is as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that ELIZABETH JEANNE XXXXXX shall be responsible for the timely payment of the following:

1. The mortgage on the parties' residence, located at 2xx6 Rxxxxx Vxxxxx Dr., Katy, TX, 77449, beginning with the November 2001 payment.

2. The utilities and associated payments relating to the parties' residence, located at 2xx6 Rxxxxx Vxxxxx Dr., Katy, TX, 77449, beginning with the November 2001 payment. ELIZABETH JEANNE XXXXXX is entitled to cancel any of the following services at this residence, while residing at this location: cable service, or internet service. Telephone service may be changed provided a least one telephone number available for communicating with the children at all times...yada, yada, yada...

3. Her own living expenses, to including but not limited to food, clothing and gasoline.

This is in the lists of don't dos:

4. Signing or endorsing the other party's name on any negotiable instrument, check, or draft, such as a tax refunds, insurance payments, and dividends, or attempting to negotiate any negotiable instrument payable to the parties or the other party without personal signature of the other party.

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is specifically authorized:

To make expenditures and incur indebtdness for reasonable and necessary living expenses for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and medical care.

To make expenditures and incur indebtedness for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses in connection with this suit.

To make withdrawls from accounts in financial institutions only for the purpose authorized by the order.

Of course she did not pay a single item, I had to return to court and obtain the house and car back which took me a while to catch up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recovering,

Once you are legally separated, the courts will either issue an order that each person is responsible for his/her own debt or it is assumed because it is incorporated in the state statutes.

A spouse cannot be removed from the insurance until a divorce is FINAL.

Just because SHE went to the doctor before the insurance was canceled does not mean he is responsible for her debt. HE did not sign that he was responsible for the debt. SHE did not state that he was responsible on the documentation provided to the physician, but stated that SHE was responsible.

Dr.s offices often use the insurance information (he had the insurance) to go after the 'responsible' party. Doing so is not necessarily accurate nor permitted by law.

Let's be serious, I had a divorce case take over 2 years. Our legal separation was granted 3 months after the original filing date. I was NOT responsible for any debt he incurred while still technically married to me, but I still had to keep him on my insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct, the temporary orders stated I could not remove her from my insurance provider until the Final Decree. That is why I am not sure exactly how to handle the OC and/or CA. The CA has not responded to my second letter D/V indicating their attempt to validation using a computer print from their own systems and Chaudhry case as their their validation was not sufficient. I believe the court would agree I am not responsible for her incurred debt during legal separation, as I upheld the court order to maintain health insurance on her till the final decree.

The reason I believe they are in FDCPA violation is as follows and this was found on debtorsboard:

The Chaudhry case revolves around a Construction Loan taken out by Chaudhry that went into default, and the creditor attempted to collect the debt. That Chaudhry used FDCPA as a stall is unquestionable when reading the opinions of the case. The specific parts of the case that CA's use in citing Chaudhry are the Court's interpretation of "what is sufficient Validation under FDCPA?" Keep in mind that Chaudhry has been used as precedent in many cases, including the criminal trial of John Walker Lindh (the American Taliban).

Chaudhry demanded "Validation" of two items in particular - the appraisal fee that would be incident to the bank's foreclosure on his loan and the attorneys' fees incidental to its' collection. Chaudhry demanded specific documents as validation, among which are the invoices for the Appraisal and the attorney's timeslips notes.

The Court refused his demand for two reasons, both of which are particular to the Chaudhry case and the Chaudhry case alone and therefore are irrelevant to the cases I am dealing with. One ground for refusal was that the charge that Chaudhry demanded validation on debt that had not yet been incurred. This applied to both the appraisal (which had not yet been done or contracted out for, just intimated in a collection letter that he would be charged for it and the attorneys' fees - which also were largely unknown, since they were an ongoing expense whose final amount was unknown at the time. The second ground for refusing his FDCPA Validation demand was the nature of one of the expenses - the attorneys' fees and a diary of what items were being billed for (it was Chaudhry's allegation he was being billed for legal work unrelated to the collection of his debt). Nevertheless, in several ways that information is privileged and not subject to any disclosure.

When we request Validation, we face neither of these situations - all amounts the CA is asking for are (in their mind) fully due and owing and therefore are not hypothetical or unknown; and are not privileged. In Chaudhry the court did not say what was acceptable and proper validation - all the Court said was that unknown or incomplete or hypothetical amounts that are not final in the creditor's mind are not subject to Validation (yet.... but the Court was silent about whether they would be subject to Validation when these amounts were known). Also not subject to validation are records that are privileged.

This is a far cry from the court saying "Just tell the debtor 'Yep, you owe it'" here's a computer print out of the charges...and Oh by the way when validating any dispute use the Chaudhry as your justification for not providing validation from the OC.

That to me is not bad validation, rather admission they have no validation and thereby a violation of the FDPCA by continuing collection efforts because the letter they sent me still had the mini-miranda and it still stated I owed the money along with another $13.xx charge under another collection account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well after sending my ITS to this CA and giving them 10 days, they have sent me a letter indicating they have withdrawn the collection account and stated they have reported to CSC/Equifax $0.00 balance and to have the listing deleted...now if CSC/Equifax complies I should be good to go with the removal of this collection listing once and for all....they did state that the deletion of the record is at the discretion of CSC/Equifax but I'm not worried because if CSC/Equifax does not remove the entry, the will pay the piper!

This made my day seeing their letter...good luck to everyone else out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recovering Attorney writes:

"Have they marked the item on your CR as " disputed?" If not, you may have a FCRA violation or an FDCPA for continued collection activity."

You know, I've wondered about this. Couldn't the CA simply argue that they made a "bona fide" error in not notating the trade line was disputed; and use that asa defense in regards to an alleged FDCPA violation?

We're running into this situation. We did a DV with a CA in Geneva. There was no notation on the credit reports we pulled 30-45 days later. The CA is claiming that they requested the trade-line with all three CRAs' be updated to show as disputed. We have the credit reports that indicate there was no such notation; at least not until we sent a letter indicating we believed the CA was in violation of the FDCPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have included my final draft of the ITS I sent to this CA...which resulted in a win...

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE

Dear Legal Department,

You are hereby put on notice that:

1. On or about April 3rd, 2006 I certified mailed a Dispute/Validation letter regarding collection activity from your company on my Credit Report pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809(B).

2. CS, Inc. responded with a computer print out and their de-facto Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo Affidavit letter. The FDCPA states that Validation must come from the ORIGINAL CREDITOR (FDCPA Section 809(a) (4), a Chaudhry Affidavit by itself fails to even satisfy this minimal effort to Validate and is therefore a Continued Collection Effort prohibited by FDCPA Section 809(B) and a misleading and false statement prohibited by FDCPA Section 807(a) (2), 807(9) – an Affidavit is a legal document and your attempt to justify continued collection efforts with such a document is NOT legal and 809(10) and the Congressional Intent of Section 807 generally.

3. On or about May 8th, 2006 I sent a second Dispute/Validation letter requesting that CS, Inc. provide Validation from the ORIGINAL CREDITOR or at a very minimum provide a single document with my signature showing I was responsible for this or ANY debt. To date SCS, Inc. has neither replied nor removed the collection entry off my Credit Report which is a violation of FDCPA Section 809(B).

I should also point out that CS, Inc. may very well be walking on thin ice with regard to a class action suit when validating disputed collections with the Chaudhry. The reason I state this is as follows:

The Chaudhry case revolves around a Construction Loan taken out by Chaudhry that went into default, and the creditor attempted to collect the debt. That Chaudhry used FDCPA as a stall is unquestionable when reading the opinions of the case. The specific parts of the case that CA's use in citing Chaudhry are the Court's interpretation of "what is sufficient Validation under FDCPA?" Keep in mind that Chaudhry has been used as precedent in many cases, including the criminal trial of John Walker Lindh (the American Taliban).

Chaudhry demanded "Validation" of two items in particular - the appraisal fee that would be incident to the bank's foreclosure on his loan and the attorneys' fees incidental to its' collection. Chaudhry demanded specific documents as validation, among which are the invoices for the Appraisal and the attorney's timeslips notes.

The Court refused his demand for two reasons, both of which are particular to the Chaudhry case and the Chaudhry case alone and therefore are irrelevant to the cases I am dealing with. One ground for refusal was that the charge that Chaudhry demanded validation on debt that had not yet been incurred. This applied to both the appraisal (which had not yet been done or contracted out for, just intimated in a collection letter that he would be charged for it and the attorneys' fees - which also were largely unknown, since they were an ongoing expense whose final amount was unknown at the time. The second ground for refusing his FDCPA Validation demand was the nature of one of the expenses - the attorneys' fees and a diary of what items were being billed for (it was Chaudhry's allegation he was being billed for legal work unrelated to the collection of his debt). Nevertheless, in several ways that information is privileged and not subject to any disclosure.

When I request Validation, I face neither of these situations - all amounts the CA is asking for are (in their mind) fully due and owing and therefore are not hypothetical or unknown; and are not privileged. In Chaudhry the court did not say what was acceptable and proper validation - all the Court said was that unknown or incomplete or hypothetical amounts that are not final in the creditor's mind are not subject to Validation (yet.... but the Court was silent about whether they would be subject to Validation when these amounts were known). Also not subject to validation are records that are privileged.

This is a far cry from the court saying "Just tell the debtor 'Yep, you owe it'" here's a computer print out of the charges...and Oh! By the way its ok when validating any disputed collections use the Chaudhry as your justification for not providing validation from the OC to the consumer.

I am sure a Federal District Judge would like to know why you would be using this case to stall consumer’s attempts to validate unknown/disputed debts.

You are hereby on notice that if you do not remove this debt collection from my credit report within 14 days I will bring legal action to enforce my rights. Currently you have 2 violations of the FDCPA. If you attempt to propagate this debt to any other 3rd party for debt collection in the future you will also be in violation of additional FDCPA laws. If I must retain legal consul I hope you enjoy paying his/her legal fees as well.

No other warning will be sent.

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.