Jump to content

Check out this letter I recieved from a CA after a 2nd validation attempt


cincityplayer
 Share

Recommended Posts

COLLECTION COMPANY OF AMERICA

700 LONGWATER DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR OFFICE HOURS

NORWELL, MA 02061 MON-THURSDAY: 8AM TO 10PM EST

PHONE: (800)455-8026 (781)681-4300 FRIDAY: SAM TO 5PM EST

FAX: (781)681-4340 SATURDAY: SAM TO 12PM EST

10/24/06

CCA Client Name: US Asset Management Inc.

Client Account #: XXXXXXXXX

CCA Account #: XXXXXXXXXX

Original Creditor: SPRINT PCS

We are in receipt of your letter regarding the above mentioned account being reported on your credit bureau profile. Per the Fair and Accurate Transaction Act, we have reviewed the information you provided and conducted an investigation. Please be advised that:

[X] we have determined the information on file is accurate.

[] supporting documentation to your claim is needed to conduct our investigation. The reporting of the account will be updated to disputed.

Please provide:[]ID Theft Report: visit www.consumer.gov

/idtheft or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357) []copy of front and back of cancelled check [X]other: ACCOUNT VERIFIED PER FDCPA.

[] we have requested that the account be deleted from your

credit profile.

we have reguested that the reporting of the account be updated to:

[] paid in full. [] settled in full.

If you have any questions, please contact Collection Company of America at 800-455-8026, extension 4344.

Thank you,

Processing Services Representative

This communication is from a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

How should I proceed short of suing them? previously all they provided was a final sprint bill for validation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you request verification or validation?

If the latter, this deserves TowerRat's Very Special Letter.

When I received a very similar letter from RMA, I wrote their general counsel thanking them for the prima facie violation of the FDCPA, and offering the chance to avoid litigation by removing their tradelines. I faxed it and snail mailed it CMRRR. They were removed REALLY quickly; I believe even before they received the CMRRR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may have been proper validation.

This sprint bill:

1 Was it from sprint?

2 Did it have an address on it? Was that address one where you lived?

3 Did it have a phone # on it?

4 Was that your phone #?

if one through 4 are correct, they have shown they have the correct debtor.

5 Is the amount the CA trying to collect the same as the amount on the sprint bill?

If 5 is true, they have shown they are collecting the correct amount.

Validation complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no difference between verification or validation. Internet message boards created a difference where one never existed under the FDCPA. The word validation is used once in the FDCPA, and only as a header description for the verification process.

If the elements pointed out by dive were provided, they've verified/validated the amount and the debtor.

If the amount is wrong, or they cannot account for how they arrived at the amount due, you may have other violations and a possible defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Divemedic.

To answer your questions

1. was it from Sprint? hard to tell it has Sprint logo on it not an original sprint bill though I know that for sure. looks like the may have copied the bill from a bill

2.Did it have an Address on it? was this an address where you once lived? Yes

3.did it have a phone number on it ? No, just an account number.

4. was that your phone number? NA no number

5.Is the amount on the CA is trying to collect the same as the bill? No there is a $50.00 difference from what they are trying to collect and what the bill amount is for, also they are reporting an even greater amount on my CR more like $100.00

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5.Is the amount on the CA is trying to collect the same as the bill? No there is a $50.00 difference from what they are trying to collect and what the bill amount is for, also they are reporting an even greater amount on my CR more like $100.00

Well that's a violation for sure. The FDCPA strictly prohibits attempting to collect any amount above the amount the original creditor claims unless there is specific provisions in the original contract with the original creditor. And they can't add a provision to the terms for collection fees after service is started, that kind of monkey-doo is not allowed in contracts of adhesion.

Second, a final bill isn't totally sufficient because it does not show how they came to conclude you owed anything. A full list of every debit and credit posted to the account from the day it started is the only thing that can show that. Sure it *may* be your account, but it may not be correct.

Lastly, there is an FCRA violation for reporting an amount owed in excess of the amount claimed. By increasing it over $100, they put you in a differnet category as far as lenders are concerned. Unpaid collections under $100 are generally considered nuisances, not show-stoppers. Over $100 and potential creditors start getting more nervous about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no difference between verification or validation. Internet message boards created a difference where one never existed under the FDCPA. The word validation is used once in the FDCPA, and only as a header description for the verification process.

I've been trying to drive this point home for months and months. The key word in 1692g is dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is quite a bit of case law on this- as long as the CA is collecting what the OC is claiming is due, it is not the reaponsibility of the CA to investigate what the OC is claiming is due.

If the OC is claiming illegal fees, that becomes a different issue, where you have potential claims against the OC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok,what I am struggling with is how to word my reponse to this? I have already told them that they did not provide enough information for me to assume responsibility for this debt and they sent the crap up above. I was considering 1-2 punching them to accumulate more violations. Thoughts? on wording for letter or next moves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is quite a bit of case law on this- as long as the CA is collecting what the OC is claiming is due, it is not the reaponsibility of the CA to investigate what the OC is claiming is due.

It is, however, their responsibility to obtain documentation from the OC. As for verification/validation, I should add that I know there's not a difference, but some CAs have also thought they're two different things.

One of the things I discovered through my own credit repair: just because a CA is reporting and dunning doesn't mean they have any authority to collect. They may have had same in the past, but I had a situation where two CAs were dunning (and one had assigned it to another at one point for a limited period), but the OC had sold that part of their business and had no ability to collect, so none of the CAs did either (and no one had told the first CA). So, for that reason, I get extra persnickety, especially since this account was the result of identity theft.

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.