Is it time to sue yet?

[IngridA]

Please reference one of my older posts here:

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256889

I am just now redisputing these items for the 4th (I think?) time....if they come back verified, and I ask for MOV, and it comes back as being the CA, is it time to sue?

[divemedic]

I would say yes. You CAN also include FDCPA violations. Here is why:

Even though they are not required to respond to a dispute letter beyond the 30 days, they chose to anyway. Here is what I used against a CA who tried to claim that I couldn't DV after 30 days:

As to the Defendant’s First affirmative defense, the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim is barred as a matter of law, as the Defendant claims that sending the information required by section 1692g absolves debt collectors of any liability under the FDCPA unless the consumer disputes within the 30 day period mentioned in the statute.

The Defendant’s answer fails to come to grips with a basic feature of the FDCPA: It is a strict liability statute. Congress responded to “abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a), by enacting a comprehensive, detailed, remedial scheme that imposes civil liability on debt collectors who engage in a range of prohibited conduct, and in establishing this prohibited conduct, Congress established a core of liability that prohibits debt collectors from engaging in “any” harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct, 15 U.S.C. § 1692d; making “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation,” § 1692e; and using “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect “any debt,” § 1692f.

In subsections following the general prohibitions, “each of these provisions includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of proscribed conduct.” Fox v. Citicorp Credit

Servs., 15 F.3d 1507, 1516 (9th Cir. 1994). If FDCPA claims for these proscribed activities were barred by simply including in the initial communication the language required by 1692g, this would circumvent the statute’s other provisions and upset the system of rewards and incentives created by Congress. The Defendant’s position would scrap Congress’ carrot-and-stick approach, encouraging debt collectors to send the 1692g notice, and then be free to violate all of the other provisions of the FDCPA with abandon, thus putting consumers, as well as scrupulous debt collectors, at a competitive disadvantage.

“The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is an extraordinarily broad statute. Congress addressed itself to what it considered to be a widespread problem, and to remedy that problem it crafted a broad statute.” Frey v. Gangwish, 970 F.2d 1516, 1521 (6th Cir. 1992). The Defendant would have the Court ignore this fact and read an exception into the statute that is nowhere to be found in its text. Even if the proposed exception were eminently sensible—which, as explained above, it is not—it is not up to the federal courts to legislate. The Court “must enforce this statute as Congress has written it.” see Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm’t Group, 493 U.S. 120, 126 (1989) (“Our task is to apply the text, not improve upon it.”).

Since your FACTA dispute was a responded to by the CA, they are still required to abstain from “any” harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct, making “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation, and using “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect “any debt.” Since they are in possession of information that shows they are in violation of the law, they are required to fix it.

[IngridA]

Just to update on this:

Disputed both accounts and both came back as belonging to me...sigh....

So now this makes 2 CAs that are on my "to sue" list...