johnransom Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I am about to DV Titan Management Services LLC (fka New Vision Financial) and noticed this on their initial letter (which was dated about a month after their first phone call anyway) immediately after the mini-miranda:"If you do not have a valid dispute, please enclosed (sic) a check or money order for the balance in full OR contact one of our account specialists immediately to avoid any additional collection activity on your account."Clearly, my right to demand validation is not contingent on having a "valid dispute". Therefore, surely this is a case of overshadowing, since it implies that I can only do so if I have such a valid dispute, isn't it? Moreover, isn't this language somewhat coercive, since it contains a not particularly well-disguised threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direred Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Personally, I'd argue overshadowing on that. I might not sue on it, but I would file complaints with my state AG (and theirs) as well as file an FTC complaint....and send copies of all of the above with my validation request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHateCAs Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Absolutely a violation of 1692g. The CA does not have the power to determine whether or not a dispute is "valid".They came out the box violating, so you're well on your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 They came out the box violating, so you're well on your way.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts