C.a. Lying Sacks Of Crap

[cracrap]

how can we claim violations on the finer points of the fcra and the fdcpa when for example, a ca sends you a letter or calls claiming to have "contacted you"(which implies they were successful rather than they attempted to) over 30 days ago (WHICH IS TOTAL BS)

and they claim you never responded.. thereby eliminating some of the requirements under the acts that they were required to do or inform you of...

ive been seein this more and more and it finally happened to me

how can we file a complaint or sue with no evidence that they didnt communicate with us previously like they are claiming and are lying through their teeth???

[Big Time]

You have to challenge them on it, then it's thier word against your if it goes to court.

Send CMRRR with something like:

I am in recipt of your letter dated Feb 32 2009, postmarked March 38, 2010 and recieved by me on April 1, 2112. That is the first letter I have recived from you regarding this debt and is therefore intial communication with me per the FDCPA.

then the rest fo your DV...

That will kill their plan of making a tacit agreement that they sent you something earlier. Bear in mind that there is case law that says they need only establish that they have regular porcedures to make sure mail goes out, and they definately use that to their advantge to defraud consumers and the courts, but the idea here is to make them spend time and money and resources pointing all that out to defend against your calim of a violation.

The FDCPA is $1000 max per lawsuit, so you wouldn't have gotten an extra $1000 anyway if you can prove more than one violation. This is why you need to get between 3-5 violatons against them. nay less and they may be able to weasle out of it, any more and it make you look like you were intentionally baiting them.

[retmar]

FDCPA 807(8) has no 30 day window nor a written requirement. All that is necessary is to have knowledge.

At the same time, 809 only says they "may assume" after the 30 day. No where does it say you cannot still dispute the debt. You can also include this in your letter.

Do as suggested with the letter, but include that since you never receieved prior communication, you are now wanting them to valaidate the debt. It is true that all they need to do is say they mailed it, but, no where does it say you can't challenge it. In fact, ask for copies of the prior communications. More than likely, you will be able to determine if they did or did not. One way is to look at date on the letter. They may forget to change it. Remember, the intelligence of a CA rep, plus, most computer programs display the current date, which means they have to change before printing. Why is because most times a copy is printed and kept in the file for reference, as well as a "work sheet". Or, look at the amount claimed. Many times a "false" copy will show current balance. Thus, if interest is allowed, a dead giveaway, as an amount displayed on an actual copy should be for a lesser amount.

[answer2prayer]

u make some great points retmar, hadn't thought about these!

thanks!

[GucciMark]

Why not complain to the FTC?

https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

although they don't respond to an individual case,

if they get multiple complaints then they may act.

and multiple complaints start with one.

It wouldn't hurt to also register complaints with the

BBB and your State AG.

What do you think?

[retmar]

Never hesitate to submit complaints to the proper places.

It is very true the FTC does not respond to each complaint. The norm is you speak to a rep who is allowed only 5 minutes per call. They take the information and assign a "case number". When the board sits, they go over each complaint. The only ones they take action on are the ones that are consistent, such as NCO, A$$et, etc. This is why it is so important to file the complaints so as to create an overall picture of a particular CA/JDB, thus, creating a very large folder. The FTC commented a couple of years ago as to the public not filing the complaints, though they had seen an increase in filings.