Wmcc ?

[CastelF]

I received a dunning letter from Western Mass Credit for a debt they say they own from Sovereignbank. I DV timely asking for proof of ownership, statements, how they came up with the amount, all things I am intitled to under the FDPC. sent it certified and they accepted.

They responded very quicky with computer generated print out showing different amount going back to 2000, it only had Sovereignbank on it with no address. The last amount on the print out was different then what they are asking for by $3000.00. There asking for 10K and this printout said 7K.

I responded with second DV request asking for statements and how they came up with this amount. certified and they excepted.

I now recieved another letter from them basically stating that they have sent me notice setting forth my rights under the FDPC, you still have not made contact with our office, I have fifteen days to make firm payment arrangements. ( they excepted 2 certified letters from me, is that not contact)

Is the fact here that they cannot verify, should i DV again or just wait. Any help would be appreciated. thanks

[willingtocope]

According to the letter of the FDCPA law, what they sent you after your first DV does constitute proper validation (see section 809). However, the FTC has issued opinion letters that say that the validation should come from the OC...not the CA...and should, in effect, be on OC letter.

However, what you've been handed is a typical CAs response to a debtor that knows their rights. They've conformed to the letter of the law (if not the spirit) and therefore are free to continue their collection efforts.

So now, you get to determine if you will call their bluff...by forcing them to sue you, so you'll have your day in court...or, if you'll roll over and cough up money. Its a tough decesion, and no one can really answer it for you.

There is a chance that by ignoring their latest letter, they'll just send the debt back to the OC, and the OC will then send it out to another CA. There is also a chance you'll get sued.

[CastelF]

Thanks.

So the computer printout that anyone could create is sufficent proof. they even lied saying I did not contact their office, which i did twice.

If I was now sued and went to court and basically tell the court i did not believe this was from OC and that I thought this CA was fraud because of dissimilar amounts and that they could not really send be suffient proof. Would this not be a good defense. Who send money to these guys with this little bit of info..

What do you think. thanks

[willingtocope]

Technically, according to the FTC guidelines, what that sent you is NOT sufficient proof. The problem is...the FDCPA is unclear as to exactly what IS required. Therefore, if they sue you, and the judge doesn't know the law well enough (or, simply believes the "lawyer" rather than you), you could lose.

If they do sue...plan on showing up...and, when the judge asks "is this your debt", you should certainly respond with "I don't know, your honor, they haven't shown sufficient proof". Is that a good defense? Don't know...depends on the judge.

[CastelF]

I was just going to post that. If they take me to court, don't they have to show more proof.

They will show up with a computer generated printout, they printed my name on it and the bank name, no addresses. The ending amount is 7K and they are asking for 10 K.

Plus they states in there last letter, that I have not contacted their office, I have signed receipts showing that i have , so wouldn't this destroy their legitmacy.

Thank again

Should i send a third DV asking for more proof?

[willingtocope]

The problem is..."proof" is in the eye of the judge. We've had reports on the forum here where the local judge has said "Do you owe these fine people money? Pay up!". Its hard to predict how you local courts would react.

I just noticed that your original post says that WMC claims to have bought the debt from Soverign? That makes them a junk debt buyer...not a CA. You will want to search the board here for ways of dealing with a JDB in court. Basically, what they've sent you is "hearsay"...in court, they SHOULD need documentation from the OC as to the amount of the debt and "chain of custody" documentation showing that they now have the right to collect.

Again, I emphasis SHOULD...local judges may react differently.

[CastelF]

I'm not sure if they own it or are collecting on there behalf of sovereign.

I know there no garantee, but if my defense in court was that I did not who these people where and really did not want to send them money because they have not proved to me that i owe them money, and wouldn't they have to show more proof in court. Don't you think this would hold up?

Thanks again and sorry if I'm repeating myself. Don't they have to bring documentation to court to prove they can collect and if they have that why not send it to me and then I will deal accordingly..I'm truely not sure these guys are legit..

thanks

[willingtocope]

Check your credit reports. If the tradeline for Soverign says "Sold to another lender", and their balance is $0, then its been sold...it just doesn't tell you who it was sold to.

And, don't worry about repeating yourself. Its really hard for us non-lawyers to realize that what's right, and what's legal, are two different things. If you're sued, its a "civil" case. Civil cases are decided on the "preponderance of evidence" (not, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in a murder trial). And, unless you demand a jury trial (and your court permits that), the judge will decide whether their "evidence" is sufficient.

If you are sued, you can check to see if there is a consumer lawyer at www.naca.net that might be interested in your case. If not, and you have to try to defend yourself, then the "I don't know who these people are, and if this is my debt" defense might work. Depends on your local judge.

[CastelF]

Thanks again,think I'll DV one more time to cover myself asking nicely for additional info. to validate, I don't think it can hurt..