'cont, Collection agency continues to call, despite no validation letter

[Destroyer]

I was the original poster for this thread,

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?p=963059#post963059

about how a collection agency had called me despite a letter. Right as I went on vacation (honeymoon), the thread was closed by the moderator.

The collection agency had sent me a letter, and I had sent a request for validation, asking they stop calling me. They still called me, claiming they had sent a validation, and I was running out of time.

I provided the dates in the thread, and I was timely. I have now returned from my vacation, and found TWO messages from the collection agency. Meanwhile, I had a lot of mail, but NOTHING from them. Furthermore, I had moved, but it appears all my mail is forwarding normally.

So they have now called me three times without validating the debt, even though they claimed they mailed it 15 days ago.

How should I respond the next time they call?

[Flyingifr]

With a summons.

[nascar]

So they have now called me three times without validating the debt, even though they claimed they mailed it 15 days ago.

Take a close look at one of the letters they've sent you - they HAVE sent you a letter, right? Somewhere on the front or back of the letter should be a 4-digit number - their NCDOI permit number. What is it?

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

....They still called me, claiming they had sent a validation

I don't remember you sharing this piece of information in your original thread...did they or didn't they send validation and when did they send it?

If they are telling the truth (it does happen now and then) then they can legally resume collection activities, including calling and keep in mind, no matter what you specifically ask for, they don't have to send very much to reach the bar set by the FDCPA and for that matter, the "proof" they would have to provide in court to show they did validate isn't all that hard to come up with either; they don't need to send mail CMRRR to prove their side of the story).

I think this piece of the puzzle needs to be cleared up before anyone starts talking about a summons.

[Destroyer]

Take a close look at one of the letters they've sent you - they HAVE sent you a letter, right? Somewhere on the front or back of the letter should be a 4-digit number - their NCDOI permit number. What is it?

The NCDOI number is 3987. However, I no longer live in North Carolina. I now live in New Jersey.

I don't remember you sharing this piece of information in your original thread...did they or didn't they send validation and when did they send it?

They have NOT sent me a validation letter, or any other letter othen than the initial one. On 27-Jun-2008 they sent me a letter saying they had received authorization to collect, with 30 days to dispute the validity. I sent a response to them that USPS says was delivered on 10-Jul-2008. On 06-Aug-2008, they called me and claimed they had sent me a response on 31-Jul-2008 with the validation. However, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTERS FROM THEM (e.g. validation). Rip-Off-Report says this collection agency (Creditors Interchange) is known for claiming to send letters, but not really sending them.

Perhaps I should send them a second request for validation?

[hiblues]

you could force the issue and file a lawsuit...

which in turn they may file one against you too.

bottom line,

the DV (wiggle out of a legit debt tactic) is very difficult to prove

(it's a he said - she said --- ie, they say they sent it - you said you never received it.... and no-one knows, nor can prove who is a liar)

soooooo,

you are better to get rock solid violations, than try to 'get them' on this very flimsy one that

will get you nowhere.

and besides,

if you are going to file a lawsuit against a CA,

you want to have several violations to strengthen your case,

not just one extremely weak one that they will surely counter as frivolous and

you may just p them off enough to come after you.

[Destroyer]

bottom line,

the DV (wiggle out of a legit debt tactic) is very difficult to prove

(it's a he said - she said --- ie, they say they sent it - you said you never received it.... and no-one knows, nor can prove who is a liar)

In that case, we will send a second DV letter, again, registered, saying we hadn't received it. We might even put in an offer for a pay for delete in there, using the samples provided on this website.

[JustaTexan]

bottom line,

the DV (wiggle out of a legit debt tactic) is very difficult to prove

Wow you sure are throwing that phrase around threads alot lately. Do you believe that DV's are really the "wiggle out of a legit debt tactic"? So we should just do away with DV'ing?

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Wow you sure are throwing that phrase around threads alot lately. Do you believe that DV's are really the "wiggle out of a legit debt tactic"? So we should just do away with DV'ing?

I would say most collectors see the DV process as a stall tactic and/or a way to "wiggle out" of paying a debt...at the very least, CAs don't like it because even providing the minimal amount of information required under the FDCPA to verify a debt is a major pain in the a$$ for them and slows down them getting the only thing they want (money).

And let's face it, stalling and/or using it to try and "wiggle out" of paying a debt is exactly how the process is used by a lot of people so the accusation is not without merit.

I've always maintained that despite its misuse by others and despite its flaws, the DV process is still the process available to the consumer to ferret out the information he/she needs to make a rational and reasonable determination about the claim of a third-party; there is no reason not to use it for that purpose.

That said, HB's advice is pretty practical..."proving" the CA didn't send verification is a tough sell; especially if that's the only thing you have them on (unless of course your answer to every problem is a summons...just kidding!).

[JustaTexan]

I was commenting how on alot of his/her threads lately he/she has been pretty much talking about how dv'ing is for wiggling out of debts, I agree with his/her other statements about the thread. On another thread he's telling somebody else that the advice he was given is meant to help him "wiggle out of his debts," or something to that effect, because he was dv'ing. I don't want people to get turned off from DV'ing because they feel like doing so is wrong or that they will be labeled a dead beat. I personally would never pay a debt if I didn't know exactly what I paying and who it was going to, no matter how old or new the debt may be. I have a right to know where my money is going. We all do. I know some people probably do abuse this right, just like every right in our country is abused in some way. But that doesn't mean we should assume everybody that is posting about a DV is doing so. I like to look at the cup as half full.

Seems like here lately alot of people have just been telling people, "Well if you know it's yours or it could be yours, then why even dv it? You let an account go to collections you stupid moron, so now we don't care if you have rights or not. You lazy deadbeat, you're just trying to get out of your legit debt. Just pay the damn bill and don't you even try for a PFD, you have to pay for your screwup!" Now people don't ever make this statement in these exact words, because they know they would probably be reprimanded or banned, but anybody with a little wording finesse can practically say that same thing without saying it all.

Sometimes I seriously ponder the idea that a few among us are indeed collectors. I think they throw in nice helpful advice from time to time to throw us off, but ya never know.

[Destroyer]

I see your point about trying to avoid paying the debt.

I guess I've never gotten straight answers from Toyota on my GAP insurance or if they had forced placed insurance on it. I truly thought my car was insured, but my insurer had dropped me a year before.

I called the collection agency today and they were surprised to hear from me. They said they sent a validation, and I told them I had not received it. They said that if the month ends without them resolving it, they would send it back to Toyota or send it to someone else.

Is there any harm in that happening? Would Toyota try to take a judgement against me, or becaues they already turned it over to collections, they don't think it is worth it?

Thanks for all the replies.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Generally, a creditor can sue you at any time; without sending the account out to CA at all or after getting it back, etc...the decision to sue is made based on different factors (things important to that particular creditor).

Forgive me for not remembering how much this alleged debt is but in general, the larger the debt, the more likely it is you'll get sued.

I'm not remembering all the details of your situation but with what does come to mind, I'm thinking that a court room may be the only place all this will or even can be sorted out.

[nascar]

Sometimes I seriously ponder the idea that a few among us are indeed collectors. I think they throw in nice helpful advice from time to time to throw us off, but ya never know.

[Destroyer]

Forgive me for not remembering how much this alleged debt is but in general, the larger the debt, the more likely it is you'll get sued.

I'm not remembering all the details of your situation but with what does come to mind, I'm thinking that a court room may be the only place all this will or even can be sorted out.

It's $10,000, for a car that was totalled in an accident.

[nascar]

It's $10,000, for a car that was totalled in an accident.

I know you said earlier that the Insurance Commission didn't help you with this. But, did you pay premiums to the insurance company? Did they accept your money?

If so, I'd be tempted to pull them into the lawsuit. Maybe it's just me, but if the insurance company accepted my money, I'd be expecting something in return.

[JustaTexan]

You don't suspect it from time to time? Maybe I'm just super paranoid.

[nascar]

You don't suspect it from time to time? Maybe I'm just super paranoid.

No, you aren't - more than one of us have seen this business from both sides of the fence.

[Destroyer]

I know you said earlier that the Insurance Commission didn't help you with this. But, did you pay premiums to the insurance company? Did they accept your money?

If so, I'd be tempted to pull them into the lawsuit. Maybe it's just me, but if the insurance company accepted my money, I'd be expecting something in return.

I did actually get on the local news for it, but at attorney said I had no luck.

The insurance company was Progressive. I did everything on line, but they claim they sent me a "consent to rate" form, that I never signed. So they dropped the collision, and lowered my rate. I was struggling financially at the time, so I was just happy my rate went down. Little did I know it was because my collision had been dropped.

Now I'm with a different insurance company whose agent told me that if my collision gets dropped, her commission goes down, so she will call me ASAP. Progressive didn't do that. On the local television show, the newsman got the Progressive agent to say that it happens all the time.

I did mail all the documents related to this to an attorney before I went on vacation (my husband is a member of Hyatt Legal and this is a covered service). I need to call the attorney Monday to see what he thinks of it.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I did actually get on the local news for it, but at attorney said I had no luck.

The insurance company was Progressive. I did everything on line, but they claim they sent me a "consent to rate" form, that I never signed. So they dropped the collision, and lowered my rate. I was struggling financially at the time, so I was just happy my rate went down. Little did I know it was because my collision had been dropped.

Now I'm with a different insurance company whose agent told me that if my collision gets dropped, her commission goes down, so she will call me ASAP. Progressive didn't do that. On the local television show, the newsman got the Progressive agent to say that it happens all the time.

I did mail all the documents related to this to an attorney before I went on vacation (my husband is a member of Hyatt Legal and this is a covered service). I need to call the attorney Monday to see what he thinks of it.

Maybe it's just done as a courtsy but I though insurance companies were required to inform lienholders when someone colission coverage is dropper/remoced, etc. so my first question woudl be "did they inform?"

If they didn't I'd want to know why...if they did then I'd want to know why the lienholder wasn't screaming at you and/or didn't forece-place insurance on you.

Seems to me there is substantial blame to go around - you shouldn't be the only one left holding the bag. But, as I sai, cour may be the ONLY place all this can get sorted out.

[Destroyer]

Maybe it's just done as a courtsy but I though insurance companies were required to inform lienholders when someone colission coverage is dropper/remoced, etc. so my first question woudl be "did they inform?"

Progressive said they did - I never received anything. The insurance commission ruled in their favor, but didn't provide any reasoning (it was just a short message).

If they didn't I'd want to know why...if they did then I'd want to know why the lienholder wasn't screaming at you and/or didn't forece-place insurance on you.

EXACTLY, since the lease clearly mentions the force placed insurance. This went on for a year, it seems.

Seems to me there is substantial blame to go around - you shouldn't be the only one left holding the bag. But, as I sai, court may be the ONLY place all this can get sorted out.

Hopefully Toyota realizes that and will let it die down then.