admin

New "Triple Whammy" Collections Letter

Recommended Posts

Interesting tactic.

Though, I'm not sure that the request for a FCRA investigation and the FDCPA C&D demand are compatible. How are they supposed to report their findings to you if they can't communicate with you regarding the account? The information furnisher is required under the FCRA to notify the consumer by mail within five days of their determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more a fan of one letter per issue. It keeps things focused and prevents the other side from obfuscating the issues "in error". There again I just like to rack the other sides costs up. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Admin!

Just my .02...

I'd revise the statement: "Under the FCRA and the FDCPA, each violation is subject to a $1000 fine, payable to me."

Unless the FDCPA has changed, each violation is not subject to a $1000 fine. For those reading who are not in the know, FDCPA offers relief up to $1000 per action (i.e. filed lawsuit).

StressPot xdancex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Admin!

Just my .02...

I'd revise the statement: "Under the FCRA and the FDCPA, each violation is subject to a $1000 fine, payable to me."

Unless the FDCPA has changed, each violation is not subject to a $1000 fine. For those reading who are not in the know, FDCPA offers relief up to $1000 per action (i.e. filed lawsuit).

StressPot xdancex

Which is a good reason to sue for each violation in a separate action. Win the first they are usually conducive to negotiating an out of court once and for all settlement in regard to future actions. It saves them attorney fees which you can help reintroduce to them but call them an NDA consideration :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/facta.shtm:

In an action related to the direct dispute rule, the Commission is issuing an advisory opinion concluding that a debt collector does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by responding to a direct dispute via a communication whose sole purpose is to comply with the direct dispute rule by stating either the results of the investigation or the collector’s belief that the communication is frivolous or irrelevant. Section 805© of the Act provides that, if a consumer has notified a debt collector in writing to stop communicating with the consumer, the collector must stop communicating with the consumer about the debt. The advisory opinion clarifies that, even if a consumer has asked a debt collector to stop communicating about a debt, the debt collector must still respond to the consumer’s direct dispute, as required by the new rules.

What this means is that you can do a cease and desist with a collection agency and still send them a 623 letter and force them to respond to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right, "time-barred" debt might be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this letter is a bad idea for the following reasons:

1: "Cease-Comm" and "Investigate" are mutually exclusive. The request to investigate invites a response, which would necessarily be a violation of the Cease-Comm. Do one or the other. I am a fan of the simple FOAD letter.

2: As a matter of practice you should never Cease-Comm an OOS debt - let them stick their foot in their mouths, not shut their mouths. An OOS debt is the time to have fun with them - goad them into a violation. Remember -even THREATENING a suit on an OOS debt is a FDCPA violation.

3: Dispute with the creditor first, have the CRA investigate second. That way, when the creditor fails to report the debt as disputed you have both a FCRA and a FDCPA violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyingifr,

Did you read the FTC decision info I posted? They said point blank that issuing a cease and desist does not get the collection agency off the hook from meeting their obligations to respond to debt validations or consumer disputes under the FCRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did. First of all they are not effective until next year. Second, a FTC Advisory Opinion has absolutely no force of law. They are simply the FTC's opinion of what the law says and are not precedent - only advisory opinions on how the FTC thinks the law should be interpreted and applied. Third, being a strong believer in the schools of "Keep it Simple, Stupid" and "Give enough rope to a Collector and show him a strong tree and you can trust the Collector to do the rest" I would rather simply let the Collector hang himself. Using a Triple Whammy letter is far less effective in the case here than a simple FOAD and a Summons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.