CA Atty soft hit on CR question...

[Mimi-to-8]

I have read so much lately that I can't remember everything:confused:

I know I read something about a collection attorney can not pull your credit report for the purpose of litigation.

What about Zwicker making a "soft" pull on mine the day before the date on my dunning letter. Then they filed suit 3 months later (without validating per my request)?

Do I have any violation here?

Also the dunning letter was unsigned. Anything here?

Also Z&A/OC failed to report the debt was disputed on my CR. Anything here?

I'm trying to get more ammo! If anyone could give info and/or point me to the laws/violations I would so appreciate it!

[GenX99]

I have read so much lately that I can't remember everything:confused:

I know I read something about a collection attorney can not pull your credit report for the purpose of litigation.

What about Zwicker making a "soft" pull on mine the day before the date on my dunning letter. Then they filed suit 3 months later (without validating per my request)?

Do I have any violation here?

Also the dunning letter was unsigned. Anything here?

Also Z&A/OC failed to report the debt was disputed on my CR. Anything here?

I'm trying to get more ammo! If anyone could give info and/or point me to the laws/violations I would so appreciate it!

Mimi-to-8 same with me , they made request on my credit report then I got the dunning letter, the letter was unsigned, failed to report debt in dispute (says charged off) and suit filed 7 months later...and btw I sent you a PM.

[KentWA]

Since Zwicker is a debt collector as well it would be a hard sell on a violation for pulling your credit before sending a dunning letter. Being unsigned is not a violation in itself, *however* was the letter on legal letter head that said something like law firm of Z&A? If it was not personally reviewed by a lawyer then it is likely a violation. Failure to report it as disputed is a violation and if you DVed them and they filed suit that is another.

[Mimi-to-8]

Yes, it is on legal letterhead stating "Zwicker & Associates, PC Attorneys At Law" with their fancy "ZA" symbol. Down the right side it has all their lawyers listed for different states. The paper is light blue.

It says "this law firm has been retained by the above-named creditor....blah, blah..." followed by the debt collector miranda.

Also it says "This letter was created following a limited review of your account data, and at this time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the paticular circumstances of your account."

It ends saying "Please contact this office to discuss repayment with xxxxx xxxxx, one of our non-attorney account managers.

Yours truly,

(no signature)

Zwicker & Associates, P.C.

Could you let me know what the violation is for not signing the legal letterhead and how I can apply it to my court or arb claim? I already have the violation for failure to report dispute and filing suit without validating. Thanks!

[colormeruby]

I just got almost the same message from another collector. I am anxiously waiting to hear what the forum has to say.

[GenX99]

Hey Mimi I found this today while researching, I think it would apply about the letterhead used in the dunning notice????

http://www.insidearm.com/go/arm-news/collection-letterhead-can-be-an-fdcpa-violation-judge-rules

Collection Letterhead Can be an FDCPA Violation, Judge Rules

June 18, 2010

A federal judge has ruled with a plaintiff in an FDCPA case involving the use of law firm letterhead in a collection communication, despite a disclosure that stated the case had not been reviewed by an attorney.

A federal magistrate judge ruled this week that the letterhead on collection letters cannot be from a law firm unless an attorney has reviewed the file and the firm is truly poised to file a lawsuit.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Smyser, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, ruled that two collection letters from a New York law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because the use of law firm letterhead gave the false impression that an attorney had engaged in meaningful review of the account and was planning to file suit.

Smyser entered his opinion in the case, Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, on June 14.

The case stemmed from letters that were sent to the plaintiff to attempt to collect a Washington Mutual debt. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay sent the letters with their letterhead, and the body of the letter was offering a settlement to Darwin Lesher with an invitation to visit the defendant’s Web site to make a payment.

But the letter contained a sentence reading, “[a]t this point in time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account.”

Despite that disclosure, Smyser said that including a law firm’s letterhead led the defendant to believe the account was in the legal collection process.

"A law firm's letter does bear an implied threat of litigation, and does connote that it is a communication from an attorney,” he wrote. "In our view, that language does not mitigate the impression of potential legal action.”

Smyser further wrote, “The least sophisticated consumer would be likely to believe upon receiving a communication from an attorney for the lender that the debt collection process has entered into a phase where the lender through its attorney will begin to use procedures established by law and known to attorneys to collect the debt."

Smyser granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Lesher on two of his FDCPA claims. Under the regulation, the remedy for such claims is a $1,000 award to the plaintiff and an award of attorney fees.

[KentWA]

No signature is not a violation. It is the content of the letter.

[chuckygee]

This decision is limited to the Circuit the court is located in. Make sure you are in that circuit before you begin to rely on this in your FDCPA actions.