Birdnals

Is this proper validation?

Recommended Posts

I DV'd with Aargon Agency and received a letter from an attorney representing them demanding payment and stating the amount I owed and the name of the original creditor. I've never received a dunning letter from them and they have since started calling me and leaving voicemails even though I stated in the letter that all contact must go through mail. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you asked for debt validation. They have indeed provided it. That is all that is necessary to validate a debt.

WRT them calling you after they received a C&D letter requesting they not phone you is in fact a violation of the FDCPA and is something you could file suit over. I assume you sent the C&D letter CMRR and have gotten proof that they received the letter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if you asked for debt validation. They have indeed provided it. That is all that is necessary to validate a debt.

WRT them calling you after they received a C&D letter requesting they not phone you is in fact a violation of the FDCPA and is something you could file suit over. I assume you sent the C&D letter CMRR and have gotten proof that they received the letter?

Yes it was sent cmrrr and they received it a few weeks ago. So what should my next move be? I'm interested in just getting this off of my cr more than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the calls automated recordings, and were they made to your landline or cell? In the calls, did they state they were debt collectors or attempting to collect a debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it was sent cmrrr and they received it a few weeks ago. So what should my next move be? I'm interested in just getting this off of my cr more than anything else.

Well, they dv'd you per your right and request so they can resume collection activities. However, they resumed through telephone after you wrote them explicit instructions not to and you have proof they received those instructions.

I would write them a letter letting them know they have violated the FDCPA and that you have proof of their violations with recorded voicemails they have left you.

I would explain that you do not feel this debt is yours and that you do not want to have to sue them to get it removed nor do you want to file an FDCPA violation suit requesting $1000 plus court costs, attorney fees and damages but will so so if they do not agree to permanantly delete their tradelines from your report in the next 10 days or so..

That's probably where I would go if I wasn't in the market for trying to get a PFD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call was automated and to my cell. They stated that they were a debt collector attempting to collect a debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

File a FDCPA, find an attorney who will not charge you anything and file the suit. The attorney will probably find other laws and statutes to sue under to get you more than $1,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
File a FDCPA, find an attorney who will not charge you anything and file the suit. The attorney will probably find other laws and statutes to sue under to get you more than $1,000.

I disagree.. At this point I would still try and negotiate. I think the point of this is to try and get it removed not to receive enrichment from a law suit.

Edited by Hal Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... leaving voicemails even though I stated in the letter that all contact must go through mail.
There is nothing in the FDCPA that says you can prohibt them from calling you (some people call this a "limited C&D"...ain't no such thing).

You either send them a full C&D, or put up with their calls. Now, if calls to your cell phone cost you money, that's something else again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum

Yup, limited C&D's are not recognized under the law. It has to be a full C&D for them to be in violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I DV'd with Aargon Agency and received a letter from an attorney representing them demanding payment and stating the amount I owed and the name of the original creditor. I've never received a dunning letter from them and they have since started calling me and leaving voicemails even though I stated in the letter that all contact must go through mail. Thank you.

No, that's nowhere near evidence of a debt. I wouldn't sweat it though. They need more than that to ever get a judgment. Who supposedly owns the alleged debt?? Now, other posters don't get in a hissy about my comment on evidence of a debt. That does not validate any debt, but that is what is regarded as validation of a debt when responding to a request for validation. To me it validates nothing, as the former member Prosay would say, "Show me the proof."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that's nowhere near evidence of a debt. I wouldn't sweat it though. They need more than that to ever get a judgment. Who supposedly owns the alleged debt?? Now, other posters don't get in a hissy about my comment on evidence of a debt. That does not validate any debt, but that is what is regarded as validation of a debt when responding to a request for validation. To me it validates nothing, as the former member Prosay would say, "Show me the proof."

Show me where the FDCPA requires more than that for a validation. You stated they would need more than that to get a judgment. This is not about a lawsuit...it's about collection activity. Per the FDCPA, they validated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum
No, that's nowhere near evidence of a debt. I wouldn't sweat it though. They need more than that to ever get a judgment. Who supposedly owns the alleged debt?? Now, other posters don't get in a hissy about my comment on evidence of a debt. That does not validate any debt, but that is what is regarded as validation of a debt when responding to a request for validation. To me it validates nothing, as the former member Prosay would say, "Show me the proof."

Prosay is still here, he's posting under the handle "NoWay" now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing in the FDCPA that says you can prohibt them from calling you (some people call this a "limited C&D"...ain't no such thing).

You either send them a full C&D, or put up with their calls. Now, if calls to your cell phone cost you money, that's something else again...

OK. If this was followed:

© CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.

---------------------------------

Would the above do the trick? What does it mean when a full verses half C&D is used? Would not this FDCPA apply upon receipt of the above request?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. If this was followed:

© CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.

---------------------------------

Would the above do the trick? What does it mean when a full verses half C&D is used? Would not this FDCPA apply upon receipt of the above request?

I think Willing was referring to the "No calls. Contact me in writing only" statement as the half C & D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me where the FDCPA requires more than that for a validation. You stated they would need more than that to get a judgment. This is not about a lawsuit...it's about collection activity. Per the FDCPA, they validated.

I agree and that is what I said, reread the post, they in fact validated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree and that is what I said, reread the post, they in fact validated.

You did say that, and I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You did say that, and I apologize.

No problem, you're doing a good job leading people in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about using 805 © (1) A debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be "inconvenient" to the consumer.?

So it appears that writing them the partial C&D letter and explaining why it's "Inconveinant" for them to call you AND referencing this section of the FDCPA may actually get your partial C&D letter recognized. I'd say it's definitely arguable.

Edited by Hal Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what about using 805 © (1) A debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be "inconvenient" to the consumer.?

So it appears that writing them the partial C&D letter and explaining why it's "Inconveinant" for them to call you AND referencing this section of the FDCPA may actually get your partial C&D letter recognized. I'd say it's definitely arguable.

Yep, If a consumer when corresponding with a debt collector, instructs them to only communicate with them in writing, i.e., no more phone calls, it would be beneficial for the debt collector to follow the written instructions and wishes of the alleged debtor. Follow the law debt collector!! No more phone calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so it sounds like sending them something referencing 805 © (1) is my best plan of attack. How about sending them something like this:

Attn: Aargon Agency, INC

On April 18, 2011 I sent a letter via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested asking for the validation of a debt on account #xxxx-xxxxxx. This letter was received by your agency on April 20th. Also in this letter was a request to cease all phone contact and a request that all contact be made via mail. However, on May 6th at 12:12 pm EST, I received a computer generated phone call to my cellular phone and was left a voicemail which I still have as well.

My letter to your agency was explicit in my request for mail communication only and outlined any repercussions that would result from attempted telephone contact. As stated by FDCPA statute 805 © (1), your agency is prohibited from contacting me by phone as I have made it known to your company that telephone communication is inconvenient for me.

I am offering you the opportunity to stop reporting this debt to the credit bureaus and to stop collection of this debt in lieu of filing suit and a complain with your Attorney General against your agency for violation of this statute.

I will give your office 30 days upon return receipt to make a decision on this matter, otherwise I will be forced to file suit against your agency and file a complaint to your attorney general. I hope your office will realize by ceasing collection activities and removing the tradeline from my credit report is within everyone's best interest.

Sincerely,

Birdnals

Should I also enclose a copy of my original letter to them and a copy of the return receipt? Also note that this debt is very small, ie less than $1000. If they decided to file suit on me I could settle it tomorrow no problem. Thanks guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry...the operative phrase in 805, as held by the courts, is "...unusual time or place...". Calling your home phone between 8am and 9pm(?) is not unusual.

Now, calling your cell phone IF incoming calls cost you money is another matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a atty to go after them we have a lot of prove CMRR and a letter from my atty. They continue to report, I just got a letter from them wanting to remove the post on my credit file and apology. To late now, they broke so many parts of the law. We are to Federal Court, jajajaja a 20$ scam they tried on me is going to cost them a lot plus atty fees, jajajajajajaja. Take them to court!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry...the operative phrase in 805, as held by the courts, is "...unusual time or place...". Calling your home phone between 8am and 9pm(?) is not unusual.

Now, calling your cell phone IF incoming calls cost you money is another matter...

This is interesting to me. Do you have links to case law supporting this? Because the entire 805(a)(1) reads "at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location" So it seems to me as long as the communication from the consumer to the debt collector includes the verbiage "not convenient" and gives the debt collector a viable way to communicate (i.e., by writing) then it should be covered.

Share this post


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