Do you think the least sophisticated consumer...

[Raysway]

...would find this scenario misleading, confusing and/or contradicting?

• JDB sends a settlement letter on 9/30/11 with a 10/30/11 deadline to accept offer
  
• JDB then sends another letter, dated 10/12/11 requesting "an immediate payment of balance in full"
  
• JDB sends another settlement letter, dated 11/10/11, offering the same terms of the 9/30/11 letter
  

What do you think?

[1stStep]

Has a DV been sent between the 1st and 2nd letters?

If not, then I think you've got a decent FDCPA violation - for misrepresenting the amount due.

[Raysway]

The 2nd of two DV letters was sent on 9/23/11 (the first was ignored).

The 10/12/11 letter requesting PIF was in response to that 2nd DV.

[BTO429]

If you sent the dv before they sent you the letter requesting a payment in full, then yes they violated the fdcpa for trying to collect before verifying.

My next letter to them would start in the county of(wher you live) in and for the state of(your state). etc, etc

[DUkester2000]

I think the issue here is not the DV letter, because the OP didnt say any letter was sent. I think the issue is whether its a violation to send a letter that offers a settlement to a certain date, but before that date, to send a letter requesting the full balance.

Obviously an attorney would need to review the exact content of the letters, but if they made an offer and then demanded full payment before expiration of the reduced settlement offer, I think that may be a violation...however, in the absence of any attempt to actually pay the reduced amount which was denied, I'm not sure it's worth litigating.

[antiquedave]

I think anytime they push against the 30 days you have to request validation that they are taking a risky position and an overshaowing violation is on the table.

[bad98roadster]

I think anytime they push against the 30 days you have to request validation that they are taking a risky position and an overshaowing violation is on the table.

+1

The 10/12 letter overshadows the 9/30 letter. If it were me I'd run with it. (sue/arbitrate)

[BV80]

I agree with Bad98Roadster, but tell us the exact wording of the 10/12 letter. "Immediate payment" suggests that they're overshadowing your right to the 30 validation period given in the 1st letter. However, it would help to know the exact wording.

[Stressed In Texas]

I have 2 letters from a law firm representing Midland Funding - first letter was dated 9/9/2011 with a balance due amount of $4107.52 - for this one I sent them a request to tell me what the heck that it was about because I'd never done business with Midland and didn't know who they were. I sent it certified mail and they signed for it Oct. 5; around Oct. 7 I got a second letter with same file number but this one says balance due is $4,138.97. Since I'd already sent the request for validation of what the heck they're talking about I didn't send a second one, but they never answered anyway, and they filed a suit on Oct. 6 for $2,690.44. Even if they have violated every rule in the book I'm still out of luck because from what I've been able to glean, it's a losing battle.

[Raysway]

Sorry, guys. I have been presenting some questions about my particular situation in a piecemeal fashion. Here's the deal:

• JDB sent me a DL 06/23/11. Letter has all of the validation notices, etc.
  
• I respond with timely dispute/DV received by JDB on 07/14/11
  
• No validation nor any other communication is sent
  
• JDB places account on credit reports on 08/19/11
  
• Accounts NOT listed as disputed
  
• JDB sends settlement letter 08/23/11
  
• Still no form of validation is sent
  
• I dispute accounts through CRAs on 09/02/11
  
• All accounts are verified and NOW marked as disputed
  
• JDB sends "need more info to help w/your dispute" letter 09/15/11
  

Then the following is where you came in...

• I respond to 09/15 letter with a second dispute/DV letter received by JDB on 09/23/11
  
• They then send another settlement letter dated 09/30/11 giving me 30 days to accept offer
  
• They then send their "validation" (statements of the alleged account) on 10/12/11. The cover letter stated that they were "requesting immediate payment for the balance in full" and to call them for more details.
  
• I received another settlement letter dated 11/10/11
  

I have already filed on these guys for FDCPA violations.

I was just curious if, in your opinion, would the LSC find the conflicting info of the 09/30 settlement letter that contains the 30-day deadline and the 10/12 cover letter requesting immediate payment in full a bit confusing or misleading.

I think it very well could be, but wanted some other viewpoints.

[bad98roadster]

I have 2 letters from a law firm representing Midland Funding - first letter was dated 9/9/2011 with a balance due amount of $4107.52 - for this one I sent them a request to tell me what the heck that it was about because I'd never done business with Midland and didn't know who they were. I sent it certified mail and they signed for it Oct. 5; around Oct. 7 I got a second letter with same file number but this one says balance due is $4,138.97. Since I'd already sent the request for validation of what the heck they're talking about I didn't send a second one, but they never answered anyway, and they filed a suit on Oct. 6 for $2,690.44. Even if they have violated every rule in the book I'm still out of luck because from what I've been able to glean, it's a losing battle.

Take those facts to a FDCPA attorney in Texas (If you're in Texas) They have violated many state and federal laws. Google "Texas fdcpa consumer attorney"

[BV80]

What did you say in your DV? Recently, a poster shared that, in a DV, he stated that "I have the right to request validation." He didn't actually request it.

The same thing applies to disputing a debt.

The JDBs probably violated, but it would still help if you'd let us know what you said in your DV.

Regarding the 10/12 letter, there's no violation because the credit card statements were more than proper validation.

What we're looking at right now is what occurred before they validated. Again, it depends on what you stated in your first DV.

[Stressed In Texas]

Thanks for the advice! Yes, I'm in Texas - I requested a case review from Protecting Consumer Rights website, we'll see - I'm not at all optimistic about it because it seems to me you have to be an attorney in order to really win against this kind of thing, and I'm definately not one My eyes glaze over just trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do with this summons!

[Raysway]

What did you say in your DV? Recently, a poster shared that, in a DV, he stated that "I have the right to request validation." He didn't actually request it.

The same thing applies to disputing a debt.

The JDBs probably violated, but it would still help if you'd let us know what you said in your DV.

Regarding the 10/12 letter, there's no violation because the credit card statements were more than proper validation.

What we're looking at right now is what occurred before they validated. Again, it depends on what you stated in your first DV.

I saw that post as well...where the consumer just made a statement about his rights, but didn't actually exercise them.

The first letter I sent was short and sweet and IMO very clear:

Dear JDB:

I received a letter from your company dated 06/23/2011. Since the aforementioned letter is the first communication from you regarding the matter, I am hereby requesting validation of this alleged debt and disputing the debt entirely.

Please feel free to contact me via USPS as due to health issues in the household, phone calls are inconvenient.

Sincerely,

Me

The second dispute and request for DV letter was just as clear where I stated "Please be advised that this alleged debt remains disputed and I am still requesting validation."

I can post exact wording of it as well as their 10/12 letter when I get home from work.

I'm not arguing the fact that the validation was sufficient. Its good enough for these purposes.

My point is that you send me a settlement offer that is good for 30 days, but before that 30 days is up, you send me another letter for immediate payment in full. Which is it? Are we settling this or are you demanding that I pay the whole thing?

What occurred before the validation (continued collection activity, failure to mark account as disputed with CRAs) is clear IMO.

Thanks for your input guys.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Raysway

[BV80]

I agree that you've got them for failing to report the account as disputed and for sending the 8/23 letter without having responded to your DV request.

Regarding the letter for immediate payment in full, considering that letter was sent during the 30 day settlement period, if that letter didn't say anything about the settlement offer but instead showed the full balance somewhere in the letter, I think you have them there, as well.

I don't know that there's case law for that exact situation, but there is case law that addresses confusing the least sophisticated consumer.

BTW, the reason your CRs were updated to show that the debt had been disputed was because you directly disputed with the CRAs. It was the CRAs that marked the account as disputed. The JDB didn't do that.

[Raysway]

I agree that you've got them for failing to report the account as disputed and for sending the 8/23 letter without having responded to your DV request.

Regarding the letter for immediate payment in full, considering that letter was sent during the 30 day settlement period, if that letter didn't say anything about the settlement offer but instead showed the full balance somewhere in the letter, I think you have them there, as well.

I don't know that there's case law for that exact situation, but there is case law that addresses confusing the least sophisticated consumer.

BTW, the reason your CRs were updated to show that the debt had been disputed was because you directly disputed with the CRAs. It was the CRAs that marked the account as disputed. The JDB didn't do that.

We are completely on the same page, BV. Although I would throw in that the reporting of the account to my CRs also violated 1692g(, though I'm still searching for relative case law in my circuit.

The 10/12 letter definitely had the full amount listed on it and made NO mention of the settlement letter they had sent less than 2 weeks earlier.

Its obvious that from the beginning of this situation, one of their hands didn't know what the other was doing.

They kind of set themselves up to continue to violate all the way through that 10/12 letter IMO.

[Raysway]

BTW, the reason your CRs were updated to show that the debt had been disputed was because you directly disputed with the CRAs. It was the CRAs that marked the account as disputed. The JDB didn't do that.

I agree. Is that not also an FCRA violation? I still struggle with understanding how one applies such and have private right of action.

They report a disputed account to the CRAs as undisputed. I then dispute the account through the CRAs. The CRAs mark the account as "disputed" and the JDB verifies the account.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Raysway

[Raysway]

The 9/30/11 settlement letter (with a 30-day deadline to accept) preceded this letter

[BV80]

I agree. Is that not also an FCRA violation? I still struggle with understanding how one applies such and have private right of action.

They report a disputed account to the CRAs as undisputed. I then dispute the account through the CRAs. The CRAs mark the account as "disputed" and the JDB verifies the account.

I don't believe there's a private right of action under the FCRA for Midland's failure to report the account as disputed. It's strictly an FDCPA violation.

I would say the letter is a violation because it's confusing. You got 2 letters in 2 weeks stating different things.

This letter was from MCM, the collection arm of Midland. Was the other letter from Midland? Just curious.

[Raysway]

I don't believe there's a private right of action under the FCRA for Midland's failure to report the account as disputed. It's strictly an FDCPA violation.

OK then. I just could not piece it together. I guess that's because it didn't exist. Glad I didn't press that.

This letter was from MCM, the collection arm of Midland. Was the other letter from Midland? Just curious.

Nope. All communication has been from MCM. The initial letter explained that Midland had purchased the alleged account and MCM was the new "servicer" of it.