PupnCub

CACH Response to Validation

Recommended Posts

Hello~

 

This is a follow up to my posting(s) back on November 20, 2012.

 

I sent a vlaidation letter to CACH, who are the ones that have reported the negative trade line on my Experian CR. After reading their respone I do not think that this meets proper validation. What CACH has done is contact Experian and report that the account is now 'Disputed by Consumer'.

 

I find that their letter leaves some questions though.

 

1) If they do not engage in collection activity (direcetly or indirectly) then why are they reporting to the Credit Bureaus?

2) Is what they sent me proper validation?

3) Have they violated any FDCPA or FCRA with providing false and misleading information - ie: Reporting negative TL to the CR's then stating they do not engage in collection activity.

 

I have attached a copy of their response letter to me with the appropriate areas blacked out.

 

Anyone have recommendations on how to proceed?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not seeing the letter attached to my post so I will type out what they sent on their letter head

 

November 14, 2012

 

Debtor

 

Re: Written Dispute Letter Postmarked: November 21, 2012

 

Dear Mr. .....

 

We are in receipt of your dispute referenced above. CACH, LLC is a purchaser of charged off receivables. CACH, LLC does not engage in any direct collection activity. Accounts are placed for collection with third party law firms and collection agencies. Our investigation into your dispute reveals the following information.

 

Debtor Name                                                       Me

Address                                                               Mine

Date of Birth                                                        ----

Social Security                                                    ----

Original Creditor                                                 GE MONEY RETAIL BANK

Original Acct #                                                     ------

Current Acct #                                                     --------

Acct Charge Off Date                                         7/15/2012

Date placed in our system                                 8/30/2012

Placement Balance                                            $560.79

Current Balance                                                 $560.79

Account Status                                                   OPEN

Reported Dispute Status                                    Collections Account Seriously Past Due

Other Comment                                                  None

 

Sincerely,

Customer Service

 

This letter is sent pursuant to the requirements for 16 C.F.R 660.4(e)

This letter is not an attempt to collect a debt

 

CACH LLC, 4340 S. Monaco St. 2nd Fl.,Denver CO 80237*(800) 478-5541*Fax (303) 713-2509

 

This is their validation nothing else came with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it meets debt validation requirements - a debt validation cannot be a computer print out.  The bar is very low for debt validation and I can't believe they're not even meeting it.  

 

As far as what to do with it, I would dispute with the credit reporting agencies if you've not already done so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A computer printout can be considered debt validation.

 

Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3rd Cir.1991) (holding that a debt collector that did not contact the original creditor satisfied the FDCPA's verification requirement by sending computer printouts that provided the alleged debtor with "the amounts of his debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred.").

 

The above was based upon a specific bill (debt).  It wasn't based upon a credit card debt.  Whether the printout from Cach would be considered sufficient by the court, I don't know.

 

PupnCub,

 

Did you send your DV request within 30 days of Cach's first contact (dunning letter) with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BV80, and to answer your question yes, this is how the events played out. When CACH LLC first received this account they placed it with the Law Offices of John C. Bonewicz. I disputed it then and sent Bonewicz a CMRR Validation letter, they did not send any validation at all. The Law offices of Bonewicz then called me and I caught them in an FDCPA violation and my Attorney filed against them.

 

Bonewicz, returned the account to CACH who then sent it to the Law Offices of P. Scott Lowery. I have never been contacted by Lowery, or CACH directly - only Bonewicz. (still follow me?)

 

Once CACH, LLC received this account back from Bonewicz they then put a negative trade line on my Experian Credit Report without any validation of this debt.

 

I then sent a letter to CACH, LLC as they are the furnisher of the information to dispute the debt (again) and asked for validation. Then they sent me the letter that I have posted here as their validation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, you didn't send Cach a DV request within 30 days of Cach's initial communication with you.  You sent it to the debt collection attorney.  You need to find out if sending the DV request to the attorney is the same as sending it to Cach.  If it is, then the computer printout might not be sufficient.  Again, that would depend would depend on what your court believes is adequate validation.

 

However, if sending a DV request to the attorney is not the same as sending it directly to Cach, then it could be a different story.  Has Cach ever contacted you directly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CACH is a JDB and hires Attorney's to collect the debt. Therefore a DV letter has to be sent to the collection agency or law firm. Bonewicz is an Attorney for CACH, so sending a DV letter to Bonewicz is the same as sending a letter to CACH, as on his dunning letter to me it stated that his client was CACH,LLC. Bonewicz acting on his own behalf and on behalf of CACH - his office never sent a validation letter, he sent the account back to CACH who in turn sent it to another attorney in their network.

 

CACH,LLC has never contacted me directly about this debt, either in writing or on the phone, they ARE however furnishing information though to the credit bureaus in an attempt to collect the debt, so therefore to me they are debt collectors.

 

I did respond within 30 days to Bonewicz and demanded validation - there was no response - except for a harassing phone call which I recorded.

CACH never sent me anything in writing or called me - they just placed the negative TL on my credit report. The only way I found out about it, is because I have my CR monitored and I received an alert from Experian.

I then sent a DV to CACH within 1 week of them placing it on my CR - (this makes 2 DV's for the same account with CACH)

Again the response I received I posted here - it is funny how they do not consider themselfs a collection agency or having direct involvment in the collection process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with Cach.  This is from a PA case in which the court quoted Wilhelm v. Credico (8th Circuit):

 

IN RE BENSON, 445 BR 445, 449 - Bankr. Court, ED Pennsylvania 2010

 

1. Disputed debt. If a debt collector knows that a debt is disputed by the consumer ... and reports it to a credit bureau, he must report it as disputed.

 

2. Post-report dispute. When a debt collector learns of a dispute after reporting the debt to a credit bureau, the dispute need not also be reported.

 

You'd have to show Cach knew the debt was disputed before they reported to the CRAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This letter is not an attempt to collect a debt

I forget who came up with it (sorry ... I extend my apologies), but a better quote to use for this is:  This letter is an attempt to make a debt collector comply with the law.

Share this post


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