Jump to content

transworld Systems


BTO429
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have never heard of these people. Out of P,

 

There letter starts with

iMPORTANT: The 30 day period to dispute this matter ended when you received our first letter. Our client still shows an unpaid balance of 160 dollars.

 

I never received a FIRST letter. I am paying true green on this bill on a monthly basis for weed control. This is my bill but they sent it to a collection agency.

 

Anyhow. I know they will claim they sent the so called FIRST letter, but they did not. If does have the miranda, but they are attempting to remove the 30 day validation notice by stating they already sent a FIRST letter.

 

I would file on this in a heart beat if I could prove there was no first letter. Any tjhoughts how to prove they did not send the FIRST letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is another chance to take a stab at the "we have a process" defense and demand proof that they not only have such a process, but also demand they show how the process is reliable (cannot fail) and secure (no one, not even the system administrator of the computers, can interfere with its process).

 

but ...

 

Did they literally say "The 30 day period to dispute this matter ended when you received our first letter"? That is so obviously wrong.

 

1.  They did not mention validation in those words.  They said "dispute".  You CAN dispute a debt at any time.  They MUST show dispute status on CR or they have violated.  Send in a dispute anyway (don't word it as DV ... word it strictly as dispute) and see if it ends up on CR or not.

 

2.  Even if they meant DV, the time frame does not end WHEN you receive the first letter, it ends 30 days after.  It BEGINS when you receive the letter.

 

I think they violated by misrepresenting the law in these TWO ways ... under the "least sophisticated consumer" theory.

 

and ...

 

All this is above and beyond trying to collect on a working account.  Can we establish that True Green is in the habit of sending working, PAA accounts to collections?  What does True Green have to say about it?

 

This is not the first case I've heard of businesses selling accounts out to collectors.  There may well be a scam going on between OCs and JDBs where they represent to the OC that they will do outsourced billing, but in fact turn a great many of those into collections just to shake down people who are vulnerable to such lies.  It could be that if you make enough noise they will "find" their "bona fide error" and "fix" it.  But how many people make that much noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know how True Green operates, but i have thought of this approach,

Word for word the letter.

 

Dear Gunny

IMPORTANT: the 30 day dispute period commenced when you received our first letter. Our client still shows an unpaid balance on your account.

 

TSI is a nationwide collection agency authorized to pursue collection of this debt.

 

The mini mirnada. And their addy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law had been written such that every alleged debtor always has ONE opportunity to send a DV letter to a collector, regardless of how many letters are sent, and how long it has been, this would have been a lot simpler.  It's the lawmakers who failed on this one (I've said that many years ago).

 

However, nowhere in Gunny's letter does it say "This is our 2nd notice" or anything else that claims this to NOT be the FIRST letter.

 

This letter actually raised the topic.  So it sure sounds like an attempt to fake a first letter that never was sent.  I know these things are hard to prove.  But will it be the case that every court accepts the tail of liars every time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law had been written such that every alleged debtor always has ONE opportunity to send a DV letter to a collector, regardless of how many letters are sent, and how long it has been, this would have been a lot simpler.  It's the lawmakers who failed on this one (I've said that many years ago).

 

However, nowhere in Gunny's letter does it say "This is our 2nd notice" or anything else that claims this to NOT be the FIRST letter.

 

This letter actually raised the topic.  So it sure sounds like an attempt to fake a first letter that never was sent.  I know these things are hard to prove.  But will it be the case that every court accepts the tail of liars every time?

Thats what I am looking at, plus the fact that since this bill is fresh they usually call you several times before they start sending the letters. CA's are a little different than jdb's.

 

I think I can argue this enough to bring enough questions of fact that the court will want to hear the case. I am sure I can show that the letter is an attempt to misuse the fdcpa by just the way the letter is written. I am sure I can show fraud also.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.