Jump to content

Received this letter today (Chase Receivables)


NewBeginning16
 Share

Recommended Posts

I haven't actually received a dunning letter in YEARS (some have claimed to send them, but I haven't actually received one) until today. 

I couldn't even make heads or tails of it, it was so weird (my last name is even spelled incorrectly). Help me pick out the violations, please (I'm in California). Here it is, redacted. 

 

P.S. This account has nothing to do with Chase, it's a medical bill. The name that they are attempting to collect under is Chase Receivables and that registration via the California SoS is suspended. However, their original name (that is not named anywhere on the letter they sent me) is Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. and that is the one they have kept good with the SoS. 

 

 

Epson_06132016234631.pdf

Epson_06132016233051 (1).pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NewBeginning16 said:

Help me pick out the violations, please (I'm in California).

What violations?  It is a standard dunning letter with the required warnings.  A clerical error in the spelling of the name is not a violation.  

Send them a DV and then make your next move.  If they are not licensed to collect in CA then turn them into the state for continuing to do business.  With the new Spokeo ruling you won't get far with a lawsuit based on vague or non-existent violations and no damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the letter stands, there are no obvious violations.  However, that does not necessarily mean that there are none.  In my opinion, you would be better served by dealing with the actual debt at this time and not looking for violations.  That's not to say that violations will not show up at some point.  I would check into that suspended registration, compare the address on that registration to the one on this letter.  If it's the same then the debt collector is acting in violation of CA state law.  Not that it will likely do you much good, but that is still the case.  

Is the debt one that you recognize?  How long ago was this debt incurred?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My DV letter is on its way to them via CMRRR as I type this. I had to Google the name to figure out who the OC was. 

The bill is from an out of town ER visit from more than 2 years ago. 

The suspended registration address  is not the same as the one on the letter (there are 2; one for CA and the other for NJ - both P.O. boxes). The address for the other business name matches the one on their hinky looking website, but doesn't match anything on the letter. I found out the other name from Google. 

Isn't it supposed to tell me I have 30 days to dispute the debt and that I have to notify them within thirty days in writing that I dispute it (FDCPA) ? That's not anywhere on the letter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The initial dunning letter is supposed to have those disclosures.  Is this the first communication you have received from this debt collector?  If so, then yes, that would be a violation.  If they sent you anything before, they are not required to include the disclosures on this one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NewBeginning16 said:
 

My DV letter is on its way to them via CMRRR as I type this. I had to Google the name to figure out who the OC was. 

The bill is from an out of town ER visit from more than 2 years ago. 

The suspended registration address  is not the same as the one on the letter (there are 2; one for CA and the other for NJ - both P.O. boxes). The address for the other business name matches the one on their hinky looking website, but doesn't match anything on the letter. I found out the other name from Google. 

Isn't it supposed to tell me I have 30 days to dispute the debt and that I have to notify them within thirty days in writing that I dispute it (FDCPA) ? That's not anywhere on the letter. 

The CA's failure to include the 30-day notice is a "he said/she said".  You claim that this was the first communication,  and the CA will claim it's not.  The CA will claim it sent a letter before this one that contained the notice.  As long as it could show it has procedures in place to send letters with that notice, it would difficult for you to prove otherwise.

Showing other violations would be helpful to add but so far I see none in the letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kraftykrab said:

The initial dunning letter is supposed to have those disclosures.  Is this the first communication you have received from this debt collector?  If so, then yes, that would be a violation.  If they sent you anything before, they are not required to include the disclosures on this one.  

Yes, it's the first communication I've received from them. 

5 hours ago, BV80 said:

The CA's failure to include the 30-day notice is a "he said/she said".  You claim that this was the first communication,  and the CA will claim it's not.  The CA will claim it sent a letter before this one that contained the notice.  As long as it could show it has procedures in place to send letters with that notice, it would difficult for you to prove otherwise.

Showing other violations would be helpful to add but so far I see none in the letter.

Wouldn't a second letter have some verbiage like, "We've reached out before" , "This is our last attempt",  etc.? I've looked these people up and they're everything horrible with the complaints, lawsuits, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NewBeginning16 said:

Wouldn't a second letter have some verbiage like, "We've reached out before" , "This is our last attempt",  etc.? I've looked these people up and they're everything horrible with the complaints, lawsuits, etc. 

Not necessarily because they're not required to do so.  I've received collection letters subsequent to the initial communication that did not contain any statement that indicated the CAs had previously attempted to contact me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BV80 said:

Not necessarily because they're not required to do so.  I've received collection letters subsequent to the initial communication that did not contain any statement that indicated they had previously attempted to contact me.

 

It's been a very long time since I've received a collection letter or really had to deal with any of this.  I'll save this letter to add to the other violations I am sure they will commit. I'm the one who gets the mail every day,I open every single piece of mail that comes addressed to me and I've lived at the same address for 5 years.  I have not received anything else from them. I also sent out my DV the same day i received their letter. I will report back when and if they respond to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

I received a letter/invoice from Chase Receivables regarding an account for Peabody.

I know what Peabody is and I have never used their services!

My credit score has always been >800 and I pay all my bills on time.

 I feel this is spam.  The name and address they used is an old PayPal account I inadvertently used once.  PayPal is notorious for its fraud.

 I’m just very angry and feel I am being taken advantage of as I’m a 73yo widow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 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.