Midland Credit Management Pre-Legal Notification

[brownpm85]

So I have been sent a pre-legal notification from MCM. I have done a lot of reading and see that this is one of the scare tactics that they use to get payment. I am not being sued and this is from MCM and not an attorney based in my state(South Carolina).  Should I send a DV letter to them. 

On the bottom of the pre-legal notification it says that I may request the following information in writing and the same will be provided to you at no cost within 30 days of receipt of your written request: 1) An account statement or complete transactional history, as applicable, reflecting your name, the last four digits of the account number at t he time of charge-off, and the charge-off balance and/or claimed balance, excluding any past charge off payment; 2) A listing of all prior owners of this account and transfer information; 3) Documentation evidencing the transfer of ownership of the account to Midland Funding; 4) An account statement or complete transactional history reflection purchase, payment or other actual use of the account or a signed document reflecting the opening of the account at issue, 5) an explanation of how any amount we are seeking to collect in excess of charge-off was calculated; and 6) If applicable, the terms and conditions applicable to the account. 

With the amount of detail should I assume that they do in fact have all this information on me or should I send a letter and see what they send back?  I will post a template that I found in a second post to get some opinions on that template. 

[brownpm85]

Here is the template that I found. How does it look?

CERTIFIED MAIL #: _______________________________________________________
Your Name
Your Address
YourTown,, State ZipCode

Debt Collection Company Name
Their address
Town, State ZipCode

Date:

Re: Debt Collection Company Name; Acct # Debt Collection Company #; Original Creditor Name; OC Acct #

To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me on DATE. Be advised that this is a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) that your claim is disputed and validation is requested.
This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for FULL MEDIA VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that (a) the account is valid, (b) the amount allegedly owed is accurate, and (c) I have a contractual obligation to pay Debt Collection Company Name for this alleged debt.
All of the following MUST be provided to adequately validate the authenticity of the alleged debt AND provide proof of my contractual obligation to Debt Collection Company Name for this alleged debt:
• Signed credit application between myself and the original creditor
• Copies of all signed vouchers from the date account was opened until default
• Copies of all statements from the date account opened until default
• Proof of the statute of limitations
• Proof of agreement that you were hired by the Original creditor (creditor as defined by the FDCPA) or
• A copy of the contract Debt Collection Company Name purchased the alleged debt.
• If the alleged debt was purchased, provide a copy of an agreement between Debt Collection Company Name and myself, signed by me, stating that I have a contractual responsibility to Debt Collection Company Name for the alleged debt
• Provide proof that Debt Collection Company Name is bonded/Licensed for debt collecting in the State of Your State
Be advised that failing to provide ALL of the media requested to validate the alleged debt will invalidate any and all claims Debt Collection Company Name is asserting regarding this alleged debt. If Debt Collection Company Name can NOT provide all of the validation media requested above, ALL collection efforts MUST be stopped and the account MUST be DELETED from the Debt Collection Company Name. If you can NOT validate your claim, you can NOT, by law, collect on it, or SELL it to another collection agency. Also, reporting a debt to the credit reporting agencies that can not be validated is a violation of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), and carries a $2500 fine to be paid to me. I have two years to decide if I want to pursue this matter. PLEASE GIVE THIS MATTER THE ATTENTION IT DESERVES.
If your offices are able to provide all of the validating media as requested, I will require at least 30 days to investigate this information, and during such time, all collection activity must cease and desist.
I am also stating, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your offices. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls and calls or correspondence sent to or with any third parties, it will be considered harassment, and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by United States Postal Service.

Best Regards,

Your Name TYPED only

[BV80]

@brownpm85

I address that very letter in the following thread.   The letter is an old one that has been floating around the internet for years and has no basis in law.   Where did you find it?

https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/329454-deceptive-validation-letter/

Did the collection letter you received contain the 30-day validation notice?

[brownpm85]

2 minutes ago, BV80 said:

@brownpm85

I address that very letter in the following thread.   The letter is an old one that has been floating around the internet for years and has no basis in law.   Where did you find it?

https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/329454-deceptive-validation-letter/

Did the collection letter you received contain the 30-day validation notice?

Thank you, that's why I wanted check before I did anything. I don't remember the exact site. It came up on a google search. 

 

I don't think it's a 30-day validation notice. The only reference to 30-day anything in the letter is that they will respond to any request I make within 30 days of the receipt of my request. 

This is my first time having to deal with something like this and I am trying to figure out what to do next. Should I begin looking for the correct way to send a DV letter and send one?

[BV80]

1 minute ago, brownpm85 said:

Thank you, that's why I wanted check before I did anything. I don't remember the exact site. It came up on a google search. 

 

I don't think it's a 30-day validation notice. The only reference to 30-day anything in the letter is that they will respond to any request I make within 30 days of the receipt of my request. 

This is my first time having to deal with something like this and I am trying to figure out what to do next. Should I begin looking for the correct way to send a DV letter and send one?

 That was the 30-day validation notice.

The best validation letter is just a simple one. In your letter header, put the collection account number and just state:

“I dispute the above referenced account and request validation.”

When I sent requests, I always included a copy of the collection letter with my request.

[brownpm85]

4 minutes ago, BV80 said:

 That was the 30-day validation notice.

The best validation letter is just a simple one. In your letter header, put the collection account number and just state:

“I dispute the above referenced account and request validation.”

When I sent requests, I always included a copy of the collection letter with my request.

Thank you!

[fisthardcheese]

@BV80 This is a unique one.  We know that Midland is not required by law to provide all of those items, but they did state in their letter that they WOULD if asked.  If this were me, I would definitely ask for EVERYTHING they mentioned in their own letter.  If they fail to provide even one of those items, then I would say there is a case to be made for deception in an FDCPA violation.

This is just the way I, personally, like to operate, but I would title my letter "PRE-ARBITRATION" and I would use all the same buzzwords they use in their letter.

Who is the OC for the alleged debt?

[BV80]

2 hours ago, fisthardcheese said:

@BV80 This is a unique one.  We know that Midland is not required by law to provide all of those items, but they did state in their letter that they WOULD if asked.  If this were me, I would definitely ask for EVERYTHING they mentioned in their own letter.  If they fail to provide even one of those items, then I would say there is a case to be made for deception in an FDCPA violation.

This is just the way I, personally, like to operate, but I would title my letter "PRE-ARBITRATION" and I would use all the same buzzwords they use in their letter.

Who is the OC for the alleged debt?

I see what you mean.  I agree that he could request that Midland provide what it Midland listed, but not what was listed in the letter he was going to send.

[Goody_Ouchless]

That does sound new - any chance of posting a redacted scan of that letter? Of course, the items listed are just the basic elements that they will use to get MSJ. 

(A couple years ago I wondered when they would get around to having computer spit out a collated "package," with all of the required elements included, to avoid going back-and-forth. It sounds like they have done that - a single mouse click and all that information will be printed and mailed.)

 

[BV80]

48 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

That does sound new - any chance of posting a redacted scan of that letter? Of course, the items listed are just the basic elements that they will use to get MSJ. 

(A couple years ago I wondered when they would get around to having computer spit out a collated "package," with all of the required elements included, to avoid going back-and-forth. It sounds like they have done that - a single mouse click and all that information will be printed and mailed.)

 

The CFPB Consent Order requires that Midland be able to substantiate debt collection claims with certain documentation.  While the Order does not require the company to include the language in collection letters, I think Midland is doing that to cover its tush.

 

[Goody_Ouchless]

It can't hurt, and will probably have the effect of getting more people to settle, up front, knowing that Midland has the goods. The best part is if they start including CC agreements (Terms and Conditions), that eliminates the canard that debtor found wrong agreement "on the internet" when invoking arb clause.

[BV80]

2 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

The best part is if they start including CC agreements (Terms and Conditions), that eliminates the canard that debtor found wrong agreement "on the internet" when invoking arb clause.

Good point. 

[fisthardcheese]

4 hours ago, BV80 said:

I see what you mean.  I agree that he could request that Midland provide what it Midland listed, but not what was listed in the letter he was going to send.

I agree that I would not use that old DV letter asking for everything.  But I would definitely ask for everything Midland says in their letter that you can ask them for.

[debtzapper]

@brownpm85  Please follow the advice you were given and let the board know what happened.  I was looking at some previous SC threads and after being given advice, the OP just  disappeared.  That is not unique to SC.  A lot of OPs just disappear, for a variety of reasons.  Stay the course. It takes time and effort to fight a debt collection case.  If you are unable or  unwilling to do that, then just settle with them.  Whatever you do, don't get a default judgment.

[pdfrigg]

Hello - 

After reading through this thread, I too received an identical letter for ~$1500 in Wisconsin from approximately two years ago.  Should I proceed with the request to substantiate the claimed debt with the mentioning of pre-arbitration?  Anything else I should do or be aware of?  Thanks in advance for your help.  It’s certainly appreciated. 

[Harry Seaward]

48 minutes ago, pdfrigg said:

I too received an identical letter

Please start your own thread to keep things from getting confusing. 

Thanks!