HarryGotHurt

Help me validate this Intent to Sue Letter to JDB

Recommended Posts

These are the violations I have so far. Please let me know your thoughts if these are reasonable and actionable violations. JDB has account that they failed to verify to me, is reporting incorrectly and incomplete, verified to the CRAs inaccurate information, is listing this with 19 Failed to Pay monthly payments, open terms, past due amount, etc. 

 

The intended suit will be based upon violations of JDB to Sections 1692 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p and Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681.. The specific failures of JDB are as follows: 

1.    § 809(b) Validation of debts [15 U.S.C. 1692e]

JDB is not allowed to pursue collection activities until the debt is validated. In TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity. JDB received a request for validation from me and have not responded to that request in any way, and since that time JDB has updated information on my credit reports every month marking this account late, past due, open balance.  Each of these updates constitutes a violation of FDCPA. The required documentation requested was pursuant to the FDCPA, as well as case law including Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509and Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002)- 

 

2.    § 807(2) (A) The false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt [15 U.S.C. 1692e]

JDB has falsely represented and reported this debt to the consumer reporting agency Experian, Equifax & Transunion as a closed installment account, with open terms, monthly payments and past due amounts. 

 

3.    § 807(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false [15 U.S.C. 1692e]

JDB has falsely communicated to the consumer reporting agency Experian, Equifax & Transunion this account as an installment account when they have actual knowledge that this is a collection account. 

 

4.    § 807(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer [15 U.S.C. 1692e]

JDB falsely and deceptively represented this account as a past due installment account to the consumer reporting agency Experian, Equifax & Transunion since the impact on a credit score of a past due installment account could be far greater than a collection account. 

 

5.    § 808 Use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt [15 U.S.C. 1692f]

To result in a far greater derogatory impact to my credit scores, JDB unfairly reported this account to the consumer reporting agency Experian, Equifax & Transunion as an installment account and also reported it as being past due with late monthly payments. 

 

6.    §623 Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

On several occasions JDB verified electronically to consumer reporting agencies, specifically Experian, that the information currently reported is correct despite having received my notices of disputes thus having reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate since they were clearly notified that information is currently reported as an installment account and also reported as being past due with Open terms. 

 

7.    §623 Duties of Furnishers of Information upon Notice of Dispute [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

Section 623 (b) (1) (A) - conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

 On January 3rd, 2019 I sent JDB a request to verify the reporting. After receiving notice of dispute, the furnisher of information has 30-days to initiate an investigation to verify the dispute item of information and report the results of the investigation to the consumer. On January 9th, 2019 JDB responded to my request with an itemized description of the debt which cannot be served as verification since it does not provide the information requested. I lawfully requested a notarized statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt as it was constituted and who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, a copy of any legal instrument, bearing my signature, which supports their basis for the continued reporting of this alleged debt and the assignment or purchase agreement for the alleged debt between JDB and any other entity including the Original Creditor. On January 10th, 2019 I sent JDB, via Certified Mail, a second notice of dispute from me requesting to send information that verifies their reporting or to delete this information. On January 17th JDB responded with another itemized description of the debt failing to provide the information request. JDB has bluntly and carelessly failed to respond to my requests for verification in violation of the requirements of furnishers of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

 (Ignore the dates)

8.    §623 Duties of Furnishers of Information upon Notice of Dispute [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

JDB received, on January 8th, 2019, via Certified Mail a notice of dispute from me, requesting to send information that verifies their reporting. After receiving notice of dispute, JDB has not been able to send any information that could verity this reporting. JDB has failed its duties as furnisher of information by not deleting this item of information from all consumer reporting agencies once it has not been able to verify this disputed item under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

 

9.    Negligence noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o]

After being notified a total of five times that they are inaccurately and incompletely furnishing information regarding the above-referenced account to the consumer reporting agencies and being sent via Certified Mail evidence that their reporting is inaccurate, JDB negligently continued to report this account as an installment loan with Open terms and past due amount and has failed to notify to consumer reporting agencies to delete this item of information pursuant to Section 623 (b) (1) (E) (ii) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

 

10.  § 807(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer [15 U.S.C. 1692e]

(trying to find any possible language here and see if attempting to collect a debt when they are not licensed to collect in my state could constitute a violation under 807.10 since they are falsely representing themselves as being legally able to collect this debt)

 

11. § 806. Harassment or abuse [15 U.S.C. 1692d] 

 On May 15th, 2019, via CMRR, I sent notice to JDB to provide evidence that they are allowed to collect debts in Florida since JDB is not an entity listed in the Florida Department of Corporation nor an entity listed to have a valid collection account at the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. JDB failed to provide such evidence and continues its collection efforts on this account when they are not legally allowed to collect a debt in the State of Florida. 

 

12. § 807. False or misleading representations [15 U.S.C. 1962e] 

JDB has indicated they have a right to collect this debt and that I have a legal obligation to pay this debt and has indicated I’m legally bound to JDB and their collection of the debt when they are not  legally allowed to collect a debt in the State of Florida.

 

13.  § 619. Obtaining information under false pretenses [15 U.S.C. § 1681q]

By viewing my personal credit file under the pretense that they are licensed to collect in the state of Florida, JDB has knowingly and willfully obtained consumer credit information under false pretenses. 

 

14.  § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(a)  Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. 

(1)  Prohibition. 

(A)  Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.

 

JDB has violated and continues to violate its mandatory duties under the FDCPA and FCRA. 

For all of these reasons, I hereby give Notice of my Intent to initiative Arbitration against JDB within 30 days of this notice should JDB fail to delete in its entirety, within 10 days of the confirm receipt of this notice, this item of information from all consumer reporting agencies pursuant to Section 623 (b) (1) (E) (ii) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. § 1681 and send, via regular mail, a written confirmation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Boisvert said:

On January 3rd, 2019 I sent JDB a request to verify the reporting.

They do not have to verify reporting with YOU.  This is not a FCRA violation.

54 minutes ago, Boisvert said:

 On January 9th, 2019 JDB responded to my request with an itemized description of the debt which cannot be served as verification since it does not provide the information requested. I lawfully requested a notarized statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt as it was constituted and who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, a copy of any legal instrument, bearing my signature, which supports their basis for the continued reporting of this alleged debt and the assignment or purchase agreement for the alleged debt between JDB and any other entity including the Original Creditor. 

Oh boy.  ALL they are required to provide you under the FDCPA is the name of the original creditor and amount owed.  The OC's address if you asked for it as well.  NONE of what you demanded is required under the FDCPA and ignoring it is not a violation.  Based on your expectation of notarized documents, accounting, and copies of documents I can tell you cut and pasted a REALLY bad and dangerous letter from the internet and sent it more than once.  ALL you did was tell them that you do not know the law or your rights and how easy it will be to beat you in court.

57 minutes ago, Boisvert said:

For all of these reasons, I hereby give Notice of my Intent to initiative Arbitration against JDB

Which they are free to ignore.  In order to get this case taken seriously you would need to file it in Federal Court and you are grossly ill equipped to handle that kind of case pro-se.  You would need a Federal Court to order them to arbitrate.  Just the filing alone in Federal is $450. 

You don't way what JDB this is but you should reach out to @BV80 because she is an expert at finding out they ARE registered in FL.  We have had a half dozen or more just like you believing a major JDB is not registered in FL only to find out they were not looking it up correctly.  Even if they are not registered that is between the state and them you have no private right of action.  Hypothetically for a second if they are properly registered you should also be aware there is NO requirement that they send you validation by certified mail.  They only have to produce the copy of the first letter you got (which you admit in the suit you received) and they were free to continue collections regardless of ever letter after that.

The next thing you should do is consult a good Consumer Attorney because if there really are at least one violation they will take the case for free. 

My opinion on that idea/suit:  you don't have a legal basis for the majority of it and they will use skilled legal counsel to steam roll you on the matter and get the court to tag you with their expenses for it.  That could reach $60,000 or more.  Do you have that kind of money when you lose?  My guess is they have already got their suit together and will have it filed (if it isn't already have you checked the docket) because the letters you sent marked you as easy prey.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

They do not have to verify reporting with YOU.  This is not a FCRA violation.

Oh boy.  ALL they are required to provide you under the FDCPA is the name of the original creditor and amount owed.  The OC's address if you asked for it as well.  NONE of what you demanded is required under the FDCPA and ignoring it is not a violation.  Based on your expectation of notarized documents, accounting, and copies of documents I can tell you cut and pasted a REALLY bad and dangerous letter from the internet and sent it more than once.  ALL you did was tell them that you do not know the law or your rights and how easy it will be to beat you in court.

Which they are free to ignore.  In order to get this case taken seriously you would need to file it in Federal Court and you are grossly ill equipped to handle that kind of case pro-se.  You would need a Federal Court to order them to arbitrate.  Just the filing alone in Federal is $450. 

You don't way what JDB this is but you should reach out to @BV80 because she is an expert at finding out they ARE registered in FL.  We have had a half dozen or more just like you believing a major JDB is not registered in FL only to find out they were not looking it up correctly.  Even if they are not registered that is between the state and them you have no private right of action.  Hypothetically for a second if they are properly registered you should also be aware there is NO requirement that they send you validation by certified mail.  They only have to produce the copy of the first letter you got (which you admit in the suit you received) and they were free to continue collections regardless of ever letter after that.

The next thing you should do is consult a good Consumer Attorney because if there really are at least one violation they will take the case for free. 

My opinion on that idea/suit:  you don't have a legal basis for the majority of it and they will use skilled legal counsel to steam roll you on the matter and get the court to tag you with their expenses for it.  That could reach $60,000 or more.  Do you have that kind of money when you lose?  My guess is they have already got their suit together and will have it filed (if it isn't already have you checked the docket) because the letters you sent marked you as easy prey.

This is a very condescending response. Appreciated, but very condescending. You are assuming I cannot defend myself against a JDB in court and  would be "steam rolled" by them? Or you are making a full profile of me based on 'the template of death' verification letter I sent 2 and half years ago? My easy-prey letter was sent over 2 years ago and have not been served and no suit has been filed yet. 

This is also not a major JDB and I know how to verify this information in my State. 

The credit card agreement 'forces' arbitration to resolve disputes. They are welcome to ignore the arbitration if they want. But I do not have to go to Federal Court for this. 

I`ll make some corrections based on your response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boisvert said:

This is a very condescending response

Waaaaaaaaahhh.  You didn't tell me what I want to hear.  Read my signature.  I am not running a bakery.  I do not sugar coat anything.  You asked for feedback on a supposed Federal Law violation.  Do you really think the court is going to spoon feed you?

2 hours ago, Boisvert said:

You are assuming I cannot defend myself against a JDB in court and  would be "steam rolled" by them?

I am not assuming anything.  My opinion is based upon that garbage complaint you posted asking for feedback and the information you have provided.

2 hours ago, Boisvert said:

My easy-prey letter was sent over 2 years ago

Now you have a major problem.  The SOL to file an FDCPA complaint is only 1 year.  You missed the window if there was a violation.  The FDCPA only requires they respond to the the first letter you send asking for validation if it is within the first 30 days after their initial contact with you.  Any subsequent letters you sent because you didn't get the non-required demands you made met can be ignored and are not violations.

2 hours ago, Boisvert said:

The credit card agreement 'forces' arbitration to resolve disputes.

Which they can and will ignore until you get a Federal Court to grant a MTC arbitration.

2 hours ago, Boisvert said:

They are welcome to ignore the arbitration if they want. But I do not have to go to Federal Court for this. 

Oh but you will.  You can file in state court of course but they will immediately move it to Federal knowing you cannot defend yourself there and no attorney will take the case once you filed pro-se with that horrible complaint.

2 hours ago, Boisvert said:

I`ll make some corrections based on your response. 

I am going to repeat what I said in my first response and what @Harry Seaward said in your MOV thread:  GO SEE A CONSUMER ATTORNEY.  You are in over your head and do not even realize it.  You are about to make a very expensive mistake.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Boisvert said:

1.    § 809(b) Validation of debts [15 U.S.C. 1692e]

JDB is not allowed to pursue collection activities until the debt is validated. In TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity. JDB received a request for validation from me and have not responded to that request in any way, and since that time JDB has updated information on my credit reports every month marking this account late, past due, open balance.  Each of these updates constitutes a violation of FDCPA. The required documentation requested was pursuant to the FDCPA, as well as case law including Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509and Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002)- 

Were you sent a collection letter that contained the 30-day validation notice?  Finding an entry on your credit report is not an initial communication that triggers your right to request validation.

14 hours ago, Boisvert said:

11. § 806. Harassment or abuse [15 U.S.C. 1692d] 

  On May 15th, 2019, via CMRR, I sent notice to JDB to provide evidence that they are allowed to collect debts in Florida since JDB is not an entity listed in the Florida Department of Corporation nor an entity listed to have a valid collection account at the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. JDB failed to provide such evidence and continues its collection efforts on this account when they are not legally allowed to collect a debt in the State of Florida. 

While reporting to CRAs is considered a collection activity, where does your state law say that a license is required before an account can be reported on your CR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUICK UPDATE:

I did not send the ITS letter above. Instead I sent a Notice of Election to Arbitrate to the JDB, and 2 days letters sent MOV letter to the 3 CRAs. Just got a notification from Experian that my credit went up. After checking the reports, the trade-in was removed from all 3 CRAs. Credit went from 685 to 746! 😍

All these methods are YMMV. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.