Jump to content

Preliminary Steps - Inevitable Lawsuit Forthcoming - Cavalry Portfolio Svc - Citibank Account, Oregon


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

That is horrible advice and can lead to a very quick defeat by a judgment on the pleadings. 

Its not advice. Its an opinion based on the advice offered in this book Im presently going through  book https://store.ceb.com/california-summary-judgment .

The best way to attack a summary judgement is to dispute the entire amount in question. I do not mean by just saying 'i dont owe that'. There are specific ways one can organize the discovery to demand accounting, etc. The consumer is entitled by law to an investigation as a matter of fact finding. Note you can do this past to so called '30 day debt validation period' or '60 day after last billing statement'. Did you even receive the last billing statement?

From the Truth in Lending Act

https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-12/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-226#p-226.13(a)(7)

13(d) Rules pending resolution. 

1. Disputed amount. Disputed amount is the dollar amount alleged by the consumer to be in error. When the allegation concerns the description or identification of the transaction (such as the date or the seller's name) rather than a dollar amount, the disputed amount is the amount of the transaction or charge that corresponds to the disputed transaction identification. If the consumer alleges a failure to send a periodic statement under § 226.13(a)(7), the disputed amount is the entire balance owing. 

13(d)(1) Consumer's right to withhold disputed amount; collection action prohibited. 

1. Prohibited collection actions. During the error resolution period, the creditor is prohibited from trying to collect the disputed amount from the consumer. Prohibited collection actions include, for example, instituting court action, taking a lien, or instituting attachment proceedings.

The collection activity must stop until a reasonable investigation is undertaken. If they send you back a form letter that says 'we did a reasonable investigation and found this to be correct' etc, you have a crack you rip open. Who did the investigation? What was the process? What are the documents? Who is the custodian? ect.  You investigate the investigation.

This is the point of discovery, you want to investigate the investigation that is leading them to introduce these 'facts' into record.

The more you demand evidence, and challenge it, the weaker their case becomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YoRocky said:

The best way to attack a summary judgement is to dispute the entire amount in question.

Summary judgment is not currently an issue.  The OP has not yet been sued and is contemplating arbitration.  

1 hour ago, YoRocky said:

From the Truth in Lending Act

https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-12/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-226#p-226.13(a)(7)

13(d) Rules pending resolution. 

1. Disputed amount. Disputed amount is the dollar amount alleged by the consumer to be in error. When the allegation concerns the description or identification of the transaction (such as the date or the seller's name) rather than a dollar amount, the disputed amount is the amount of the transaction or charge that corresponds to the disputed transaction identification. If the consumer alleges a failure to send a periodic statement under § 226.13(a)(7), the disputed amount is the entire balance owing. 

13(d)(1) Consumer's right to withhold disputed amount; collection action prohibited. 

1. Prohibited collection actions. During the error resolution period, the creditor is prohibited from trying to collect the disputed amount from the consumer. Prohibited collection actions include, for example, instituting court action, taking a lien, or instituting attachment proceedings.

The collection activity must stop until a reasonable investigation is undertaken. If they send you back a form letter that says 'we did a reasonable investigation and found this to be correct' etc, you have a crack you rip open. Who did the investigation? What was the process? What are the documents? Who is the custodian? ect.  You investigate the investigation.

The referenced “prohibited collection action”  only applies if the creditor receives a dispute from the consumer within 60 days after the creditor transmitted the billing statement that contains the disputed error. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Summary judgment is not currently an issue.  The OP has not yet been sued and is contemplating arbitration.  

The referenced “prohibited collection action”  only applies if the creditor receives a dispute from the consumer within 60 days after the creditor transmitted the billing statement that contains the disputed error. 

 

If you could cite the law by which you came to this conclusion? In particular the 'only applies if'

I cited specifically where it says one can alleged not receiving a final statement and thus demand an accounting. You need to raise an affirmative defense of fraud,error. You also would need to get it on the record by filing a declaration. 

If you did not receive a statement, how can you possibly know what makes up the alleged amount? They need to send you one right away. Then you can dispute it. You have a right to dispute the entire amount if statement not received. Effectually putting a 'stay' on the collection action in court. On their end, not on consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YoRocky said:

Its not advice. Its an opinion based on the advice offered in this book Im presently going through  book https://store.ceb.com/california-summary-judgment .

The best way to attack a summary judgement is to dispute the entire amount in question. I do not mean by just saying 'i dont owe that'. There are specific ways one can organize the discovery to demand accounting, etc. The consumer is entitled by law to an investigation as a matter of fact finding. Note you can do this past to so called '30 day debt validation period' or '60 day after last billing statement'. Did you even receive the last billing statement?

From the Truth in Lending Act

https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-12/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-226#p-226.13(a)(7)

13(d) Rules pending resolution. 

1. Disputed amount. Disputed amount is the dollar amount alleged by the consumer to be in error. When the allegation concerns the description or identification of the transaction (such as the date or the seller's name) rather than a dollar amount, the disputed amount is the amount of the transaction or charge that corresponds to the disputed transaction identification. If the consumer alleges a failure to send a periodic statement under § 226.13(a)(7), the disputed amount is the entire balance owing. 

13(d)(1) Consumer's right to withhold disputed amount; collection action prohibited. 

1. Prohibited collection actions. During the error resolution period, the creditor is prohibited from trying to collect the disputed amount from the consumer. Prohibited collection actions include, for example, instituting court action, taking a lien, or instituting attachment proceedings.

The collection activity must stop until a reasonable investigation is undertaken. If they send you back a form letter that says 'we did a reasonable investigation and found this to be correct' etc, you have a crack you rip open. Who did the investigation? What was the process? What are the documents? Who is the custodian? ect.  You investigate the investigation.

This is the point of discovery, you want to investigate the investigation that is leading them to introduce these 'facts' into record.

The more you demand evidence, and challenge it, the weaker their case becomes.

No, the advice to neither admit nor deny is horrible unless one adds the "and therefore denies" at the end.  It caused me to automatically lose a case, and it can have the same effect on others.

 

Anything NOT denied is deemed admitted.  That is how courts work.

 

Your comments about attacking the evidence are a completely different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

No, the advice to neither admit nor deny is horrible unless one adds the "and therefore denies" at the end.  It caused me to automatically lose a case, and it can have the same effect on others.

 

Anything NOT denied is deemed admitted.  That is how courts work.

 

Your comments about attacking the evidence are a completely different matter.

 I agree adding anything to cover the loopholes in 'implied' admissions is important. 

The ultimate response is the constitutional right to not witness against yourself. Alas, that is not respected in civil matters so these word games have to be used. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Onto the completely different subject of attacking their evidence:

The good news is, in some states this works.

The bad news is, this strategy is not nearly as useful as it used to be.  

Back over a decade ago I was able to win some cases by attacking their evidence, or attacking the credentials of the person who signed the affidavit.  

These days, for reasons which have been explained over and over again, those methods are less effective in MOST states (California is a notable exception, from what I read).  

But, not of this really has much to do with whether someone will pursue arbitration.  

As has been pointed out countless times, a weak case in court is a weak case in arbitration.  The main point of arbitration is that many JBDs will simply walk away, and it can be used to pressure OCs into a more favorable settlement.

There are a few situations in which filing for arbitration BEFORE being sued is wise:

1. If one is dealing with a potential small claims case with a card, e.g. Citi, which has a small claims exemption.  I did this once with a Citi card.

2. If one's spouse is about to be sued, and one's spouse cannot handle a pro se case very well.  I did this with one of my wife's accounts.  I had some clear malfeasance on the part of the OC, so it was easy for me.  I entered myself in JAMS as an unpaid non-attorney representative.  Perfectly kosher under JAMS rules.

3. If there are SOL issues.  I once filed in JAMS where the account used Delaware law for arbitration.  The SOL had long passed in Delaware, but not in my state.  Note that this particular OC later changed their arbitration provision to use the SOL of the debtor's state.  

4. If one is in a field in which having a law suit on the record can be very bad.  Such as security clearance jobs, banking, etc.  I am in banking, so suits on the record are not good for me.  

5. If there is clear malfeasance on the part of the creditor, esp. for telecommunications firms.  As mentioned above, I did file a pre-emptive arbitration where there was clear malfeasance on the part of the OC.  This was a bank.  I am not at liberty to say which one.  

6. One is in a county where the judges or magistrates have been really bad about granting MTCs.  Fortunately, I have never been in this position.  

 

Otherwise, wait until being sued before initiating arbitration.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, YoRocky said:

If you could cite the law by which you came to this conclusion? In particular the 'only applies if'

I cited specifically where it says one can alleged not receiving a final statement and thus demand an accounting. You need to raise an affirmative defense of fraud,error. 

If you did not receive a statement, how can you possibly know what makes up the alleged amount? They need to send you one right away. Then you can dispute it. You have a right to dispute the entire amount if statement not received. Effectually putting a 'stay' on the collection action in court. On their end, not on consumers.

 

The section to which you refer is “billing errors”.  The sentences in section (a) which define “billing error” begin with either “a reflection on a periodic statement” or “a reflection on or with a periodic statement”.  A dispute under the section you cited is based upon errors on billing statements.  Therefore, one cannot dispute a “billing error” unless there is a periodic statement reflecting the error.

Regarding (a)(7):

(7) The creditor's failure to mail or deliver a periodic statement to the consumer's last known address if that address was received by the creditor, in writing, at least 20 days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement was required.

Read it carefully.  That is in regard to new addresses.  If a creditor receives written notice of an address for a consumer at least 20 days before the end of the billing cycle, the creditor must send the periodic statement to that new address.

Then look at section (b).

(b) Billing error notice.[28] A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that: 

(1) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under § 226.7(a)(9) or (b)(9), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error; 

(2) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer's name and account number; and 

(3) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error.

There must be a periodic statement that reflects an error in order for section (d)(1) to apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BV80 said:

 

There must be a periodic statement that reflects an error in order for section (d)(1) to apply.

This is my point. If the consumer alleges no statement with alleged amount was received, then they can dispute the entire amount. 

No statement with alleged amount received = grounds to dispute entire amount. I cited that in particular above.

"If the consumer alleges a failure to send a periodic statement under § 226.13(a)(7), the disputed amount is the entire balance owing. "

I appreciate the time you put into documenting your argument. Its rare to see others on here actually back up their arguments with law. Probably because many on here do not actually read law or manuals further than the sentence they want to jump and disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, YoRocky said:

This is my point. If the consumer alleges no statement with alleged amount was received, then they can dispute the entire amount. 

No statement with alleged amount received = grounds to dispute entire amount. I cited that in particular above.

"If the consumer alleges a failure to send a periodic statement under § 226.13(a)(7), the disputed amount is the entire balance owing. "

I appreciate the time you put into documenting your argument. Its rare to see others on here actually back up their arguments with law. Probably because many on here do not actually read law or manuals further than the sentence they want to jump and disagree with.

1. Failure to send periodic statement - timing. If the creditor has failed to send a periodic statement, the 60-day period runs from the time the statement should have been sent. Once the statement is provided, the consumer has another 60 days to assert any billing errors reflected on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is extremely difficult to establish that a statement has NOT been sent.  

Generally, if the debtor has been paying on an account, it is assumed the debtor has been receiving the statements.  If, suddenly, the debtor stops payment, then it is very difficult for the debtor to convince a judge that the statements suddenly stopped coming at that time.  If the creditor says they sent the statements to the same address, then the judge (or arbitrator) is going to believe the creditor continued supplying statements about 100% of the time.  The creditor doesn't have to prove the debtor received the statements.  The creditor has to say they sent them, and that is good enough.

Since they have been sent, then the debtor has 60 days to dispute.  

So that takes care of most of that argument.

In some states there are some other ways around it.

For example, in Wisconsin the creditor has to supply charges back to zero balance,  and this has to be verified by someone with first hand knowledge of the account.  I won a case because the judge agreed the affiant did not have first hand knowledge of the account.

For some strange reason, the high judges in Wisconsin ruled that these no longer apply to JDBs, so there are far more JDB plaintiffs than in the past.  

I once had an interesting attack on the evidence for a case in arbitration.  Since the case was settled very favorably just before the hearing, I don't have a clue how well this attack would have worked.  

I contended that the statements sent by the OC were not the CORRECT statements.  Every statement they sent me had an ad on it with a copyright for a year several years past the statement date.  What probably happened is they pulled the information from their databases and put them onto the current statement form.  My contention is these were not the correct statements.  Since Wisconsin demands someone with first hand knowledge, and I know a bit about how data are stored in databases, I was prepared to show that their expert witness wouldn't be able to describe exactly how the records were stored, and how the statements were retrieved.  I also pointed out some weird things about the statements.  Their reply was the 60 day requirement was over.  My reply was these were not the same statements that had been mailed to me.  

Would that have worked in a hearing?  I don't know.  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  The point is, I had a lot of time on my hands, and the attorney was working on a number of different cases all at the same time.  He didn't have time to deal with the paperwork I was dumping on his lap.  This was also a situation where the SOL had not been determined, because the Delaware and Wisconsin SOLs are different, and the arbitration agreement could have been interpreted at the time as favoring the Delaware SOL.  Which had passed.  

The point was, in SOME states attacking the evidence and the credentials of the affiant work SOME of the time.  In other states, it won't work at all.  Nothing is 100%.  If one is in a state with favorable rules for debt evidence, an attack MIGHT work, or at least it MIGHT waste enough of the attorney's time he will want to get rid of the case.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BV80 said:

1. Failure to send periodic statement - timing. If the creditor has failed to send a periodic statement, the 60-day period runs from the time the statement should have been sent. Once the statement is provided, the consumer has another 60 days to assert any billing errors reflected on it.

As you can plainly read, this concerns the SENDING of the statement. 

The other side of the coin is the RECEIVING to the consumer. The consumer has to have actually receiving the last statement.

Again, read the text of what right the consumer has. They can allege (via a declaration) that they did not RECEIVE the statement. This is irrespective of the sending. 

If the consumer alleges a failure to send a periodic statement under § 226.13(a)(7), the disputed amount is the entire balance owing. "

So, one side one you have creditor saying 'we sent the statement. Consumer did not dispute in time. Thus, the amount is not in dispute'

And on the other side, you have the consumer saying 'i did not receive any. I have no knowledge if you did send it. Thus I have a right to dispute the entire amount. '

My entire point is based on the context of 'surviving' summary judgement and in fact winning the case, by directly attacking the amount owed. 

If Plaintiff can not prove amount owed in Account Stated, they loose in 1 of its 4 criteria. If they lose by any 1, the entire cause of action is invalid and case must be dismissed. 

There is ample cases to cite that have won by this...just think this Account stated stuff has been around for more than 100 years now. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

It is extremely difficult to establish that a statement has NOT been sent.  

THEY have to establish that it HAS been sent. And not that 'statements are sent out' but that the SPECIFIC statement with the SPECIFIC account number and SPECIFIC BALANCE DUE was sent out to the SPECIFIC consumer.

 Why? Because thats the only way, by law,  to get an amount and tie it to a consumer/alleged debtor.

These are things THEY have to prove. 

They have to prove the amount is accurate - they cant because its in dispute.

They have to prove the consumer received statement - they cant ever prove that. They can only try to say they 'send out statements in the regular course and practices of business'

But thats not good enough. Because it would give them leway to just about send any bogus claim to people, and then 'waive magical hands' and say 'the statement you seek in there somewhere'. 

Oh wait, thats EXACTLY what is going on with these debt collectors. Allege a debt, an amount, stick it to joe consumer. hope they default (98% do) and  screw the paperwork and 'evidence'.

The house of cards can easily fall if you just start picking at the foundations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YoRocky said:

As you can plainly read, this concerns the SENDING of the statement. 

The other side of the coin is the RECEIVING to the consumer. The consumer has to have actually receiving the last statement.

It is plainly stated that if a consumer disputes that billing statement was sent, the consumer’s dispute must be made within 60 days of when the billing statement should have been sent.  
 

1 hour ago, YoRocky said:

And on the other side, you have the consumer saying 'i did not receive any. I have no knowledge if you did send it. Thus I have a right to dispute the entire amount. '

And the consumer must show he informed the creditor that he did not receive a billing statement and must have informed the creditor within 60 days of when the billing statement should have been mailed.  

In any case, the sections you have cited are from the Truth in Lending Act.  Unless you countersue for violations of that act, then citing sections of it are meaningless.  Those sections only apply to that act and nothing else.

BTW, you have the right to dispute the amount in court without citing sections of an act that will not apply due to the fact that the timely disputes required by the act were not made.

I don’t know what you’re reading in California, but this thread is about Oregon.  Unless you have applicable Oregon case law that shows a creditor must prove every statement sent over a period of years was mailed and that the consumer received every one of them, back off.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, BV80 said:

It is plainly stated that if a consumer disputes that billing statement was sent, the consumer’s dispute must be made within 60 days of when the billing statement should have been sent.  
 

And the consumer must show he informed the creditor that he did not receive a billing statement and must have informed the creditor within 60 days of when the billing statement should have been mailed.  

In any case, the sections you have cited are from the Truth in Lending Act.  Unless you countersue for violations of that act, then citing sections of it are meaningless.  Those sections only apply to that act and nothing else.

BTW, you have the right to dispute the amount in court without citing sections of an act that will not apply due to the fact that the timely disputes required by the act were not made.

I don’t know what you’re reading in California, but this thread is about Oregon.  Unless you have applicable Oregon case law that shows a creditor must prove every statement sent over a period of years was mailed and that the consumer received every one of them, back off.

The Truth in Lending Act is highly relevant to assert the rights of the consumer and do not need to be introduced only if a 'counter suit' is made. But to entertain this false premise, we can just say the affirmative defenses in the initial answer give 'grounds' to argue the abuse of the creditor.  If anything, if you DONT argue abuses in the trail court, you wont have any record to base a case against the creditor. 

To put another way, if the consumer disputes the amount (as is their right) and the collection agency continues collections activities during trial, that is the evidence consumer will need to later file a counter suit against creditors.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, YoRocky said:

The Truth in Lending Act is highly relevant to assert the rights of the consumer and do not need to be introduced only if a 'counter suit' is made. But to entertain this false premise, we can just say the affirmative defenses in the initial answer give 'grounds' to argue the abuse of the creditor.  If anything, if you DONT argue abuses in the trail court, you wont have any record to base a case against the creditor. 

To put another way, if the consumer disputes the amount (as is their right) and the collection agency continues collections activities during trial, that is the evidence consumer will need to later file a counter suit against creditors.

 

 

1.  There can only be violations or “abuses” of TILA (specifically, the Fair Credit Billing Act) if the consumer disputed in the time frame required by the act.  Disputing after the required time frame does not trigger the afforded protections.  It is absolutely not true that a creditor must cease collection activities if one disputes after the 60-day time period.  You don’t get to determine time frames  They are determined by the act and the act specifies those time frames.

If you claim a statement was not received, did you send a dispute within 60 days of the date the statement should have been sent?  If not, the cease collection activity provision was not triggered.  No violation.

2.  TILA has a one-year statute of limitations.

3.  To what “collection agency” “during trial” are you referring?  The law firm?  The law firm is not liable under TILA.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 5:51 AM, BV80 said:

1.  There can only be violations or “abuses” of TILA (specifically, the Fair Credit Billing Act) if the consumer disputed in the time frame required by the act.  Disputing after the required time frame does not trigger the afforded protections.  It is absolutely not true that a creditor must cease collection activities if one disputes after the 60-day time period.  You don’t get to determine time frames  They are determined by the act and the act specifies those time frames.

If you claim a statement was not received, did you send a dispute within 60 days of the date the statement should have been sent?  If not, the cease collection activity provision was not triggered.  No violation.

2.  TILA has a one-year statute of limitations.

3.  To what “collection agency” “during trial” are you referring?  The law firm?  The law firm is not liable under TILA.  

 

Im headed to the law library later this week, and i will explore this argument. Lot of strong points for sure. Thank you for helping sharpen the saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update on Preliminary Steps -Cavalry Portfolio - Citibank.  No lawsuit yet.

 

Just received a new dunning letter from Radius Global Solutions out of Minneapolis. They claim to be collecting on the alleged Cavalry Portfolio/Citibank account only offering and requesting a settlement for 70% of the alleged original amount. No thank you on the mini-discount. 

This seems a departure from standard procedure as I know it. I'm wondering if my original request for a DV prompted this route.  There appears to be no evidence of a sale of the account and just an attempt to collect for a lesser amount by a new collector. No change to reporting posted to any of the three bureaus. 

Would it be a good idea to also request a DV letter from Radius. Eventually one of these outfits will sue me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, HueyPilot said:

Update on Preliminary Steps -Cavalry Portfolio - Citibank.  No lawsuit yet.

 

Just received a new dunning letter from Radius Global Solutions out of Minneapolis. They claim to be collecting on the alleged Cavalry Portfolio/Citibank account only offering and requesting a settlement for 70% of the alleged original amount. No thank you on the mini-discount. 

This seems a departure from standard procedure as I know it. I'm wondering if my original request for a DV prompted this route.  There appears to be no evidence of a sale of the account and just an attempt to collect for a lesser amount by a new collector. No change to reporting posted to any of the three bureaus. 

Would it be a good idea to also request a DV letter from Radius. Eventually one of these outfits will sue me.

If Cavalry owns the account, Radius may be collecting for it.  Have you checked your credit report to see what Citi and Cavalry are reporting?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked my credit report from all three bureaus. No change, only Calvary's original report entry is showing.

Radius is an outsourced collector on behalf of Cavalry.

Letter begins with "On 08/03/21 Cavalry SPVI, LLC authorized Radius Global Solutions to collect this debt on their behalf". 

It ends with "Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid". 

 

Any good suggestions other than the called for single sentence "you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof" that may additionally disclaim potential for Account Stated or Breach of Contract. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, HueyPilot said:

I checked my credit report from all three bureaus. No change, only Calvary's original report entry is showing.

Radius is an outsourced collector on behalf of Cavalry.

Letter begins with "On 08/03/21 Cavalry SPVI, LLC authorized Radius Global Solutions to collect this debt on their behalf". 

It ends with "Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid". 

 

Any good suggestions other than the called for single sentence "you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof" that may additionally disclaim potential for Account Stated or Breach of Contract. 

 

Well, if you demand validation and state you dispute the debt, it’s possible that Cavalry can’t sue until the debt is validated.  We’d have to see what your courts have ruled.

In regard to the possible causes of action, I don’t know that a simple validation demand helps unless your dispute is specific.  For instance, you claimed ID theft on the account and had filed a police report, or you have proof of charges that were not refunded or payments that were not applied.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I previously disputed Cavalry and got discovery like materials as proof of dispute. Cavalry farmed out a new collection effort to Radius Global Solutions. 

The new collection letter is from a subcontractor that additionally  called out the you owe this debt unless you dispute language.  Although previously disputed it seems like a new requirement is required and unless done so I agree I owe the debt. Subsequently I don't agree I owe the reduced debt to this either. 

I guess this could go on as many times as new collection sub-contractors are appointed. I will have to continue to dispute apparently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HueyPilot said:

I previously disputed Cavalry and got discovery like materials as proof of dispute. Cavalry farmed out a new collection effort to Radius Global Solutions. 

The new collection letter is from a subcontractor that additionally  called out the you owe this debt unless you dispute language.  Although previously disputed it seems like a new requirement is required and unless done so I agree I owe the debt. Subsequently I don't agree I owe the reduced debt to this either. 

I guess this could go on as many times as new collection sub-contractors are appointed. I will have to continue to dispute apparently. 

No.  Failing to dispute within the 30-day period does NOT mean that you are agreeing that you owe the debt.  The FDCPA says that a failure to dispute allows the collector to assume the debt is valid.  That’s all.

1692g(a)(3)

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

That has nothing to do with you agreeing you owe the debt.  It just means the debt collector is free to continue collection efforts under the assumption that the debt is valid.

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.