My Kick A$$ ITS letter to Midland

[UNI4790]

7/6/20112

 

 

Ms Freemis

 

My Address

 

My City, CA 9XXXX

 

Midland Funding

8875 Aero Drive

San Diego, CA 92123

 

 

Re: Midland Funding, LLC Acct: 853XXXXXXX.

 

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE

 

To Whom It May Concern,

 

 

This letter is a follow up to my previous letter dated 6/28/2012 requesting proper validation of the abovementioned debt. As a consumer, I am aware of my rights regarding credit reporting. I have reviewed my credit reports from 3 credit bureaus and have found several errors which I have listed below along with the violation code. If these corrections are not made or deleted from my reports pursuant to the corresponding laws, I will have no further choice but to file a lawsuit against Midland Funding, LLC.

 

 

As you are aware, FDCPA violations are not stackable, so I must articulate that I fully intend sue Midland Funding LLC for each and every month separately that the FDCPA violations appeared on my credit reports. For example, you have reported these violations with Equifax for 35 months, which would equal 35 separate lawsuits just for EQ for statutory, actual, attorney fees, court costs, etc... The same applies to Experian and TransUnion. In addition, I intend to file suit for each and every month for the FCRA violations which are stackable... so this will be the total of all the months combined at a fine of $1,000 per violation.

 

 

 

 

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as an “Type Of Account: Open Account” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Type Of Account: Open Account” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as an “Type Of Account: Open Account” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Type Of Account: Open Account” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my EQUIFAX credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Type Of Account: Open Account” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

 

With respect to the “Type Of Account: Open Account” notation on my EQUIFAX report: I do not have any known type of agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, or the alleged original creditor that creates or procures any type of “Open Account”. A revolving line of credit is known as an "Open-ended account where there is a possibility on continuing transactions", and being that this is a collection account, there can be no “open-ended” account terms.

 

----

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as “Type Of Loan: Factoring Company Account” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Type Of Loan: Factoring Company Account” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Type Of Loan: Factoring Company Account” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Type Of Loan: Factoring Company Account” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my EQUIFAX credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Type Of Loan: Factoring Company Account” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

 

With respect to the "Type Of Loan: Factoring Company Account" notation on my EQUIFAX report: I do not have any known type of agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, or the alleged original creditor that creates or procures any type of “Factoring” of alleged monies owed, nor am I aware of any agreement or contract that Midland Funding, LLC has with the alleged original creditor granting them specific rights to factor the alleged monies owed. In order for monies to be factored, the debt must be in good standing. Midland Funding, LLC purchases “charged off” bad debt which cannot be factored. Midland Funding, LLC is representing themselves as something they are not. Furthermore, by labeling status as "Factoring" when indeed this account is a collection forces Equifax to improperly place this account in its correct status as "Collection", whereby allowing an extremely unfair egregious punitive monthly tanking of my credit score and failure to allow proper aging of the collection that it truly is.

 

---

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as “Past Due: $11,132.00” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Past Due: $11,132.00” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as an “Past Due: $11,132.00” account on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Past Due: $11,132.00” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my EQUIFAX credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Past Due: $11,132.00” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

 

With respect to the “Past Due: $11,132.00” notation on my credit reports: I do not have any known type of agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, or the alleged original creditor that creates or procures any type of “Past Due” amount owed.

 

---

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as “Date Major Delinquency first Reported: 7/2009” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Date Major Delinquency first Reported: 7/2009” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as an “Date Major Delinquency first Reported: 7/2009” account on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Date Major Delinquency first Reported: 7/2009” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my EQUIFAX credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Date Major Delinquency first Reported: 7/2009” on my EQUIFAX credit report.

 

 

With respect to the “Date Major Delinquency first Reported: 7/2009” notation on my credit reports: I do not have any known type of agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, that creates or procures any type of “Date Major Delinquency first Reported”. This date of 07/2009 is reporting after the alleged "Open Date: 04/2009" with Midland Funding, LLC implying that I have a credit type of account that directly defaulted with Midland Funding, LLC which is clearly not the case, and would surely be inconsistent with the alleged original creditors "Date Major Delinquency first Reported" date if one even actually exists. Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as “Type: Installment” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Type: Installment” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Type: Installment” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Type: Installment” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my EXPERIAN credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Type: Installment” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

 

With respect to the "Type: Installment" notation on my EXPERIAN report: The definition of installment is as follows: A revolving line of credit is known as an "Open-ended account where there is a possibility on continuing transactions". An installment account implies a one time purchase or a sale of goods and or property where there is a written contract "delineating terms and interest rate with fixed payments per an agreed to schedule. I do not have any known “Type: Installment” agreement in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, nor with the alleged original creditor.

 

---

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as “Terms: 1 Month” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Terms: 1 Month” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Terms: 1 Month” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Terms: 1 Month” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my EXPERIAN credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Terms: 1 month” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

 

With respect to the "Terms: 1 month" notation on my EXPERIAN report: I do not have any known “Terms: 1 month” agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, or the alleged original creditor. However, EXPERIAN seems to update every month with “KD” [key derogatory] notation in the monthly status field of this account, which to me seems to be based on the “Terms: 1 month” field. This seems to permit this collection account to not properly age, as every month this collection account looks to be reported as more recent than it really is, further impacting my credit score from EXPERIAN.

 

---

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as “Credit Limit: $6,448.00” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Credit Limit: $6,448.00” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Credit Limit: $6,448.00” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Credit Limit: $6,448.00” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my EXPERIAN credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Credit Limit: $6,448.00” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

 

With respect to the "Credit Limit: $6,448.00" notation on my EXPERIAN report: I do not have any known type of agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, or the alleged original creditor that creates any type of “Credit Limit” with respect to this account. Reporting this collection account with a “Credit Limit” seems to imply that I have an “open account” with the collection agency, and that they have extended me credit. A collection agency obviously cannot extend credit to a consumer, making this an FDCPA violation.

 

---

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as an “Collection account. $11,132.00 past due” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Collection account. $11,132.00 past due” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as an “Collection account. $11,132.00 past due as of March 2012.” account on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Collection account. $11,132.00 past due” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my EXPERIAN credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Collection account. $11,132.00 past due” on my EXPERIAN credit report.

 

 

With respect to the “Collection account. $11,132.00 past due” notation on my credit reports: I do not have any known type of agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, or the alleged original creditor that creates or procures any type of “Past Due” amount owed. Reporting this collection account “Past Due” for the full amount of the alleged “Credit Limit” is an obvious attempt to further damage my credit report by showing “100% Utilization” of a credit line that may not even legitimately exist.

 

 

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as an “Account Type: Open Account” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Account Type: Open Account” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as an “Account Type: Open Account” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Account Type: Open Account” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my TRANSUNION credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Account Type: Open Account” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

 

With respect to the “Account Type: Open Account” notation on my TRANSUNION report: If Midland Funding, LLC is an Assignee of Beneficial I have seen no proof; additionally, an Assignee can only assume the rights that the Assignor had at the time of the sale; since this account was "Charged Off" by the alleged original creditor, the Assignee has no right to "Open" this closed account and has no right to further interest per the terms of whatever agreement they claim to exist with the purported assignor.

 

---

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as “Loan Type: Factoring Company Account” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Loan Type: Factoring Company Account” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Loan Type: Factoring Company Account” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Loan Type: Factoring Company Account” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my TRANSUNION credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Loan Type: Factoring Company Account” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

 

With respect to the "Loan Type: Factoring Company Account" notation on my TRANSUNION report: I do not have any known type of agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, or the alleged original creditor that creates or procures any type of “Factoring” of alleged monies owed, nor am I aware of any agreement or contract that Midland Funding, LLC has with the alleged original creditor granting them specific rights to factor the alleged monies owed. In order for monies to be factored, the debt must be in good standing. Midland Funding, LLC purchases “charged off” bad debt which cannot be factored. Midland Funding, LLC is representing themselves as something they are not.

 

---

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account as “Past Due: $11,132.00” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(8) by communicating credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, by reporting the account as “Past Due: $11,132.00” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as an “Past Due: $11,132.00” account on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FDCPA 15 USC 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by reporting the account as “Past Due: $11,132.00” to deceive current and potential creditors and to negatively impact my TRANSUNION credit scores.

 

Midland Funding, LLC violates FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) for knowingly reporting inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency “Past Due: $11,132.00” on my TRANSUNION credit report.

 

With respect to the “Collection account. $11,132.00 past due” notation on my credit reports: I do not have any known type of agreement or contract in writing or otherwise with Midland Funding, LLC, or the alleged original creditor that creates or procures any type of “Past Due” amount owed. Reporting this collection account “Past Due” for the full amount of the alleged “Credit Limit” is an obvious attempt to further damage my credit report by showing “100% Utilization” of a credit line that may not even legitimately exist.

 

 

 

In addition, several calls have been made from Midland Funding LLC, identified to me as MCM on a cell phone using an auto-dialer. This number was not provided to the listed original creditor or to Midland Funding, LLC. Therefore, Midland Funding, LLC violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) every time it calls the consumer’s cell phone by using an auto-dialer or predictive dialing machine. Debt collectors who violate the TCPA are liable for $ 500 per violation and, if the violation is willful, up to $ 1,500 per call.

 

Your prompt attention is expected in this matter.

 

 

Sincerely,

Ms. Freemis

 

 

[DadofThree]

I'm no expert so I'm sure someone will come along and comment on your letter. But for me............... Damn, now that's a fighting letter ! Go get them...

 

 

Good Luck...

 

 

 

[UNI4790]

I have to give full credit to Equal_Opportunity_Offender. This letter would be weak and pathetic without "their" guidance!

[Gottahaveit609]

Awesome letter subscribing to see critique from the experts!!!

[cprems]

IMHO,

 

Too long and too full of emotion.

 

Make it short and to the point. The FDCPA is ONE year from the date of violation. This letter shows not only are you not representing the correct statute but also that you do not know the SOL on FDCPA violations. FCRA may be stackable but stating they have violated the FDCPA 35 months in a row is going to get your letter thrown in the trash.

 

As to your TCPA claims - can you prove you either revoked consent verbally (recorded conversation) or in writing (CMRRR) If none of these have occured you have NO standing to sue for these violations.

 

This letter as written would see file 13 or the circular filing cabinet.

 

Rethink your letter.

 

Edited to add - you would have to file ALL your FCRA claims together. The down side is they can delete your trade line and your claims are moot.

 

 

I have to give full credit to Equal_Opportunity_Offender. This letter would be weak and pathetic without "their" guidance!

Edited July 6, 2012 by cprems

[equal_opportunity_offender]

IMHO,

 

Too long and too full of emotion.

 

Make it short and to the point. The FDCPA is ONE year from the date of violation. This letter shows not only are you not representing the correct statute but also that you do not know the SOL on FDCPA violations. FCRA may be stackable but stating they have violated the FDCPA 35 months in a row is going to get your letter thrown in the trash.

 

As to your TCPA claims - can you prove you either revoked consent verbally (recorded conversation) or in writing (CMRRR) If none of these have occured you have NO standing to sue for these violations.

 

This letter as written would see file 13 or the circular filing cabinet.

 

Rethink your letter.

 

Edited to add - you would have to file ALL your FCRA claims together. The down side is they can delete your trade line and your claims are moot.

 

 

I have to give full credit to Equal_Opportunity_Offender. This letter would be weak and pathetic without "their" guidance!

 

Thrown in the trash huh? Interesting, because I used this format in combination with a DV against 4 CA's and in a matter of 2 to 3 weeks max they all rolled. Including LVNV - and I might add they zeroed out the alleged balance I owed them. None of them were out of SOL, and never were pursued any further after that.

 

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with informing an entity of what you are going to sue them for.

 

And as far as the TCPA it was my understanding the OP never furnished their cell phone so yes they are in violation even if no prior C & D was sent.

[UNI4790]

Edited to add - you would have to file ALL your FCRA claims together. The down side is they can delete your trade line and your claims are moot.

 

 

Yes, that would be the point, wouldn't it?

Edited July 6, 2012 by MsFreemis

[cprems]

All you did with this letter, IMO, was get it booted back to the OC or got it sold off. If you want to run circles around yourself, keep sending this out.

 

My CA's all settled with money in MY pocket. The underlying alleged debt was extinguished as part of the negotiation settlement.

 

THIS is what an ITS does, if done correctly.

 

The TCPA claims could be moot (depending on your Courts view on consent) IF there was NO verbal or written revocation. If none was done, then the consent is implied and in force.

 

I agree with the spirit of the letter, however, any ITS I send is accompanied by an unfiled complaint

 

AN ITS should (IMO) be short and sweet and point out the violations.

 

IMHO,

 

Too long and too full of emotion.

 

Make it short and to the point. The FDCPA is ONE year from the date of violation. This letter shows not only are you not representing the correct statute but also that you do not know the SOL on FDCPA violations. FCRA may be stackable but stating they have violated the FDCPA 35 months in a row is going to get your letter thrown in the trash.

 

As to your TCPA claims - can you prove you either revoked consent verbally (recorded conversation) or in writing (CMRRR) If none of these have occured you have NO standing to sue for these violations.

 

This letter as written would see file 13 or the circular filing cabinet.

 

Rethink your letter.

 

Edited to add - you would have to file ALL your FCRA claims together. The down side is they can delete your trade line and your claims are moot.

 

 

I have to give full credit to Equal_Opportunity_Offender. This letter would be weak and pathetic without "their" guidance!

 

Thrown in the trash huh? Interesting, because I used this format in combination with a DV against 4 CA's and in a matter of 2 to 3 weeks max they all rolled. Including LVNV - and I might add they zeroed out the alleged balance I owed them. None of them were out of SOL, and never were pursued any further after that.

 

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with informing an entity of what you are going to sue them for.

 

And as far as the TCPA it was my understanding the OP never furnished their cell phone so yes they are in violation even if no prior C & D was sent.

[UNI4790]

I have pointed out the violations, all 50 million of them. This is past the SOL, so even if it was kicked back to the OC, it will fall off at the end of this year. If sold off, then a FOAD letter is in order, correct?

[equal_opportunity_offender]

All you did with this letter, IMO, was get it booted back to the OC or got it sold off. If you want to run circles around yourself, keep sending this out.

 

My CA's all settled with money in MY pocket. The underlying alleged debt was extinguished as part of the negotiation settlement.

 

THIS is what an ITS does, if done correctly.

 

The TCPA claims could be moot (depending on your Courts view on consent) IF there was NO verbal or written revocation. If none was done, then the consent is implied and in force.

 

I agree with the spirit of the letter, however, any ITS I send is accompanied by an unfiled complaint

 

AN ITS should (IMO) be short and sweet and point out the violations.

 

IMHO,

 

Too long and too full of emotion.

 

Make it short and to the point. The FDCPA is ONE year from the date of violation. This letter shows not only are you not representing the correct statute but also that you do not know the SOL on FDCPA violations. FCRA may be stackable but stating they have violated the FDCPA 35 months in a row is going to get your letter thrown in the trash.

 

As to your TCPA claims - can you prove you either revoked consent verbally (recorded conversation) or in writing (CMRRR) If none of these have occured you have NO standing to sue for these violations.

 

This letter as written would see file 13 or the circular filing cabinet.

 

Rethink your letter.

 

Edited to add - you would have to file ALL your FCRA claims together. The down side is they can delete your trade line and your claims are moot.

 

 

I have to give full credit to Equal_Opportunity_Offender. This letter would be weak and pathetic without "their" guidance!

 

Thrown in the trash huh? Interesting, because I used this format in combination with a DV against 4 CA's and in a matter of 2 to 3 weeks max they all rolled. Including LVNV - and I might add they zeroed out the alleged balance I owed them. None of them were out of SOL, and never were pursued any further after that.

 

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with informing an entity of what you are going to sue them for.

 

And as far as the TCPA it was my understanding the OP never furnished their cell phone so yes they are in violation even if no prior C & D was sent.

 

Did you miss the part where I stated LVNV said I owed them NOTHING? $0! Can I make that any more clear? So yes the debt was extinguished. I did not realize that I had to type each and every single detail of any collection I got rid of, and the exact terms. I will say however, I crushed a CA / lawfirm 2 times (I was being sued on 2 accounts with the same OC), using a similiar style partially into my answer picking off every FDCPA and FCRA violation. Guess what? They rolled before court, and agreed to not sell.

 

So do not tell me that I am chasing myself around in circles. I have yet to see one of these CA accounts sold off or sent back to the OC where I used this letter in combination with a DV.

A DV too in essense accomplishes the same exact thing, doesn't it? Debt could be sold off or sent back to the OC even with a DV. Are you going to tell everyone that sends a DV the same thing?

 

The OP's debt, it was to my understanding, is out of SOL. So what is the harm in getting this trade line removed from their CR's regardless of the methods used? Not everyone here is looking for money... They are just looking to get the CA gone.

 

Furthermore, the TCPA prohibits calls to cellular phones placed with an auto-dialer without the consumer’s prior express consent. Basically if the CA obtained the cell number from another source that was not the OC [wherein the cell number was supplied to the OC by the consumer], the TCPA applies.

[cprems]

Placing your irrelevant commentary aside, You should really read the TCPA CLOSELY! If NO consent was revoked, it is implied. Prove they didn't have consent. Its easy to do, either record the call or a certified letter.

 

Don't forget that as of right now, the Appeals Courts are split on oral revocation.

 

I did read you settled with LVNV. Do you have it in writing? Never to be sold/transferred?

 

If so, good job.

 

Also, you cannot stack FDCPA violations occurring after 12 months. If they commit one or a 1000 it is still $1K. The FRCA violations are easily cured with a deletion.

 

All I see from you is you beating your chest saying "yeah" I beat them with this letter!

 

The emphasis of sending out an ITS is to garner a settlement that is favorable to you the consumer.

 

Your "letter" was opened up for constructive criticism and posted by a user. Don't take offense at the criticism.

 

Pro-se "lawyers" who act without forethought are what gives the rest a bad name and case law that sets a bad precedent.

 

Lastly, remember that someone new may come onto this board seeking information. The information needs to be short, accurate and above all, verifiable.

 

 

 

 

All you did with this letter, IMO, was get it booted back to the OC or got it sold off. If you want to run circles around yourself, keep sending this out.

 

My CA's all settled with money in MY pocket. The underlying alleged debt was extinguished as part of the negotiation settlement.

 

THIS is what an ITS does, if done correctly.

 

The TCPA claims could be moot (depending on your Courts view on consent) IF there was NO verbal or written revocation. If none was done, then the consent is implied and in force.

 

I agree with the spirit of the letter, however, any ITS I send is accompanied by an unfiled complaint

 

AN ITS should (IMO) be short and sweet and point out the violations.

 

IMHO,

 

Too long and too full of emotion.

 

Make it short and to the point. The FDCPA is ONE year from the date of violation. This letter shows not only are you not representing the correct statute but also that you do not know the SOL on FDCPA violations. FCRA may be stackable but stating they have violated the FDCPA 35 months in a row is going to get your letter thrown in the trash.

 

As to your TCPA claims - can you prove you either revoked consent verbally (recorded conversation) or in writing (CMRRR) If none of these have occured you have NO standing to sue for these violations.

 

This letter as written would see file 13 or the circular filing cabinet.

 

Rethink your letter.

 

Edited to add - you would have to file ALL your FCRA claims together. The down side is they can delete your trade line and your claims are moot.

 

 

I have to give full credit to Equal_Opportunity_Offender. This letter would be weak and pathetic without "their" guidance!

 

Thrown in the trash huh? Interesting, because I used this format in combination with a DV against 4 CA's and in a matter of 2 to 3 weeks max they all rolled. Including LVNV - and I might add they zeroed out the alleged balance I owed them. None of them were out of SOL, and never were pursued any further after that.

 

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with informing an entity of what you are going to sue them for.

 

And as far as the TCPA it was my understanding the OP never furnished their cell phone so yes they are in violation even if no prior C & D was sent.

 

Did you miss the part where I stated LVNV said I owed them NOTHING? $0! Can I make that any more clear? So yes the debt was extinguished. I did not realize that I had to type each and every single detail of any collection I got rid of, and the exact terms. I will say however, I crushed a CA / lawfirm 2 times (I was being sued on 2 accounts with the same OC), using a similiar style partially into my answer picking off every FDCPA and FCRA violation. Guess what? They rolled before court, and agreed to not sell.

 

So do not tell me that I am chasing myself around in circles. I have yet to see one of these CA accounts sold off or sent back to the OC where I used this letter in combination with a DV.

A DV too in essense accomplishes the same exact thing, doesn't it? Debt could be sold off or sent back to the OC even with a DV. Are you going to tell everyone that sends a DV the same thing?

 

The OP's debt, it was to my understanding, is out of SOL. So what is the harm in getting this trade line removed from their CR's regardless of the methods used? Not everyone here is looking for money... They are just looking to get the CA gone.

 

Furthermore, the TCPA prohibits calls to cellular phones placed with an auto-dialer without the consumer’s prior express consent. Basically if the CA obtained the cell number from another source that was not the OC [wherein the cell number was supplied to the OC by the consumer], the TCPA applies.

[UNI4790]

Placing your irrelevant commentary aside, You should really read the TCPA CLOSELY! If NO consent was revoked, it is implied. Prove they didn't have consent. Its easy to do, either record the call or a certified letter.

 

Don't forget that as of right now, the Appeals Courts are split on oral revocation.

 

I did read you settled with LVNV. Do you have it in writing? Never to be sold/transferred?

 

If so, good job.

 

Also, you cannot stack FDCPA violations occurring after 12 months. If they commit one or a 1000 it is still $1K. The FRCA violations are easily cured with a deletion.

 

All I see from you is you beating your chest saying "yeah" I beat them with this letter!

 

The emphasis of sending out an ITS is to garner a settlement that is favorable to you the consumer.

 

Your "letter" was opened up for constructive criticism and posted by a user. Don't take offense at the criticism.

 

Pro-se "lawyers" who act without forethought are what gives the rest a bad name and case law that sets a bad precedent.

 

Lastly, remember that someone new may come onto this board seeking information. The information needs to be short, accurate and above all, verifiable.

 

 

 

 

All you did with this letter, IMO, was get it booted back to the OC or got it sold off. If you want to run circles around yourself, keep sending this out.

 

My CA's all settled with money in MY pocket. The underlying alleged debt was extinguished as part of the negotiation settlement.

 

THIS is what an ITS does, if done correctly.

 

The TCPA claims could be moot (depending on your Courts view on consent) IF there was NO verbal or written revocation. If none was done, then the consent is implied and in force.

 

I agree with the spirit of the letter, however, any ITS I send is accompanied by an unfiled complaint

 

AN ITS should (IMO) be short and sweet and point out the violations.

 

IMHO,

 

Too long and too full of emotion.

 

Make it short and to the point. The FDCPA is ONE year from the date of violation. This letter shows not only are you not representing the correct statute but also that you do not know the SOL on FDCPA violations. FCRA may be stackable but stating they have violated the FDCPA 35 months in a row is going to get your letter thrown in the trash.

 

As to your TCPA claims - can you prove you either revoked consent verbally (recorded conversation) or in writing (CMRRR) If none of these have occured you have NO standing to sue for these violations.

 

This letter as written would see file 13 or the circular filing cabinet.

 

Rethink your letter.

 

Edited to add - you would have to file ALL your FCRA claims together. The down side is they can delete your trade line and your claims are moot.

 

 

I have to give full credit to Equal_Opportunity_Offender. This letter would be weak and pathetic without "their" guidance!

 

Thrown in the trash huh? Interesting, because I used this format in combination with a DV against 4 CA's and in a matter of 2 to 3 weeks max they all rolled. Including LVNV - and I might add they zeroed out the alleged balance I owed them. None of them were out of SOL, and never were pursued any further after that.

 

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with informing an entity of what you are going to sue them for.

 

And as far as the TCPA it was my understanding the OP never furnished their cell phone so yes they are in violation even if no prior C & D was sent.

 

Did you miss the part where I stated LVNV said I owed them NOTHING? $0! Can I make that any more clear? So yes the debt was extinguished. I did not realize that I had to type each and every single detail of any collection I got rid of, and the exact terms. I will say however, I crushed a CA / lawfirm 2 times (I was being sued on 2 accounts with the same OC), using a similiar style partially into my answer picking off every FDCPA and FCRA violation. Guess what? They rolled before court, and agreed to not sell.

 

So do not tell me that I am chasing myself around in circles. I have yet to see one of these CA accounts sold off or sent back to the OC where I used this letter in combination with a DV.

A DV too in essense accomplishes the same exact thing, doesn't it? Debt could be sold off or sent back to the OC even with a DV. Are you going to tell everyone that sends a DV the same thing?

 

The OP's debt, it was to my understanding, is out of SOL. So what is the harm in getting this trade line removed from their CR's regardless of the methods used? Not everyone here is looking for money... They are just looking to get the CA gone.

 

Furthermore, the TCPA prohibits calls to cellular phones placed with an auto-dialer without the consumer's prior express consent. Basically if the CA obtained the cell number from another source that was not the OC [wherein the cell number was supplied to the OC by the consumer], the TCPA applies.

 

 

Ok, fair enough. My school of thought is, if you are going to voice an opinion against something, give a better solution. What do you propose, specifically, that I take out of the letter?

[cprems]

One would have a solid paper trail prior to sending out an ITS.

 

An ITS should be sent to their RA (Registered Agent)

 

An ITS should provide enough information (who, what, when and why) to get the point across. I like to keep them fairly brief (the longest one was 2 pages) placing all the disputes, times and dates in place and then cite the violations.

 

Keep this "business" and not personal. Once it gets personal, one loses focus and can miss out on opportunities.

 

Read ICANHASMUNY threads. There is very good information on how and what to say in letters such as this.

 

 

Placing your irrelevant commentary aside, You should really read the TCPA CLOSELY! If NO consent was revoked, it is implied. Prove they didn't have consent. Its easy to do, either record the call or a certified letter.

 

Don't forget that as of right now, the Appeals Courts are split on oral revocation.

 

I did read you settled with LVNV. Do you have it in writing? Never to be sold/transferred?

 

If so, good job.

 

Also, you cannot stack FDCPA violations occurring after 12 months. If they commit one or a 1000 it is still $1K. The FRCA violations are easily cured with a deletion.

 

All I see from you is you beating your chest saying "yeah" I beat them with this letter!

 

The emphasis of sending out an ITS is to garner a settlement that is favorable to you the consumer.

 

Your "letter" was opened up for constructive criticism and posted by a user. Don't take offense at the criticism.

 

Pro-se "lawyers" who act without forethought are what gives the rest a bad name and case law that sets a bad precedent.

 

Lastly, remember that someone new may come onto this board seeking information. The information needs to be short, accurate and above all, verifiable.

 

 

 

 

All you did with this letter, IMO, was get it booted back to the OC or got it sold off. If you want to run circles around yourself, keep sending this out.

 

My CA's all settled with money in MY pocket. The underlying alleged debt was extinguished as part of the negotiation settlement.

 

THIS is what an ITS does, if done correctly.

 

The TCPA claims could be moot (depending on your Courts view on consent) IF there was NO verbal or written revocation. If none was done, then the consent is implied and in force.

 

I agree with the spirit of the letter, however, any ITS I send is accompanied by an unfiled complaint

 

AN ITS should (IMO) be short and sweet and point out the violations.

 

IMHO,

 

Too long and too full of emotion.

 

Make it short and to the point. The FDCPA is ONE year from the date of violation. This letter shows not only are you not representing the correct statute but also that you do not know the SOL on FDCPA violations. FCRA may be stackable but stating they have violated the FDCPA 35 months in a row is going to get your letter thrown in the trash.

 

As to your TCPA claims - can you prove you either revoked consent verbally (recorded conversation) or in writing (CMRRR) If none of these have occured you have NO standing to sue for these violations.

 

This letter as written would see file 13 or the circular filing cabinet.

 

Rethink your letter.

 

Edited to add - you would have to file ALL your FCRA claims together. The down side is they can delete your trade line and your claims are moot.

 

 

I have to give full credit to Equal_Opportunity_Offender. This letter would be weak and pathetic without "their" guidance!

 

Thrown in the trash huh? Interesting, because I used this format in combination with a DV against 4 CA's and in a matter of 2 to 3 weeks max they all rolled. Including LVNV - and I might add they zeroed out the alleged balance I owed them. None of them were out of SOL, and never were pursued any further after that.

 

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with informing an entity of what you are going to sue them for.

 

And as far as the TCPA it was my understanding the OP never furnished their cell phone so yes they are in violation even if no prior C & D was sent.

 

Did you miss the part where I stated LVNV said I owed them NOTHING? $0! Can I make that any more clear? So yes the debt was extinguished. I did not realize that I had to type each and every single detail of any collection I got rid of, and the exact terms. I will say however, I crushed a CA / lawfirm 2 times (I was being sued on 2 accounts with the same OC), using a similiar style partially into my answer picking off every FDCPA and FCRA violation. Guess what? They rolled before court, and agreed to not sell.

 

So do not tell me that I am chasing myself around in circles. I have yet to see one of these CA accounts sold off or sent back to the OC where I used this letter in combination with a DV.

A DV too in essense accomplishes the same exact thing, doesn't it? Debt could be sold off or sent back to the OC even with a DV. Are you going to tell everyone that sends a DV the same thing?

 

The OP's debt, it was to my understanding, is out of SOL. So what is the harm in getting this trade line removed from their CR's regardless of the methods used? Not everyone here is looking for money... They are just looking to get the CA gone.

 

Furthermore, the TCPA prohibits calls to cellular phones placed with an auto-dialer without the consumer's prior express consent. Basically if the CA obtained the cell number from another source that was not the OC [wherein the cell number was supplied to the OC by the consumer], the TCPA applies.

 

 

Ok, fair enough. My school of thought is, if you are going to voice an opinion against something, give a better solution. What do you propose, specifically, that I take out of the letter?

[nightster08]

Hello,

 

Are there any violations against midland in the way they are reporting this debt on my credit reports?

 

[BeachDweller]

It's far too long and demonstrates emotion. This is business for them, not personal, so keep your correspondence and interactions with them professional. If you plan to sue, then sue. An opponent's coach doesn't broadcast his plays to the opposing team before implementing them. They won't be swayed one way or another by your letter; they see thousands similar to it.

[Momof5]

Nightster,

 

1. create your own thread to get responses.

2. If you disputed with EX, they aren't noting it....

[graymidday]

Following