Jump to content

walterg55

Texas law seems to require CA to Delete if They fail to Respond to DV

Recommended Posts

I don't see what is so vague about anything I submitted. Looks fairly SPECIFIC to me. Validity of the debt is not vague, either it's valid or not, correct?

and WHY is the validity in question? Was it paid? Was it identity theft? Was it other fraud?

 

But since you seem not to appreciate the comment that it was vague, then good luck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mailed a letter to the Bond holder earlier this year where the CA was unable to provide proper validation within 30 calendar days.

The CA failed to validate both DV letters sent CMRR earlier this year.

 

Last week the BondHolder called me to figure out what I wanted done with this. My letter stated that I wanted them to avoid pursuing the bond (so they were waiting for me I guess).

 

 

Anyway I explained the situation to the Bond Holder and she asked me to provide my damages

 

Reason put claim on bond = 1. Get this crap off CR's

Bond amount = $10,000

My Damages = The cost of much higher interest rates I will pay on 2 mortgages I am trying to refi right now. (working on this number), anything else I should claim as damages?

 

This debt is from 2003 or 2004, well outside the SOL for my state.

 

**********

Questions:

 

1. Should I even be talking to the Bondholder, whose side is he really on anyway? (Also there are multiple claims against this bond and appearantly the $10,00 is for all claims. So if 3 of us win a claim against it we split it?

 

2. Is this worth the effort, does this go to court or just decided at the bonding office?

 

3. The CA is sending the Bond holder some kind of proof they validated the debt (how is that possible, all the crap they sent me *Which was outside of 30 days* was not CMRR so they have no proof of when they sent anything?)

 

 

 

 

Thanks all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim against bond is once you have a judgment in hand...the point of putting them into the mix from the get-go is to put them on notice of a claim that has the potential to adversely impact their insured (the CA/JDB). Ideally what one is seeking to do is articuate GOOD facts and get the underwriter to review the courtesy copy, get with their insured and basically say 'see if you can make this go away.'

 

The problem I see all too often is that people want to send the written equivalent of pussyfooting around instead of firing with ALL barrels from the very first letter (which is basically a requirement anyhow in order to seek the trebling of damages under BCC17 in an expeditious fashion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just received a letter from one of the UW's for DH. They are asking him to fill out an "Affidavit of Claim" that is requesting documentation, and damage amounts. Do we fill it out or just contact them that we haven't filed a calim yet, but were just notifying them of what was going on.

 

And as far as documentation goes, isn't proof that the CA NOT responding and or deleting the real documentation that would be used in court? In other words, they didnt respond or delete like I asked them to, then they did not cure it within 60 days so I am suing and here's the proof that they didn't do what I asked them to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When filing in court in your home county, you start with the Justice Court (Justice of the Peace) or County Court?

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We just received a letter from one of the UW's for DH. They are asking him to fill out an "Affidavit of Claim" that is requesting documentation, and damage amounts. Do we fill it out or just contact them that we haven't filed a calim yet, but were just notifying them of what was going on.

 

I would call and discuss the matter with whoever signed their cover letter...let them know it was informational in nature but you were hoping that having them in the loop would aid in effecting a resolution between the parties.

 

And as far as documentation goes, isn't proof that the CA NOT responding and or deleting the real documentation that would be used in court? In other words, they didnt respond or delete like I asked them to, then they did not cure it within 60 days so I am suing and here's the proof that they didn't do what I asked them to...

 

Provided that there has been NO response, then yes, the lack of response or action would form a significant basis upon which the litigation would rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When filing in court in your home county, you start with the Justice Court (Justice of the Peace) or County Court?

 

I would file NO LOWER than County Court if it were me...at least then you know you get real judges with a real law degree and Bar card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We just received a letter from one of the UW's for DH. They are asking him to fill out an "Affidavit of Claim" that is requesting documentation, and damage amounts. Do we fill it out or just contact them that we haven't filed a calim yet, but were just notifying them of what was going on.

 

I would call and discuss the matter with whoever signed their cover letter...let them know it was informational in nature but you were hoping that having them in the loop would aid in effecting a resolution between the parties.

 

And as far as documentation goes, isn't proof that the CA NOT responding and or deleting the real documentation that would be used in court? In other words, they didnt respond or delete like I asked them to, then they did not cure it within 60 days so I am suing and here's the proof that they didn't do what I asked them to...

 

Provided that there has been NO response, then yes, the lack of response or action would form a significant basis upon which the litigation would rest...

 

ok, thanks for the response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When filing in court in your home county, you start with the Justice Court (Justice of the Peace) or County Court?

 

I would file NO LOWER than County Court if it were me...at least then you know you get real judges with a real law degree and Bar card.

 

Makes sense, Thanks centex. Appreciate your help always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I received my first response(s) yesterday all from the same CA. They have taken an interesting approach, here is part of what they wrote:

 

Dear WOW,

 

We received your correspondence regarding an inaccuracy in our records relating to the above referenced account. We reviewed the information you provided, as well as our account notes, and the information provided by the original creditor.

 

This letter is to inform you we are presently unable to determine the nature of your dispute and we deny or records are inaccurate.

 

If you still have reason to believe the information is inaccurate, please provide an explanation of why it is inaccurate, as well as any supporting documentation.

 

 

This is the "dispute" part of my letter that I sent to them:

 

I recently reviewed my Experian, Equifax/CSC, and Trans Union Credit Reports and noted that your company had placed an adverse account entry on my credit reports. Your offices are reporting an outstanding balance in the amount of $XXX, with the above account number appearing in the credit report. I am likewise aware that your company is a collection agency and not a factoring company. It is also under my knowledge that I do not have any previous obligations written or otherwise to pay your agency this alleged debt that you have noted. I nonetheless maintain the position that there are no amounts due or owing to you or to any other entity in the claimed amount.

 

I then went on to specifically ask for detailed contractual documentation of the debt between me and them including my signature that I owe them.

 

I'm not sure how much clearer I could be, I am disputing that I owe you, so in order for you to satisfy this dispute, I need you to provide me documentation that I agreed that I owe you. I also stated in the letter that I would not be sending in information.

 

They are reporting multiple accounts for me. I received 2 envelopes, in one, it had the same letter as above for 2 separate accounts, both "signed" by the same person. In the second envelope, it had the letter above, but with a different letter for the same account, each signed by a different person. The second letter stated:

 

Please be advised that documents to support our claim in connection with the above account have been ordered and will be forwarded to you upon receipt in this office.

 

I feel like "I said what I had to say" and that they are using stall tactics to see if I am serious. Judging from the second envelope's letters, it's pretty clear they don't have any documentation regardless. From what I've taken from this thread, I should not respond to the CA just wait and see if they leave it at that, but perhaps give a call to the UW to give a gentle nudge.

 

Oh, and they signed the green cards on 7/19/10 but my MPM is showing that they reported to the CRA's on 7/22/10 and the letter is dated 7/25/10. So, I'm pretty sure that's continued collections.

 

Comments?

Edited by wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I received my first response(s) yesterday all from the same CA. They have taken an interesting approach, here is part of what they wrote:

 

Dear WOW,

 

We received your correspondence regarding an inaccuracy in our records relating to the above referenced account. We reviewed the information you provided, as well as our account notes, and the information provided by the original creditor.

 

This letter is to inform you we are presently unable to determine the nature of your dispute and we deny or records are inaccurate.

 

If you still have reason to believe the information is inaccurate, please provide an explanation of why it is inaccurate, as well as any supporting documentation.

 

 

This is the "dispute" part of my letter that I sent to them:

 

I recently reviewed my Experian, Equifax/CSC, and Trans Union Credit Reports and noted that your company had placed an adverse account entry on my credit reports. Your offices are reporting an outstanding balance in the amount of $XXX, with the above account number appearing in the credit report. I am likewise aware that your company is a collection agency and not a factoring company. It is also under my knowledge that I do not have any previous obligations written or otherwise to pay your agency this alleged debt that you have noted. I nonetheless maintain the position that there are no amounts due or owing to you or to any other entity in the claimed amount.

 

My guess is that they construed it as typical debtor-speak where there was not a true denial of having ever held the underlying account. In other words, you got a little too cute in your wording and have now created a need to BE MORE SPECIFIC in a follow-up.

 

I then went on to specifically ask for detailed contractual documentation of the debt between me and them including my signature that I owe them.

 

I'm not sure how much clearer I could be, I am disputing that I owe you, so in order for you to satisfy this dispute, I need you to provide me documentation that I agreed that I owe you. I also stated in the letter that I would not be sending in information.

 

You asked for documents that are not required, even under Texas law, to be provided outside of litigation. Further, your syntax comes across as having the potential to be interpreted as "I might owe someone, but that someone ain't you...nyah nyah nyah."

 

They are reporting multiple accounts for me. I received 2 envelopes, in one, it had the same letter as above for 2 separate accounts, both "signed" by the same person. In the second envelope, it had the letter above, but with a different letter for the same account, each signed by a different person. The second letter stated:

 

Please be advised that documents to support our claim in connection with the above account have been ordered and will be forwarded to you upon receipt in this office.

 

I feel like "I said what I had to say" and that they are using stall tactics to see if I am serious. Judging from the second envelope's letters, it's pretty clear they don't have any documentation regardless. From what I've taken from this thread, I should not respond to the CA just wait and see if they leave it at that, but perhaps give a call to the UW to give a gentle nudge.

 

Oh, and they signed the green cards on 7/19/10 but my MPM is showing that they reported to the CRA's on 7/22/10 and the letter is dated 7/25/10. So, I'm pretty sure that's continued collections.

 

Comments?

 

Unless this was something disputed within the original thirty days, I don't see an issue with continued collections. Further, I would URGE being EXPLICITY SPECIFIC in a follow-up that contains a copy of the original letter with the relevant portions highlighted. This protects the claim under BCC17 because it then helps in showing gross negligence for the purposes of the trebling in a TxDTPA claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I received my first response(s) yesterday all from the same CA. They have taken an interesting approach, here is part of what they wrote:

 

Dear WOW,

 

We received your correspondence regarding an inaccuracy in our records relating to the above referenced account. We reviewed the information you provided, as well as our account notes, and the information provided by the original creditor.

 

This letter is to inform you we are presently unable to determine the nature of your dispute and we deny or records are inaccurate.

 

If you still have reason to believe the information is inaccurate, please provide an explanation of why it is inaccurate, as well as any supporting documentation.

 

 

This is the "dispute" part of my letter that I sent to them:

 

I recently reviewed my Experian, Equifax/CSC, and Trans Union Credit Reports and noted that your company had placed an adverse account entry on my credit reports. Your offices are reporting an outstanding balance in the amount of $XXX, with the above account number appearing in the credit report. I am likewise aware that your company is a collection agency and not a factoring company. It is also under my knowledge that I do not have any previous obligations written or otherwise to pay your agency this alleged debt that you have noted. I nonetheless maintain the position that there are no amounts due or owing to you or to any other entity in the claimed amount.

 

My guess is that they construed it as typical debtor-speak where there was not a true denial of having ever held the underlying account. In other words, you got a little too cute in your wording and have now created a need to BE MORE SPECIFIC in a follow-up.

 

I then went on to specifically ask for detailed contractual documentation of the debt between me and them including my signature that I owe them.

 

I'm not sure how much clearer I could be, I am disputing that I owe you, so in order for you to satisfy this dispute, I need you to provide me documentation that I agreed that I owe you. I also stated in the letter that I would not be sending in information.

 

You asked for documents that are not required, even under Texas law, to be provided outside of litigation. Further, your syntax comes across as having the potential to be interpreted as "I might owe someone, but that someone ain't you...nyah nyah nyah."

 

They are reporting multiple accounts for me. I received 2 envelopes, in one, it had the same letter as above for 2 separate accounts, both "signed" by the same person. In the second envelope, it had the letter above, but with a different letter for the same account, each signed by a different person. The second letter stated:

 

Please be advised that documents to support our claim in connection with the above account have been ordered and will be forwarded to you upon receipt in this office.

 

I feel like "I said what I had to say" and that they are using stall tactics to see if I am serious. Judging from the second envelope's letters, it's pretty clear they don't have any documentation regardless. From what I've taken from this thread, I should not respond to the CA just wait and see if they leave it at that, but perhaps give a call to the UW to give a gentle nudge.

 

Oh, and they signed the green cards on 7/19/10 but my MPM is showing that they reported to the CRA's on 7/22/10 and the letter is dated 7/25/10. So, I'm pretty sure that's continued collections.

 

Comments?

 

Unless this was something disputed within the original thirty days, I don't see an issue with continued collections. Further, I would URGE being EXPLICITY SPECIFIC in a follow-up that contains a copy of the original letter with the relevant portions highlighted. This protects the claim under BCC17 because it then helps in showing gross negligence for the purposes of the trebling in a TxDTPA claim.

 

So if I can't request the only documentation that will prove that I owe them, how can I have it validated? Should I to ask them for the contract they have with the OC that allows them to claim that they are a "factoring company" i.e. collecting for the OC (even though the OC is reporting the debt as sold), in addition to the original contrac that I would have had with the OC if this debt is truly mine?

 

Basically send them a letter that states:

"I dispute that I owe you any money for any debt. Please validate this debt by providing the following:

 

1. Documentation that your company is factoring company for the Original Creditor.

 

2. Documentation that I had a debt with the Original Creditor to be collected upon. "

 

And also remind them that the clock is ticking on the 30 days under the TFC and re-reference the TxDTPA. Or does the 30 days re-start because of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of factoring has nothing to do with the underlying debt. You need to cut the legs out from under the debt. Everything else is fluff to be decided in litigation what damages attach...

 

My argument would be that neither the 30-day TFC clock nor the 60-day BCC17 clock begin anew...

 

FOCUS ON THE BALL IN PLAY...don't try to play word games with them. In other words, DO NOT COME ACROSS as the typical deadbeat. They get enough Cunningham's on a daily basis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue of factoring has nothing to do with the underlying debt. You need to cut the legs out from under the debt. Everything else is fluff to be decided in litigation what damages attach...

 

My argument would be that neither the 30-day TFC clock nor the 60-day BCC17 clock begin anew...

 

FOCUS ON THE BALL IN PLAY...don't try to play word games with them. In other words, DO NOT COME ACROSS as the typical deadbeat. They get enough Cunningham's on a daily basis...

 

 

Ok, I thought that would establish that they have no relationshipto collect on any debt that I may or may not have owed to anyone else in addition to not owing them and the amount being incorrect.

 

So I guess I will just state "I do not owe you or any other company the debt that you are claiming that I owe. I am requesting that you provide detailed and accurate documentation that I owe this debt. Please refer to my previous letter (attached)."

Edited by wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue of factoring has nothing to do with the underlying debt. You need to cut the legs out from under the debt. Everything else is fluff to be decided in litigation what damages attach...

 

My argument would be that neither the 30-day TFC clock nor the 60-day BCC17 clock begin anew...

 

FOCUS ON THE BALL IN PLAY...don't try to play word games with them. In other words, DO NOT COME ACROSS as the typical deadbeat. They get enough Cunningham's on a daily basis...

 

 

Ok, I thought that would establish that they have no relationshipto collect on any debt that I may or may not have owed to anyone else in addition to not owing them and the amount being incorrect.

 

So I guess I will just state "I do not owe you or any other company the debt that you are claiming that I owe. I am requesting that you provide detailed and accurate documentation that I owe this debt. Please refer to my previous letter (attached)."

 

 

The fact that you keep including MAY OR MAY NOT sends the mixed signal. You need to be unquivocable in your language...that in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, they are seeking to collect on a matter that is not owed.

 

The more you give wobbly-chair language, the more difficult it will be to resolve your issues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue of factoring has nothing to do with the underlying debt. You need to cut the legs out from under the debt. Everything else is fluff to be decided in litigation what damages attach...

 

My argument would be that neither the 30-day TFC clock nor the 60-day BCC17 clock begin anew...

 

FOCUS ON THE BALL IN PLAY...don't try to play word games with them. In other words, DO NOT COME ACROSS as the typical deadbeat. They get enough Cunningham's on a daily basis...

 

 

Ok, I thought that would establish that they have no relationshipto collect on any debt that I may or may not have owed to anyone else in addition to not owing them and the amount being incorrect.

 

So I guess I will just state "I do not owe you or any other company the debt that you are claiming that I owe. I am requesting that you provide detailed and accurate documentation that I owe this debt. Please refer to my previous letter (attached)."

 

 

The fact that you keep including MAY OR MAY NOT sends the mixed signal. You need to be unquivocable in your language...that in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, they are seeking to collect on a matter that is not owed.

 

The more you give wobbly-chair language, the more difficult it will be to resolve your issues...

 

Ok, now I see where you are coming from - the more they think I'm playing with them, the more they will play with me...

 

Thanks for the input as always!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason I likened my approach to coming in through the front door and unloading both barrels of a shotgun...I wanted the matter resolved and I wanted it resolved NOW! And by the time they were done reviewing my rather lengthy letters, they KNEW what they faced if the matter moved to litigation...ALL the cards were face up on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol! It's my first round of disputes, but I'm sure I will be way bolder by the end of it all...I just have to look at it like, it's out of legal SOL, it's killing my score, costing me money, so I need to be balls to the wall bc I have nothing to lose lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol! It's my first round of disputes, but I'm sure I will be way bolder by the end of it all...I just have to look at it like, it's out of legal SOL, it's killing my score, costing me money, so I need to be balls to the wall bc I have nothing to lose lol!

 

They are used to debtors playing footsie with them...they tend not to know what to do with a full frontal assault that lets them know you are mad as hell and you are not going to take it any more...

 

It is amazing the results one can achieve when the game-playing stops...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

I am trying to keep my threads in one place here:

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=443720

 

I have some questions regarding a NON PP from an OC I had a debt with in 2005. I have a few questions in that thread that I really need help with. I live in TX and am a TX resident.

 

If you guys could look in on my thread I really need some help and input. I am open to any and all critiquing either positive or negative. I have a letter ready to go out but lack the knowledge as to which laws are stronger.

 

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

I sent out my very specific, 4 line letters with original letters attached on Friday. Then on Saturday, I received letters from the same CA for each TL "validating" the debt by enclosing a sheet with the OC name, account number, and supposed debt amount typed on their (CA) company letterhead.

 

I know that centex said that what I originally asked for (a copy of a contract that I signed with them) isn't required by law for validation purposes, but surely this isn't enough...I am going to send another round telling them they need to provide more than that...

 

It looks like the first letters they sent me denying the inaccuracies (I guess they know the TFC too lol) and asking for more specifics was just to buy time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Update:

 

I sent out my very specific, 4 line letters with original letters attached on Friday. Then on Saturday, I received letters from the same CA for each TL "validating" the debt by enclosing a sheet with the OC name, account number, and supposed debt amount typed on their (CA) company letterhead.

 

I know that centex said that what I originally asked for (a copy of a contract that I signed with them) isn't required by law for validation purposes, but surely this isn't enough...I am going to send another round telling them they need to provide more than that...

 

It looks like the first letters they sent me denying the inaccuracies (I guess they know the TFC too lol) and asking for more specifics was just to buy time.

 

I'm about to send responses out. I probably shouldv'e started with an easier CA :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Update:

 

I sent out my very specific, 4 line letters with original letters attached on Friday. Then on Saturday, I received letters from the same CA for each TL "validating" the debt by enclosing a sheet with the OC name, account number, and supposed debt amount typed on their (CA) company letterhead.

 

I know that centex said that what I originally asked for (a copy of a contract that I signed with them) isn't required by law for validation purposes, but surely this isn't enough...I am going to send another round telling them they need to provide more than that...

 

It looks like the first letters they sent me denying the inaccuracies (I guess they know the TFC too lol) and asking for more specifics was just to buy time.

 

I'm about to send responses out. I probably shouldv'e started with an easier CA :lol:

 

 

Four line letters are rarely what I put in the "very specific" category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Update:

 

I sent out my very specific, 4 line letters with original letters attached on Friday. Then on Saturday, I received letters from the same CA for each TL "validating" the debt by enclosing a sheet with the OC name, account number, and supposed debt amount typed on their (CA) company letterhead.

 

I know that centex said that what I originally asked for (a copy of a contract that I signed with them) isn't required by law for validation purposes, but surely this isn't enough...I am going to send another round telling them they need to provide more than that...

 

It looks like the first letters they sent me denying the inaccuracies (I guess they know the TFC too lol) and asking for more specifics was just to buy time.

 

I'm about to send responses out. I probably shouldv'e started with an easier CA :lol:

 

 

Four line letters are rarely what I put in the "very specific" category.

 

Not literally lol. But I did try and keep it very basic since they claimed they did not understand. This was just a way to stall I think because I had received the non-validation a day later. I'm about to send off the improper validation now, and I'm thinking that's it. I'm not going back and forth with them anymore if they refuse to cooperate at that point.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.





  • Today's Birthdays

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      178,211
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    shakil.mebkhouti44
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines