Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
walterg55

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

The lengthier, more specific a letter is, the less wiggle room they have on the BCC17 claims, which is where the real $$$ enter the equation if the matter goes to litigation. The hand is laid bare on the table from the get-go...a strong hand can be played face up.

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.

 

The lengthier, more specific a letter is, the less wiggle room they have on the BCC17 claims, which is where the real $$$ enter the equation if the matter goes to litigation. The hand is laid bare on the table from the get-go...a strong hand can be played face up.

 

Yeah, my original letter was 2 pages long. So then they claimed to not understand it, so I was basic and attached the original letter. Now they are bs'ing with the validation bc they don't have proper documentation, so I am telling them so and attaching the 2 previous letters. I think to any reasonable person, if they had it, they'd provide it, esp since we are talking about multiple accounts being disputed at the same time. I've been very clear in my denial and what I am requesting if they can't show proof. Since the accounts are so old, they are probably trying to get the OC to retrieve records if they even still have them. I'm thinking they are trying to bicker me to death lol via mail in hopes that I will just quit...

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.

 

The lengthier, more specific a letter is, the less wiggle room they have on the BCC17 claims, which is where the real $$$ enter the equation if the matter goes to litigation. The hand is laid bare on the table from the get-go...a strong hand can be played face up.

 

Yeah, my original letter was 2 pages long. So then they claimed to not understand it, so I was basic and attached the original letter. Now they are bs'ing with the validation bc they don't have proper documentation, so I am telling them so and attaching the 2 previous letters. I think to any reasonable person, if they had it, they'd provide it, esp since we are talking about multiple accounts being disputed at the same time. I've been very clear in my denial and what I am requesting if they can't show proof. Since the accounts are so old, they are probably trying to get the OC to retrieve records if they even still have them. I'm thinking they are trying to bicker me to death lol via mail in hopes that I will just quit...

 

But the original letter was wishy-washy. It did not adopt specific positions. It did not provide the specific items or events that MUST occur in order for the breach to have been cured.

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.

 

The lengthier, more specific a letter is, the less wiggle room they have on the BCC17 claims, which is where the real $$$ enter the equation if the matter goes to litigation. The hand is laid bare on the table from the get-go...a strong hand can be played face up.

 

Yeah, my original letter was 2 pages long. So then they claimed to not understand it, so I was basic and attached the original letter. Now they are bs'ing with the validation bc they don't have proper documentation, so I am telling them so and attaching the 2 previous letters. I think to any reasonable person, if they had it, they'd provide it, esp since we are talking about multiple accounts being disputed at the same time. I've been very clear in my denial and what I am requesting if they can't show proof. Since the accounts are so old, they are probably trying to get the OC to retrieve records if they even still have them. I'm thinking they are trying to bicker me to death lol via mail in hopes that I will just quit...

 

But the original letter was wishy-washy. It did not adopt specific positions. It did not provide the specific items or events that MUST occur in order for the breach to have been cured.

 

I only posted the first paragraph of the original letter, although I will say that adding the discussion of them reporting as a factoring company may have given them leverage to claim confusion. But the remainder of the letter was concise including everything mentioned in this thread.

 

Do you think that attaching the initial letter isn't enough? Even though I dispute the claim, state I want detailed documentation, and if not provided, want the TL deleted? In the second and third letter, I reiterate all 3 points, refer back to the initial letter, and cite the TFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think it may just be this CA, they are notorious for their nonsense. I haven't even heard back from the other 2 CA's I'm disputing, but DH got a letter from the UW of one of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would start over. You can make reference to the other letters, but relying on them just by attachment gains you little. DO NOT SHORT CUT MATTERS.

 

There is a reason I preach specificity and firing with both barrels. You want EVERYTHING out there so that the litigation can be set to go on day 60 without having to wait additional days to satisfy BCC17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I had already sent the letters. If they reply, I will start over...

 

The other CA that I dv'd still hasn't responded but they have updated my CR's to closed and OK through June then a 120 day late in July. They have about 13 more days to get their jollies off.

Edited by wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

 

DH's Pinnacle TL was deleted last Wed (per EXP backdoor), then received a letter from their attorney on Friday and UW on Saturday confirming that everything has been deleted and all matters closed!!

 

AFNI has not responded and their 30 day deadline was yesterday. I will be preparing and mailing ITS's today just to ensure that I cover all grounds for the BCC17.

 

After my last letters to AA (discussed in my last posts), I received 2 sets of letters - the first were from last week and stated that they are ordering the documentation that I requested. The second set came on Saturday with the same bs as their 1st letter (we don't understand what you are disputing, we need you to provide more information) but this time included a bolded statement saying that "since you requested no further communication,we will not be contacting you again", but I said do not contact me unless it relates to this matter. Their 30 day deadline is on Wednesday, so should I reply to their last letter, or just wait until Wednesday and send an ITS and note that I will be sending copies to the FTC and AG's office? Surely they don't want any additional heat from the FTC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFNI has not responded and their 30 day deadline was yesterday. I will be preparing and mailing ITS's today just to ensure that I cover all grounds for the BCC17.

 

don't send it unless you mean it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFNI has not responded and their 30 day deadline was yesterday. I will be preparing and mailing ITS's today just to ensure that I cover all grounds for the BCC17.

 

don't send it unless you mean it.

 

 

Would you mind posting your ITS letter, or an outline.. in my case CA failed to validate in 30days, I mailed/called bond holder but am stuck..

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UPDATE:

 

DH's Pinnacle TL was deleted last Wed (per EXP backdoor), then received a letter from their attorney on Friday and UW on Saturday confirming that everything has been deleted and all matters closed!!

 

AFNI has not responded and their 30 day deadline was yesterday. I will be preparing and mailing ITS's today just to ensure that I cover all grounds for the BCC17.

 

After my last letters to AA (discussed in my last posts), I received 2 sets of letters - the first were from last week and stated that they are ordering the documentation that I requested. The second set came on Saturday with the same bs as their 1st letter (we don't understand what you are disputing, we need you to provide more information) but this time included a bolded statement saying that "since you requested no further communication,we will not be contacting you again", but I said do not contact me unless it relates to this matter. Their 30 day deadline is on Wednesday, so should I reply to their last letter, or just wait until Wednesday and send an ITS and note that I will be sending copies to the FTC and AG's office? Surely they don't want any additional heat from the FTC...

 

of course, yesterday was also a Sunday which meant there was no mail delivery...and Texas tends to be a 'first business day after expiry' jurisdiction.

 

The FTC really won't care about violations of State law. And if you included allegations of federal statute, then you missed what the Texas plan is all about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UPDATE:

 

DH's Pinnacle TL was deleted last Wed (per EXP backdoor), then received a letter from their attorney on Friday and UW on Saturday confirming that everything has been deleted and all matters closed!!

 

AFNI has not responded and their 30 day deadline was yesterday. I will be preparing and mailing ITS's today just to ensure that I cover all grounds for the BCC17.

 

After my last letters to AA (discussed in my last posts), I received 2 sets of letters - the first were from last week and stated that they are ordering the documentation that I requested. The second set came on Saturday with the same bs as their 1st letter (we don't understand what you are disputing, we need you to provide more information) but this time included a bolded statement saying that "since you requested no further communication,we will not be contacting you again", but I said do not contact me unless it relates to this matter. Their 30 day deadline is on Wednesday, so should I reply to their last letter, or just wait until Wednesday and send an ITS and note that I will be sending copies to the FTC and AG's office? Surely they don't want any additional heat from the FTC...

 

of course, yesterday was also a Sunday which meant there was no mail delivery...and Texas tends to be a 'first business day after expiry' jurisdiction.

 

The FTC really won't care about violations of State law. And if you included allegations of federal statute, then you missed what the Texas plan is all about...

 

I thought about the Sunday delivery after I posted it, so I just typed them up for Wednesday if AFNI doesn't respond today.

 

I don't plan the mention federal laws, I thought that with the FTC being on AA's back already, it may help to send them a copy of everything that's going on. But, will doing so allow AA to argue that I was trying to invoke federal law in addition to TX law, thereby allowing them to move the case if it gets that far? Bc if it muddies the waters at all, I will just leave it out. They have given me headache enough.

Edited by wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFNI has not responded and their 30 day deadline was yesterday. I will be preparing and mailing ITS's today just to ensure that I cover all grounds for the BCC17.

 

don't send it unless you mean it.

 

I just saw this...

 

I don't want to, but I knew when I started this particular process that it was a potential outcome. AFNI has completely ignored my request, so I have to be a big girl and take their a** to court lol!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFNI has not responded and their 30 day deadline was yesterday. I will be preparing and mailing ITS's today just to ensure that I cover all grounds for the BCC17.

 

don't send it unless you mean it.

 

I just saw this...

 

I don't want to, but I knew when I started this particular process that it was a potential outcome. AFNI has completely ignored my request, so I have to be a big girl and take their a** to court lol!!!

 

Sent ITS to AFNI on Fri, they received the letter yesterday and it's gone this am....WOOT lol!!! Now it's time to face the monster lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that I thought I knew a little bit about DV'ing and the 1-2 punch. After spending most of the work day reading all 31 pages of this thread I can say what I learned today has been priceless. I have pretty much a clear means of attack. I just need to pull my credit report since I haven't seen it in at least 4 years or so.

 

Centex, Walter, and the others I really appreciate the help and just the decency you all have to help out others. Any one can have the knowledge, but to inform others and ensure that they understand is a very kind thing to do. My bookmarks are full of reference material and websites to get me to where I need to be.

 

Thanks again everyone. Let's continue to help fellow Texans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must say that I thought I knew a little bit about DV'ing and the 1-2 punch. After spending most of the work day reading all 31 pages of this thread I can say what I learned today has been priceless. I have pretty much a clear means of attack. I just need to pull my credit report since I haven't seen it in at least 4 years or so.

 

Centex, Walter, and the others I really appreciate the help and just the decency you all have to help out others. Any one can have the knowledge, but to inform others and ensure that they understand is a very kind thing to do. My bookmarks are full of reference material and websites to get me to where I need to be.

 

Thanks again everyone. Let's continue to help fellow Texans out.

 

 

I agree x 1,000 lol!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can this be used to dispute accounts IIB, or are those presumed validated bc they were included in the BK? even though they may have only been included with the proverbial kitchen sink?

Edited by wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FINALLY.

 

TFC Worked - CA#1

 

CA decided to give up after many talks with bond holder, and emailing the Texas AG, and FTC.

They said my account is deleted in their office and returned to OC..

 

FYI - The bondholder says there are 14+ others filing for this CA's single 10,000 bond and if we win it is shared amongst us all?

 

I assume that since they have removed the item from CB's (2/3 at least ) I am no longer able to claim my part of damages from bond?

 

*****************

 

 

CA#2 - Last hit on credit.

 

EX reporting a paid collection (which was not paid) from a CA in NJ.

The CA does NOT have an active bond in TX - per https://direct.sos.state.tx.us/debtcollectors/DCSearch.asp

 

So... If I know the bond is not any good how should I handle this one?

 

 

Principal Name: Core Collection Company Inc # 1

Address: 3111 Route 38 Suite 11-287

Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-

File Number: 20030222

Status: Canceled Close File

Date Filed: 12/16/2003

Cancellation Date: 3/17/2005

Phone:

Bonding Company: Farmington Casualty Company

Bond No: 00104156018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that it is showing as paid means there is no active collection going on. As such, the lack of bond is not an issue. My guess is that it goes away with a competent written dispute that contains specific language regarding the dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that it is showing as paid means there is no active collection going on. As such, the lack of bond is not an issue. My guess is that it goes away with a competent written dispute that contains specific language regarding the dispute.

 

 

Maybe something like this:

 

**************

 

 

CORE COLLECT

871 POMPTON AVE # A1

CEDAR GROVE, NJ 07009

 

Re: Account # XXXXXXXXX

 

 

CORE COLLECT,

 

This letter sent to you on September 2nd, 2010 via certified mail with a return receipt is my demand for full legal and complete validation of your claim. As I am a Texas resident, I make these demands per Chapter 392 of the Texas Finance Code.

 

Debt collection attempts for Texas residents requires an active bond per Texas Finance Code.

The Texas Attorney General has been copied to notify them of your practices which violate TFC statues as you do not have an active bond.

 

If you are unable to provide written validation within 30 days from the receipt of this letter or you require more than 30 days time to provide validation, then you must cease all collection efforts, remove this and all tradelines from any credit bureau reported to and will also delete and close this file with your agency.

 

In addition, please make all communications regarding this matter to me in writing as it is inconvenient to contact me by any other method.

 

Sincerely,

 

me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that it is showing as paid means there is no active collection going on. As such, the lack of bond is not an issue. My guess is that it goes away with a competent written dispute that contains specific language regarding the dispute.

 

 

Maybe something like this:

 

**************

 

 

CORE COLLECT

871 POMPTON AVE # A1

CEDAR GROVE, NJ 07009

 

Re: Account # XXXXXXXXX

 

 

CORE COLLECT,

 

This letter sent to you on September 2nd, 2010 via certified mail with a return receipt is my demand for full legal and complete validation of your claim. As I am a Texas resident, I make these demands per Chapter 392 of the Texas Finance Code.

 

Debt collection attempts for Texas residents requires an active bond per Texas Finance Code.

The Texas Attorney General has been copied to notify them of your practices which violate TFC statues as you do not have an active bond.

 

If you are unable to provide written validation within 30 days from the receipt of this letter or you require more than 30 days time to provide validation, then you must cease all collection efforts, remove this and all tradelines from any credit bureau reported to and will also delete and close this file with your agency.

 

In addition, please make all communications regarding this matter to me in writing as it is inconvenient to contact me by any other method.

 

Sincerely,

 

me

 

I would leave the bond issues out of it at this juncture...they are not seeking to collect anything from you, so the present status of the bond is meaningless. Further, the issues of validation are marginal at best on a claim that shows to be paid.

 

If you never disputed anything else with them, I would be inclined to approach it from the unknown entry standpoint...in other words, you saw their TL and are trying to determine what in the hell it stems from.

 

As there IS no present debt claimed to be due and owing, there ARE no collection efforts to cease. You need to step back and properly assess what you are doing with this matter. It is very different from an open claim and must be handled differently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can this be used to dispute accounts IIB, or are those presumed validated bc they were included in the BK? even though they may have only been included with the proverbial kitchen sink?

 

 

And would them being listed as "disputed" on the BK forms have any bearing on future disputes under the TFC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exact section of the BCC17 would be used against a CA thtat failed to validate?

 

A violation of TFC is specifically and statutorily a deceptive trade practice, which is covered in BCC17.

 

That being said, there is no absolute need to 'validate,' but there is an incumbent obligation to DO SOMETHING within the 30 days provided that one has actually disputed the matter...

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.

Sign in to follow this  




  • 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