Gurus... THIS ONES FOR YOU!!! Palisades!!

[Tinker_Bell]

And the beat goes on.... response from Palisades...

 

Original thread:

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...1210&highlight=

 

Got a letter from Palisades, I will post below. In their letter they say their response was "timely." Hmmm... response to DV was dated in January, but postmarked in March and I have envelope to prove it!!

 

Here's their letter... please pick apart. lol Not sure if I should respond to them... have appointment with atty in 3 weeks, so thinking I should let this lay.

 

Dear XXXXX,

 

We are writing in response to your most recent letter dated July XX, 2004, received in our office on August XX, 2004. Your original letter dated December XX, 2003 was received in our office on January XX, 2004.

 

The following information on the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act is being provided in response to the demands outlined in your letter dated July XX, 2004.

 

When congress enacted the FDCPA or Fair Debt Collection Pracitices Act, they did not intend to either prevent or even seriously burden legitimate efforts of third party debt collectors, but rather intended to prevent abuse, some of which was quite flagrant. The Federal Trade Commission, who oversees the complaince of the FDCPA, recognizes this. In its official commentary on Section 809 it states that this part of the law is "intended to assist the consumer when a debt collector inadvertantly contacts the wrong consumer at the start of collection efforts." This interpretation of the FDCPA dates back as far as 1986 in a Federal Trade Commission informal staff letter written by Glover on June 23, 1986.

 

In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated in Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d (4th Cir. 1999) that "Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming owed. The debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." Consistent with legislative history, "verification is only intended to eliminate the problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid."

 

Please note that Palisades Collection promptly responded to your original letter dated December XX, 2003 wherein you request that we validate the above mentioned debt. In our letter dated January XX, 2004 (letter was postmarked mid-March) (see enclosed), we listed the name of the original creditor, date the account was opened, type of account, charge-off date and the charge-off amount so as to verify and validate the above mentioned accounts as per FDCPA regulations. Therefore, the items that you have requested in your letter dated July XX, 2004, are not required and will not be provided.

 

As a courtesy, we informed you in our letter dated January XX, 2004 that we will order copies of credit card statements and the credit card application. In March of 2004, we sent you copies of the credit card statements for your review (see enclosed). Providian Bank has informed us that the credit card application is no longer available.

 

Please note that these statements were mailed by Providian Bank to the address you still currently use to this day. Also please note that a payment was made on the account. Typically, a person who commits fraud against another does not make payments on the account. The enclosed statements reflect at least one payment in the amount of $30.00.

 

If you are claiming not to be the same XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX who has been receiving mail at XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX Road, XXX, MI XXXXX, a copy of your driver's license and social security card would be needed to verify your identity. If you claim that this debt has been paid, proof of payment will be required, as we are unable to verify something that neither we nor Providian has record of. If you are indeed the same XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX and have not paid this claim, we have validated this debt under 15 USC 1692 in accordance to the various rulings set forth.

 

If you should have any further questions, please contact our customer service department at XXXXXX Monday through Thursday... blah... blah

 

Sincerely,

 

Palisades

[radi8]

In our letter dated January XX, 2004 (letter was postmarked mid-March) (see enclosed), we listed the name of the original creditor, date the account was opened, type of account, charge-off date and the charge-off amount so as to verify and validate the above mentioned accounts as per FDCPA regulations. Therefore, the items that you have requested in your letter dated July XX, 2004, are not required and will not be provided

 

unfortunately, they did NOT meet the state of Michigan requirements to list the date and amount of each and every payment made to the account.

Therefore, Michigan's prohibition on continued collection is still in force.

[georgiaboy]

Sounds like an attempt to collect a debt without the proper notifications.

[Tinker_Bell]

In our letter dated January XX, 2004 (letter was postmarked mid-March) (see enclosed), we listed the name of the original creditor, date the account was opened, type of account, charge-off date and the charge-off amount so as to verify and validate the above mentioned accounts as per FDCPA regulations. Therefore, the items that you have requested in your letter dated July XX, 2004, are not required and will not be provided

 

unfortunately, they did NOT meet the state of Michigan requirements to list the date and amount of each and every payment made to the account.

Therefore, Michigan's prohibition on continued collection is still in force.

 

Do the MI laws apply here? Their client (Providian) is not located in Michigan. Palisades is not in Michigan. Only I am in Michigan!! I thought that the client had to me in Michigan to have to follow the Michigan laws.

 

I know, I know... I have read over the MI info a millions times, but STILL do not totally "get it." I am still very confused about *when* MI laws apply!!

 

Thanks, Radi. Sure addy we see in a few weeks will love reading their letter!!

[Tinker_Bell]

Sounds like an attempt to collect a debt without the proper notifications.

 

Yep... and I don't think their 4th circuit decision means an thing here in the 6th circuit. They pulled a hard inquiry 3 weeks ago.. probably decided it wasn't worth it (debt is only $600) and now they are trying to call my bluff to get me to pay. Thing is.. we disagree with the amount of the debt and they haven't shown how they've come to the amount.

[Tinker_Bell]

You know what else is funny... their letter came regular mail. At the top of the letter is says that it was mailed both 1st class, and another one mailed CRRR and they have the tracking number. So, I go to USPS and try to track the number. There is no record for that tracking number, which was supposedly mailed 5 days ago!!

[SassyinAz]

And the beat goes on.... response from Palisades...

 

Original thread:

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...1210&highlight=

 

Got a letter from Palisades, I will post below. In their letter they say their response was "timely." Hmmm... response to DV was dated in January, but postmarked in March and I have envelope to prove it!!

When you sent your validation request what was it in response to -- a letter or the entry on your reports?

 

Importantly, which validation letter did you send them, can you link or type it out?

 

Here's their letter... please pick apart. lol Not sure if I should respond to them... have appointment with atty in 3 weeks, so thinking I should let this lay.

 

Dear XXXXX,

 

We are writing in response to your most recent letter dated July XX, 2004, received in our office on August XX, 2004. Your original letter dated December XX, 2003 was received in our office on January XX, 2004.

What was your letter of July xx (your linked thread doesn’t say -- only investigation results in that timeframe from the CRA’s?

 

What was your December letter (also not in the linked thread)?

 

The following information on the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act is being provided in response to the demands outlined in your letter dated July XX, 2004.

What did this letter from you say?

 

All these acknowledgments of your letters are good -- means since the earliest one they should have communicated to the CRA’s that the information was disputed (if already reporting) and I noticed on your linked thread that to date that hasn’t happened. That’s the FTC’s Cass letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm

 

When congress enacted the FDCPA or Fair Debt Collection Pracitices Act, they did not intend to either prevent or even seriously burden legitimate efforts of third party debt collectors, but rather intended to prevent abuse, some of which was quite flagrant. The Federal Trade Commission, who oversees the complaince of the FDCPA, recognizes this. In its official commentary on Section 809 it states that this part of the law is "intended to assist the consumer when a debt collector inadvertantly contacts the wrong consumer at the start of collection efforts." This interpretation of the FDCPA dates back as far as 1986 in a Federal Trade Commission informal staff letter written by Glover on June 23, 1986.

Here’s the referenced commentary: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/commentary.htm

 

The commentary has been supplemented (though not officially updated) via court opinions and FTC Staff Opinion letters -- notably applicable is the Wollman letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/lette...ers/wollman.htm which says the purpose is broader:

 

…Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor.

 

And, from the SAME commentary:

 

4. Advisory opinions. A party may act in reliance on a formal advisory opinion of the Commission pursuant to 16 CFR 1.1-1.4, without risk of civil liability. This protection does not extend to reliance on this Commentary or other informal staff interpretations.

 

Which is important in FDCPA related cases because the FDCPA provides an exception to the liability provisions for relying in good faith on an opinion (not the commentary).

 

There’s blurbs on WHY the legislative history is irrelevant out front in the consumer protection forum by Attorneys Edelman and Pittman -- it’s a strict liability statute. Either way, the purpose is stated in the FDCPA itself it isn’t stated in the commentary. It’s long and detailed but it’s a must read: http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...pic.php?t=33386

 

The statute regulates the conduct of "debt collectors" in collecting "debts" owed or allegedly owed by "consumers." It is designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous collectors, whether or not there is a valid debt. The FDCPA broadly prohibits unfair or unconscionable collection methods; conduct which harasses, oppresses or abuses any debtor; and any false, deceptive or misleading statements, in connection with the collection of a debt; it also requires debt collectors to give debtors certain information. 15 U.S.C. §§1692d, 1692e, 1692f and 1692g.

 

In enacting the FDCPA, Congress recognized the "universal agreement among scholars, law enforcement officials, and even debt collectors that the number of persons who willfully refuse to pay just debts is minuscule [sic] ... [T]he vast majority of consumers who obtain credit fully intend to repay their debts. When default occurs, it is nearly always due to an unforeseen event such as unemployment, overextension, serious illness, or marital difficulties or divorce." S. Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1697.

 

The FDCPA is liberally construed in favor of the consumer to effectuate its purposes. Cirkot v. Diversified Financial Systems, Inc., 839 F.Supp. 941, 944 (D. Conn. 1993); Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1117 (10th Cir. 2002).

 

Statutory damages are recoverable for violations, whether or not the consumer proves actual damages.

 

In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated in Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d (4th Cir. 1999) that "Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming owed. The debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." Consistent with legislative history, "verification is only intended to eliminate the problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid."

The case is only good in the 4th Circuit and even for those in the 4th it's arguably inapplicable.

 

Here’s the cited case and you’ve got to read it to see how it isn’t applicable and how CA’s conveniently forget to quote the entire paragraph and do so out of context as well, that case was about the amount of legal fees that were attempted to be collected, the underlying debt was never in question nor disputed: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/4th/981024p.html

 

Let’s break this down:

 

Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming owed.

That’s correct on it’s face, but what does it take to make that confirmation? That is where the Wollman letter comes in, confirmation from the furnisher (NOT the records of the CA as Wollman explains why).

 

The debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt."

That’s right, they don‘t have to keep them, Wollman again, they have to get the records from the furnisher (also ensures they have the authority to collect ‘else they wouldn’t be able to get them) and mail them to the consumer.

 

This part is important: …"verification is only intended to eliminate the problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid."

Exactly, dunning the wrong person or dunning for the wrong dollar amount, and the validation section of the FDCPA requires that all collection activity cease until verification (evidence of debt as defined in that sentence) is mailed to the consumer.

 

Importantly in this same case, the Plaintiff and Attorney were both sanctioned by the court for bringing forward a case without merit. The court said: "...Given the substantial justification for its finding, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing what we believe to be appropriate and reasonable sanctions against Appellants and their attorney. By so ruling, we in no way intend to discourage the legitimate pursuit of FDCPA litigation but, rather, hope to deter groundless claims like the one advanced here."

 

Additionally, whoever signed this letter, if they aren’t an attorney -- their opinion of what that case says or doesn’t say doesn’t matter, AND if they aren’t an attorney they are acting in an official capacity attempting to give legal advice/interpretation, practicing law, and it’s an additional violation of the FDCPA.

 

Here’s a good thread on the case and how it is misused: http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...=sassy+graziano

 

Please note that Palisades Collection promptly responded to your original letter dated December XX, 2003 wherein you request that we validate the above mentioned debt. In our letter dated January XX, 2004 (letter was postmarked mid-March)

 

Here’s a snippet from the same case, also conveniently not mentioned, as to what had ALREADY been provided as verification -- you didn’t get anything but a regurgitation of their OWN records and again, it is important to remember that in the cited case, the underlying debt was never disputed:

 

"...In the present case, Gallerizzo, after receiving assurances from NationsBank that the sums were owed, verified the debt amounts in his January 18th letter to Plaintiffs' counsel and forwarded a copy of the bank's computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. The summary included a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred. See Graziano v. Harrison , 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that computer printouts which confirmed amounts of debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred constituted sufficient verification). Thereafter

 

As a courtesy, we informed you in our letter dated January XX, 2004 that we will order copies of credit card statements and the credit card application. In March of 2004, we sent you copies of the credit card statements for your review (see enclosed). Providian Bank has informed us that the credit card application is no longer available.

NO, this is not a courtesy, see the above snippet -- the difference is what had already been provided as verification AND AFTER the same amounts were restated to be correct by a letter.

 

If the application is no longer available, they have no signature indicating that you agreed to the debt. They also don’t have the terms of the contract so no matter how many statements they send you, you can never determine whether the amount being claimed is correct -- they go together, that is what the Spears v Brennan case speaks to: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/archi...260101.ewn.html

 

The court states why a contract alone is not validation, it is the same argument for statements alone, just in the reverse -- you need both:

 

Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he “sent adequate verification of the debt [to Spears] in the October 30, 1996 notice of claim.” Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(. We cannot agree.

 

The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears’ loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least $350.00 more than the original loan amount. Therefore, Brennan violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g( when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against Spears after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that he was disputing the debt but before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears. See footnote We reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Brennan on this issue.

 

Please note that these statements were mailed by Providian Bank to the address you still currently use to this day. Also please note that a payment was made on the account. Typically, a person who commits fraud against another does not make payments on the account. The enclosed statements reflect at least one payment in the amount of $30.00.

Oh good, first playing an attorney and now playing a fraud investigator, all in the same letter.

 

If you are claiming not to be the same XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX who has been receiving mail at XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX Road, XXX, MI XXXXX, a copy of your driver's license and social security card would be needed to verify your identity. If you claim that this debt has been paid, proof of payment will be required, as we are unable to verify something that neither we nor Providian has record of. If you are indeed the same XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX and have not paid this claim, we have validated this debt under 15 USC 1692 in accordance to the various rulings set forth.

Did you claim fraud or id theft?

 

Either way, requesting validation isn’t fraud or id theft and even if you had claimed one or the other or were a victim, this paragraph isn’t the procedure for making that claim. All you have to do is submit a universal affidavit, available at the FTC’s website, and advise the CRA’s, the FCRA determines the procedure, not the wanna-be attorney/investigator. They are a FURNISHER of information, they follow the rules, they don’t make them.

 

Here’s the FACTA amendment FCRA, see the new sub-sections added to section 605: http://www.moo3mods.com/FCRA2003.htm

 

There are additional provisions specific to the furnisher under section 623(a) -- a consumer can’t sue to enforce that section but we can sue under section 623( failure to conduct a reasonable investigation.

 

If however, you were claiming id theft or fraud, THIS is the process that you as a consumer would follow, so they’ve misrepresented the law and what you have to do yet again:

 

§ 605B. Block of information resulting from identity theft

 

(a) BLOCK- Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of--

(1) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer;

(2) a copy of an identity theft report;

(3) the identification of such information by the consumer; and

(4) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.

 

( NOTIFICATION- A consumer reporting agency shall promptly notify the furnisher of information identified by the consumer under subsection (a)--

(1) that the information may be a result of identity theft;

(2) that an identity theft report has been filed;

(3) that a block has been requested under this section; and

(4) of the effective dates of the block.

 

c) AUTHORITY TO DECLINE OR RESCIND-

(1) IN GENERAL- A consumer reporting agency may decline to block, or may rescind any block, of information relating to a consumer under this section, if the consumer reporting agency reasonably determines that--

 

(A) the information was blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error;

( the information was blocked, or a block was requested by the consumer, on the basis of a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block; or

© the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions.

 

(2) NOTIFICATION TO CONSUMER- If a block of information is declined or rescinded under this subsection, the affected consumer shall be notified promptly, in the same manner as consumers are notified of the reinsertion of information under section 611(a)(5)(.

 

(3) SIGNIFICANCE OF BLOCK- For purposes of this subsection, if a consumer reporting agency rescinds a block, the presence of information in the file of a consumer prior to the blocking of such information is not evidence of whether the consumer knew or should have known that the consumer obtained possession of any goods, services, or money as a result of the block.

 

If you should have any further questions, please contact our customer service department at XXXXXX Monday through Thursday... blah... blah

 

Sincerely,

 

Palisades

Ohhhhhhh, now they’ve put away their attorney label and investigator label and are back to being customer service. They’ll be trying the bogus affidavit of debt next :roll:

 

Additionally, check your state laws for the minimum information required if attempted to collect (if any).

 

Sassy

[nanoreef]

wow putting case law in there, maybe you could go after them for practiceing law without a liscense.

 

this is from SPEARS vs BRENNAN

 

15 U.S.C. § 1692g( (emphasis added). On November 12, 1996, nineteen days after the date of Brennan’s debt collection letter, Spears’ counsel Shepard sent Brennan a letter declaring that Spears “disputes your debt collection-related allegations, denies the same, and demands strict proof and verification thereof.” Record at 21. As such, Brennan should have ceased his debt collection efforts immediately upon receiving that letter. Instead, Brennan proceeded to obtain a default judgment against Spears on the debt collection claim before he had mailed Spears the necessary verification and, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(.

Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he “sent adequate verification of the debt [to Spears] in the October 30, 1996 notice of claim.” Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g

The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears’ loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least $350.00 more than the original loan amount. Therefore, Brennan violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g( when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against Spears after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that he was disputing the debt but before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears. See footnote We reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Brennan on this issue.

[Tinker_Bell]

Sassy... all I can say is WOW!!! I'm going to have to really read through all of that a few times. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Anyways... Their first contact was a collection letter dated Dec. 5.

 

On Dec. 23 we sent them DV letter. Here is the letter we sent them:

 

Dear Sir/Madame:

 

Thank you for your recent inquiry. This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that your claim is being disputed. This is a request for validation made pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

 

Be advised that I am not requesting a "verification" that you have my mailing address, I am requesting a "validation;" that is, competent evidence that I have some contractual obligation to pay you.

 

Your failure to satisfy this request within the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act will be construed as your absolute waiver of any and all claims against me, and your tacit agreement to compensate me for costs and attorney fees.

 

Furthermore, this letter serves as a limited “Cease & Desist” request for you to no longer contact me by phone. Please place me on your “do not call list.”

 

Sincerely,

 

They responded (dated Jan 23, but postmarked March 18) saying that they are trying to get documents and they request driv. lic., signature, and SSN, etc. (did not give that to them!)

 

Another letter from them dated March 30 with statements for 3 months.

 

Another letter from them dated June 10 stating the original contract is not available and for me to call to make payment arrangements.

 

We sent another letter dated July 30... a stronger DV letter. It's the one in the sample letters section that asks for all kinds of things (copies of all statements, proof of license, how much they purchased the debt for, documents that show I owe them what they say I owe, if debt was assigned or purchased, etc, etc.)

 

Then we received today the letter that I posted at the top of this thread.

 

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

 

It took them over a month to report the account as disputed. Their intial reporting to TU as after receiving DV. Plus, the hard inquiry in August!! Argh!!

 

Ok... I'm off to go and read! Thanks, Sassy!

[Tinker_Bell]

wow putting case law in there, maybe you could go after them for practiceing law without a liscense.

 

Wanted to throw you a quick thank you!!! Have to read through all of this... when the house is quieter. lol

[Frisbee]

Question for Sassy, sorry I'm new and trying to learn: If you requested validation from a lawyer who claims to represent to OC does everything you posted still apply? He sent me a copy of my signed contract. Thanks for the great (as always) post

[Tinker_Bell]

A condensed run-down of activity:

 

Original collection letter dated 12/5/03

 

DV letter sent dated Dec 23, postmarked Dec 30, green card shows rcv’d Jan 2

 

Received response dated Jan 23, but postmarked March 18. They state they rcv’d my VD request on Jan 5, but green card shows Jan.2. They ask for driv. Lic, SSN, and 3 signatures. Says their fraud and dispute resolution procedures require these items. They state they will retrieve documents from OC. At bottom of letter is mini-miranda.

 

Equifax report on Dec 14 does not show Palisades reporting. Equifax report dated Feb 1 shows Palisades with date reported 1/2004. The account is not listed as being disputed. Current status shows Over 120 days past due (yet they purchased the account in Nov). Now… green card shows they received DV on Jan 2. They claim they rcv’d DV on Jan 5. Equifax says last reported 1/2004. Jan 1 was national holiday. Jan 2nd they received DV. Jan 3rd & 4th is weekend. Jan 5th is a Monday. So… they reported to Equifax after receiving DV and did not report the account as being in dispute. Equifax online report from Feb 26 shows disputed.

 

Received response dated March 30. They sent photo copies of 3 statements from Providian (one from Oct. 2000, one from Jan. 2001, and one from May 2003. The amount owed on the May statement matches the amount they are collecting. (but I still don’t know how the debt got to that amount.) Their letter also says that they are still waiting for the credit card application from the original creditor. Then it says to call to make payment arrangements. Mini-miranda is at bottom.

 

Trans Union report dated April 16 does not show Palisades reporting at all.

 

June 9 Equifax report shows Palisades tradeline with all “0’s” for every field. (was not all 0’s before). June 9 investigation results – verified.

 

Received response dated June 10. It states that the credit card application is no longer available. Then it says to contact them to discuss an amicable solution. Mini-miranda at bottom of letter.

 

Trans Union report dated June 22 shows Palisades reporting account as disputed.

 

July 5th – investigation results from Equifax. They verified; says account disputed, but all fields are still “0”

 

Sent 2nd VD letter on July 30. They received it on Aug. 2. Starts out by saying “I do not believe that I owe what you say I owe, and I request that you please respond to the following:” I ask for things like: name and address of alleged creditor, alleged account number, date debt became payable, date of original charge-off or delinquency, copy of any agreement that bears the signature of debtor, etc.

 

Aug. 4 they pulled hard inquiry on Experian.

 

I think they did probably report to Experian prior to receiving DV request. Experian says reported since Dec 2003. I don’t have enough reports to find out when they started to report as in dispute to Experian. They continue to verify with the CRA’s, but has “account in dispute” for all 3. Experian shows “closed” account. EQ has no data, just all zeros, but shows open. TU shows open.

 

Other violation: Palisades showing through envelope.

[radi8]

Sassy... all I can say is WOW!!! I'm going to have to really read through all of that a few times. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Isn't she something else? :amigos: ((Sassy))

 

 

Yes, if they want to do business in Michican, they have to follow Michigan law. Collecting from you counts as "doing business".

[Tinker_Bell]

All these acknowledgments of your letters are good -- means since the earliest one they should have communicated to the CRA’s that the information was disputed (if already reporting) and I noticed on your linked thread that to date that hasn’t happened. That’s the FTC’s Cass letter:http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm

 

Sassy,

 

It looks like the account was already reporting to Experian when they received my request for validation. I'm not sure when the account was marked in dispute on Experian. I don't have many Experian reports and at the time I was not saving PG reports.

 

They reported to Equifax after receiving DV... but it's a really close call there. But, an Equifax report from a full month after DV, still does not show the account in dispute. But later in Feb. it does show in Dispute. Is there a time frame that they must report the account as being disputed?

 

I have a TU report from April that does not have Palisades reporting. Although, when it was first inserted onto TU, it was reported as being in dispute.

[Tinker_Bell]

Either way, the purpose is stated in the FDCPA itself it isn’t stated in the commentary. It’s long and detailed but it’s a must read:http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33386

 

Awesome information!! I'm printing it right now. I really need a binder for this stuff!!!

 

Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming owed.  

That’s correct on it’s face, but what does it take to make that confirmation? That is where the Wollman letter comes in, confirmation from the furnisher (NOT the records of the CA as Wollman explains why).

 

Ok... let's say a copy of a credit card statement is provided by the OC to the CA and then the CA provides it to the debtor. It is the last statement and shows the balance to be the same balance that the CA is trying to collect. Would that constitute verification of the debt?

 

The debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt."  

That’s right, they don‘t have to keep them, Wollman again, they have to get the records from the furnisher (also ensures they have the authority to collect ‘else they wouldn’t be able to get them) and mail them to the consumer.

 

Oh, I just love the play on words. Ya gotta think like a lawyer to write like a lawyer. I'd say they're practicing without a license!!!

 

NO, this is not a courtesy, see the above snippet -- the difference is what had already been provided as verification AND AFTER the same amounts were restated to be correct by a letter.

 

Yeah! They are claiming that verification and validation is provided when they tell you the name of the creditor, amount owed, etc. Then they say that it was only out of courtesy that they provided copies of Providian statements! At the very least, they are misquoting the law in the worse way! I think at this point they are just trying to call my bluff!!

 

If the application is no longer available, they have no signature indicating that you agreed to the debt. They also don’t have the terms of the contract so no matter how many statements they send you, you can never determine whether the amount being claimed is correct -- they go together, that is what the Spears v Brennan case speaks to: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/archi...260101.ewn.html

 

EXACTLY! When we were in medical hardship... all my attention was on my son. I did not keep track of anything!! The last two year when we got our tax return, we paid bills that we owed. When my husband got the collection letter from Palisades, he said to me "I thought that was one of the ones we paid?!!" Frankly, I can't remember and I can't find anything showing that we did pay it. So... off went my DV letter. I also want to make sure that all the dates are correct.. DOLA, etc.

 

Did you claim fraud or id theft?

 

Nope, did not. Just requested DV, that's it. 2nd DV stated "I do not believe I owe what you say I owe." A pretty neutral statement, if you ask me.

 

Ohhhhhhh, now they’ve put away their attorney label and investigator label and are back to being customer service. They’ll be trying the bogus affidavit of debt next

 

What is a bogus affidavit of debt??? I hope they do send it... they don't know I'm meeting with an attorney.

 

wow putting case law in there, maybe you could go after them for practiceing law without a liscense.

 

I would say so too, Nano!!!

[Tinker_Bell]

Sassy... all I can say is WOW!!! I'm going to have to really read through all of that a few times. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Isn't she something else? :amigos: ((Sassy))

 

 

Yes, if they want to do business in Michican, they have to follow Michigan law. Collecting from you counts as "doing business".

 

All you guys (and gals) are awesome! I would be totally lost without CB. Radi- thank too for all the MI info. I have it on my computer somewhere. Just dug out a binder and tabs so I can get this stuff all organized and digest it all!!!

[enigma]

From another board:

 

There are other important aspects that need to be understood and taken into consideration.  

 

When writing or responding to motions, particularly summary judgment motions or motions to dismiss, you should identify the "Controller". The Controller is that case which controls your argument at a particular level. For the FDCPA, the primary Controller is Heinz v Jenkins, which was decided in the Supreme Court and applies to every court at the state and federal level.  

 

The next level of controlling arguments is the US District Appellate Court that covers your state. Chaudhry is only controlling in those states in the 4th USDCA. If opposing counsel cites Chaudhry in support of, or opposition to a motion and you do not live in a state covered by the 4th District, your first point is that Chaudhry is persuasive, not controlling. For those who live in the 4th district, your first point (and the second point for all others) would be that Chaudhry is not taken in the proper context and therefore, cannot be applied, then use the evaluation by FlyingIFR to support your arguments (amounts unknown until the rendering of judgment, work-product exclusions, privileged exemptions, the fact that validation was incorrectly applied in the first place, etc).  

Your next point is that the key word in 1692g is "obtains". If the CA does not obtain the information from the original creditor and forward it to you, then the CA has not complied with 1692g.  

 

The next level of controlling cases are those decided in your federal court. If you are in the Southern Indiana District and your court has already ruled what validation is (or is not) then that is controlling and applies, not Chaudhry.  

 

The next level is your state's supreme court, then your state appellate district, then all other state appellate districts in your state.  

 

If you don't live in the 4th district, you can ignore Chaudhry. Even if you live in the 4th, you can provide excellent arguments to negate it.  

 

For those who received letters in response to debt validation quoting Chaudhry, go get your $1000. It's an FDCPA violation for a CA to practice law. I'll post the case law on that later tonight.

[Q]

OMG Sassy!!! :shock:

 

I am just curious how you remember all that stuff. Have you thought about becoming a Cosumer Law Attorney?? You definately have the trait for it... You go girl!!!

[RealtorKen]

From another board:

 

 

 

For those who received letters in response to debt validation quoting Chaudhry, go get your $1000. It's an FDCPA violation for a CA to practice law. I'll post the case law on that later tonight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Anyone know that case law?

[Q]

From another board:

 

 

 

For those who received letters in response to debt validation quoting Chaudhry, go get your $1000. It's an FDCPA violation for a CA to practice law. I'll post the case law on that later tonight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Anyone know that case law?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good question! That alone, I can buy a new car with a bag full of cash and let the dealer keep the change!

[willpower102]

so i don't get it. I mean, i know this thread is linked to by crammit under validation. But it just ends?! what's the outcome?

[jack1212]

SNEEZE