Palisades - Need Help w/Strategy

[enigma]

Need help with strategy.

 

Facts:

 

Providian C/O in early 2002.

Providian sends to various CA, able to fend them off.

Early 2003 I send Providian FCRA 623 letter, they update account to PIF balance $0

Mid October 2003 receive collection letter from Van Ru, they say they are collecting on behalf of Palisades.

Send Van Ru DV – no response to date.

Call Providian, they say account sole to Asta Funding aka Palisades for $91.62

Today, December 10, pull TU, Palisades listed as a collection account. Placed 8/2003.

 

Now, I pull my reports every month, Palisades did not show in August, September, October or November. So how can they claim it was put on my report in August?

 

My plan is to dispute with CRA, wait for green card then send DV to them. Should I also send a FCRA 623 letter at the same time as the DV or wait??

 

Any thoughts??

[LKH]

My plan is to dispute with CRA, wait for green card then send DV to them.  Should I also send a FCRA 623 letter at the same time as the DV or wait??

 

Any thoughts??

 

Just one. You are doing things backwards. You need to send the DV cert and when you get the green card back, then dispute it with the cra.

[SassyinAz]

LKH,

 

Enigma and I were chatting last night, what do you think of him attempting to get a letter/fax from Providian stating that in 5/2002 the TL was paid in full, updated to a zero balance?

 

I think they should have never sold it and/or pulled the 90-something balance out of their butts.

 

I don't disagree with a validation letter (nodding on the first to the CA, then dispute with the CRA) -- they just didn't have anything to sell. Enigma has reports showing the updating to paid in full, as well.

 

No doubt none of them can validate, we were trying to think of something to keep it from being continuously passed on -- too many CA's in this story.

 

Sassy

[Liber_Tea]

Have you contacted Palisades yet?

 

I sent them a strong letter for wife and got a letter from Gulf Credit apologizing and they deleted it right away.

 

As has been said, send letter first then dispute to CRA when you know they are in receipt.

[LKH]

LKH,

 

Enigma and I were chatting last night, what do you think of him attempting to get a letter/fax from Providian stating that in 5/2002 the TL was paid in full, updated to a zero balance?

 

I think they should have never sold it and/or pulled the 90-something balance out of their butts.  

 

I don't disagree with a validation letter (nodding on the first to the CA, then dispute with the CRA) -- they just didn't have anything to sell.  Enigma has reports showing the updating to paid in full, as well.

 

No doubt none of them can validate, we were trying to think of something to keep it from being continuously passed on -- too many CA's in this story.

 

Sassy

 

If Providian will provide such a letter, why not. But, as I have discussed with you in private, I have a very similar situation going on right now, 8 years later. I have such a letter from the oc which I sent off to LHR with a validation letter and as of today, I haven't heard anything.

 

Anyway, Providian is a big pain in the flowers to deal with. When I was trying to get rid of them, it took me about 7 letters and as many disputes to get rid of them. I sent my later letters to their office in Texas because the other offices weren't responding.

 

The address and person I directed my letters to was:

 

 

Providian Financial

PO Box 660490

Dallas, Tx 75266-2504

 

Tamara Riley

[SassyinAz]

Well, there's a sure thing, PITA!!!!!!!!

 

hmmmm, you need both then, Enigma, sorry to say. Something from Providian, if you can get it, that can help you with the immediate CA and will cya for any and all that pop up in the future.

 

A validation letter to the present CA will address them.

 

Nodding with LKH and his situation, no matter how wrong it is or how right you are, they have a way of coming back from death and hell to haunt you, and you're forced to continue to deal with it because no one enforces a darn thing.

 

There is an FTC staff opinion letter that says OC's can be held responsible for CA's -- let Providian know that you expect them to end this maddness. I'm not sure how far you'll get since it's been sold but the key is in letting the OC know of the actions of the CA's. But, from paid in full to 90-something out of thin air, Providian will have to provide that information to any CA and you know they can't.

 

I'll search up the FTC letter, maybe it will give you more ammo. You've violations already, just Providian doesn't usually care.

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/lette...rs/douglass.htm

 

"...If a creditor knowingly approves of representations made by its debt collectors that violate the Act or acts in concert with or knowingly assists its debt collectors in making these representations, the creditor may have engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5.

 

Here's this thread with some other related threads and links, OC liable for CA Actions:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttal...&threadid=39135

 

In this thread is a cut and pasted letter used successfully, where the poster sent to CA #2 the validation request that was not responded to by CA #1 and arguing the selling/transferring (without validation) was continued collection activity:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttal...&threadid=33495

 

I don't think you should have to request validation more than once but there also should be a way for holding someone responsible for the first request.

 

There is this wording too, posted by PaleRider at CIC, that is supposed to bind (or give notice) all subsequent parties to the first request:

 

Another item you can add to letters if a creditor assigns an account to several different CA's after you send DV to CA, or in the case where CA has many subsidiaries and passes the account around. Puts them on notice that once they receive validation, the prinipal must inform all assigns that it applies to them also.

 

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent.

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

Applies to ALL successors and assigns.

 

Something to think about anyway.

 

While yours isn't as old as LKH's and beyond the SOL, we shouldn't have to keep doing this, someone is responsible for passing it on knowing that both the collecting and reporting requirements couldn't be met.

 

Sassy

[Guest LesterTheNightfly]

Sassy,

Thanks for this data & logic. I've already book marked this thread. This is one of those things that I think about from time to time but never investigate because I'm putting out some other fire with a higher priority.

[SassyinAz]

Here is this too, posted at CNet, by Butch -- note at the end by LKH:

 

Send CA2 &3 &4 & whatever, the following letter. Obviously you'll want to customize it to fit your situation.

 

Dear CA#2,

 

It is a well settled legal principle that all opportunity for resolution must be extinguished before legal action can take place. This notice should be considered constructive notice.

 

Ca#1 has sold/assigned ("dumped upon") you a NON-performing, illegitimate debt, the collection for which has already been frozen by my demand for validation, via FDCPA. My demand was sent xx/xx/xxxx and signed for on xx/xx/xxxx by John Smith, at [insert address]. Follow-up letters were sent, blah, blah, blah. Your ignorance of this fact is no excuse.

 

Both you and CA#1 are in violation of Federal Law for (but not limited to) continued collection activity on an alleged debt, the collection for which MUST CEASE until valid proof sent, pursuant to FDCPA § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (

 

May I suggest you return this account to CA#1 and demand your money back, or compensation for your wasted time, pursuant to the "qualifying RECOURSE accounts provisions" of your purchase/assignment contract.

 

I further demand that you immediately delete the trade-line you have inappropriately inserted on my credit report. YOU HAVE REPORTED INCORRECT INFORMATION! You have 5 days to cure.

 

OR ...

 

If you report this derogatory item to any credit reporting agency after the tracked and verified receipt of this notice, you may be sued.

 

Any further communication from you before I receive the demanded proof of this alleged debts validity via federal and case law and I will instruct my atty. to begin drafting a formal complaint.

 

Regards,

 

 

Butch

 

Enclosures:

 

1) Copy of original and all subsequent val demands

2) Copy of return receipts & green cards

3) My atty. staff

 

And this additional info was contributed by LKH

 

Good letter Butch. In the situation when the acct is assigned rather than sold, you might consider sending the same letter to the oc with a statement that the oc can also be held liable for any violations committed by an assigned ca in attempting to collect the alleged debt.

 

Sassy

[enigma]

Thanks LKH for pointing out that I was doing things backwards.

 

And thanks to you Sassy for all your help.

 

I called Providian today, the rep confirmed that it is paid in full, $0 balance, but won't send me a letter. She said that my CR should be enough. So, I'll write the office in TX to see what happens.

 

It hit my equifax today, palisades is listing it as an Open account, 120 past due with a DLA of 04/2002, but they show a DLA of 8/2003 on my TU, so they are not only mis-reporting but have reaged it too.

 

They really cannot sue me so I am not too worried about that. Since they are a CA, both according to the FDCPA and my states law, I have a good defense. According to FL law a CA has 30 days in which to notify the debtor of the placement. According to equifax, they placed the account on my file on August 2, 2003. The first I heard of it was when Van Ru called and sent me a later in late September. Way past the 30 day window. Plus it did not hit my reports until December.

 

Plan of action - subject to change.

 

!. 12/12 letter to Providain in TX. Give it 15 days.

2. 12/30 DV to Palisades

3. 12/12 Estoppel to Van Ru

4. Wait for green card then dispute with all 4 CRA

5. 1/15 623 letter Palisades

 

Late January tie it all together, depending on responses, letters to FTC, SAG office, cc Chairman and CEO of Asta Funding, aks Palisades and the board that if it is not gone then they all are named in a suit.

 

Thoughts?