CA calls after receiving validation

[screwedbysears]

I have a CA that has called on my cell phone and my wifes. I told her not to.

I owe the money but I need more time. So I sent a validation letter to keep them from reporting to the CRA. well she called again after reciving the validation according to Caller Id and the USPS tracking . My question is if my wife calls them up and ask what she wanted and I record it and they ask for money is that goiing to fly in court because my wife called her and instead of them calling her again ? I really would like to get them for calling the cell phone agaisnt FDCPA and calling after validation letter were talking about half a grand I woiuld settle for deletion of all tradelines instaed of money.

Any thoughts?

 

P.S. we are a party state :wink:

[four20nik]

You sent validation request within 30 days of initial contact, right?

 

 

Calling cell phone is a definite no no.

[screwedbysears]

not sure maybe close but from what I understand you can request validation anytime

 

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

 

© The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

 

Now I know that it says 30days but I thought that you could dispute anytime

please tell me Im not wrong.I would think using this section © that I can ask for validtion.

Can someone clarify for me.

[four20nik]

Sure...you CAN request anytime.

 

BUT...they only have to cease collection when they receieve your DV IF you dispute within 30 day period.

 

After that, the CA can continue biz as usual. But...you CAN request dv anytime. They just dont have to stop collecting.

[four20nik]

not sure maybe close but from what I understand you can request validation anytime

 

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

 

© The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

 

Now I know that it says 30days but I thought that you could dispute anytime

please tell me Im not wrong.I would think using this section © that I can ask for validtion.

Can someone clarify for me.

 

This says the COURT cannot construe this as an admission of liability....

 

This clause was put in there in case a consumer didnt respond....and the CA sued them. Since the consumer didnt respond to the CA or request dv from the CA, then that doesnt automatically make them guilty in court (innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law)

[screwedbysears]

So what you are saying then is I have no case If I do the 1/2 punch after 30 days because reporting to the CRA with out validation is contiuned collection activity but if its after 30 days that doesn't matter? you mean I spent all this time doing this ( a bunch of 1/2 punch's) for nothing please someone tell me this isn't true.I have never read that one someone has discribed the one 2 punch IE> make sure you do it before the 30 days are up. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[four20nik]

Radi8 wrote a nice summary about 1-2...linked in the newbie forum.

 

Yep...IMO, that sums it up.

 

Now...there are OTHER violations that can happen with 1-2...such as them not reporting the acct in dispute, etc. I'll have to find the thread tomorrow that talks about it.

 

The title of the thread had "validated" in it...and Sassy and I and I THINK LKH participated. Was about a month or so ago.

 

I'll see if I can find it.

 

Also, I MUST say...not everyone agrees with me on this.

[screwedbysears]

Please do I need that because the have not put in dispute at all if thats what I need I'll take it.

Thank you

[SassyinAz]

Screwed,

 

In Arizona, they DO have to stop (no timeframe attached), per the sections of the Administrative Code that I've linked for you previously. Be happy to do it again, if you need them.

 

Here's the referenced thread, Mama is talking about:

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...6444&highlight=

 

I'd not worry about the initial 30-day period unless they bring it up, in writing of course. It only allows them to walk away without liability, at that point, if they choose to cease collection instead of validating. If, at any other time validation is requested and not provided and collection isn't ceased, they cannot escape liability because other sections of the FDCPA kick in (harassment, communicating information known or that should be known to be false, etc.)

 

Here's AZ again:

 

R20-4-1514. Disclosure of Information to Debtor

 

A collection agency must disclose to the debtor from whom it is attempting to collect the debt the name of the creditor, the time and place of the creation of the debt, the merchandise, services or other things of value underlying the debt, and the date when the account was turned over to the collection agency by the creditor. A debtor shall have the right of access to a collection agency's books and records concerning the debtor or the debt. Upon request, the collection agency shall provide to the debtor without cost, copies of any document relevant to the debt or its collection.

 

R20-4-1521. Duty of Investigation

 

A collection agency shall, prior to continuing its collection efforts against the debtor, investigate any claim made by the debtor or his attorney that he is the wrong party, that the debt has been paid, that the debt has been discharged in bankruptcy, or any other reasonable claim that the debt is not owing. A collection agency shall furnish evidence of the debt to the debtor or his attorney if and when so requested.

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

So what you are saying then is I have no case If I do the 1/2 punch after 30 days because reporting to the CRA with out validation is contiuned collection activity but if its after 30 days that doesn't matter? you mean I spent all this time doing this ( a bunch of 1/2 punch's) for nothing please someone tell me this isn't true.I have never read that one someone has discribed the one 2 punch IE> make sure you do it before the 30 days are up. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Nope, that's not true.

 

Just the violation isn't failure to cease collection.

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

Cross-linking to related thread: http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...p=288553#288553

 

Sassy

[LoneGunman]

Not trying to steal your post Screwed, just have a question that pertains to your post. Does the CA have to be able to prove when the initial contact was? Say I notice a new collection account on my credit report. I send out a DV to the CA and then dispute with the CRA when the receipt comes back. They verify with the CRA and I try to use the violation as leverage. They say they have contacted me via regular mail in the past so they do not have to cease collection activity so I sue. Do they have to prove they sent the letters?

 

If they never contact you but the account has been on your report for a few years do they still have to cease collection activity when you send the DV or does that come under the 30 day rule also?

[SassyinAz]

Generally, no they don't have to prove that they mailed the letters. That's the damned Mahon case from hell that is mistated by lowly CA's with no brain cells.

 

YOU though, if they are going to play the 30-day game, have to raise it and make it a question for the court to decide. In the Mahon case, the Mahon's lived at the same address for 45-years, no mail was returned to the CA, AND they never disputed the debt as in the purpose of the validation section, that's not mine and/or the dollar amount is incorrect.

 

The entire argument, the 30-days begins upon RECEIPT of an initial communication (BUT, nothing requires any communication) was that the CA had no PROOF that the Mahon's had received the initial letter and therefore there was no communication (as an adjective versus a noun, which the court determined).

 

So, the court first had to decide whether it was likely the letter was mailed (Mahon's didn't question that at all), the court decided it likely was -- deciding it was mailed, the mailbox rule kicked in, which says, if mailed (that the court first had to decide) it was likely received. Received is all the FDCPA requires, not PROOF of receipt -- bottom line of the ruling, crappy case that it remains.

 

And actually, it makes sense -- seems contradictory, eh? Because the FDCPA is to address ABUSIVE CA's not the handful of law-abiding CA's. It would be a huge burden to require proof, as it would likely take personal service to accomplish it. Even certified mail doesn't have to be signed and picked up, by either you or the CA -- so from that angle it's more understandable. The costs associated with proof would be overwhelming for the poor CA's and still wouldn't accomplish the purpose of the FDCPA.

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

ohhhhhhhhhhh, finally I see what everyone is missing with this!!!!!!!

 

OUTSIDE of the 30-day period with proper AHEM disclaimer, what triggers the 30-day timeframe for action is disputing with the CRA. The FCRA provides the 30-day timeframe for dispute resolution, as part of the process they have to forward your dispute to the information furnisher (which can be a CA if reporting). That's why you dispute with the CRA's once you know the CA has received your validation letter (green card returned) to FORCE a 30-day timeframe.

 

Sassy

[LoneGunman]

Generally, no they don't have to prove that they mailed the letters. That's the damned Mahon case from hell that is mistated by lowly CA's with no brain cells.

 

YOU though, if they are going to play the 30-day game, have to raise it and make it a question for the court to decide. In the Mahon case, the Mahon's lived at the same address for 45-years, no mail was returned to the CA, AND they never disputed the debt as in the purpose of the validation section, that's not mine and/or the dollar amount is incorrect.

 

The entire argument, the 30-days begins upon RECEIPT of an initial communication (BUT, nothing requires any communication) was that the CA had no PROOF that the Mahon's had received the initial letter and therefore there was no communication (as an adjective versus a noun, which the court determined).

 

So, the court first had to decide whether it was likely the letter was mailed (Mahon's didn't question that at all), the court decided it likely was -- deciding it was mailed, the mailbox rule kicked in, which says, if mailed (that the court first had to decide) it was likely received. Received is all the FDCPA requires, not PROOF of receipt -- bottom line of the ruling, crappy case that it remains.

 

And actually, it makes sense -- seems contradictory, eh? Because the FDCPA is to address ABUSIVE CA's not the handful of law-abiding CA's. It would be a huge burden to require proof, as it would likely take personal service to accomplish it. Even certified mail doesn't have to be signed and picked up, by either you or the CA -- so from that angle it's more understandable. The costs associated with proof would be overwhelming for the poor CA's and still wouldn't accomplish the purpose of the FDCPA.

 

Sassy

 

Thanks for the help, it makes sense now. One more thing. In your opinion is it still advisable to use the 1-2 punch if it's been over the thirty days or should I just send the DV to the CA and see if they mark it as disputed. If they do and still don't validate then dispute as not mine with the CRA. I know the CA does not have to validate but if they don't validate but they do verify with the CRA do I have anything I can use to get the CRA to delete or go after the CA for verifying with the CRA but not validating with me?

 

Sorry for the long questions, I have been reading for months and using the search function but I'm still not getting it.

[SassyinAz]

Yep, I'd still send the validation letter, green card received, dispute with the CRA's.

 

There are violations, only the violation outside of the 30-days isn't failure to cease collecting, though we are the only ones that seem to be concerned about it, the CA's are unlikely to make that lame argument and don't usually -- I'd not worry about it unless they tried to.

 

I just answered the same questions in this thread, also from screwed, they're all linked and cross-linked, the specific violations are there:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...p=288553#288553

 

Under the FDCPA it is failing to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed and reporting information that is false or should be known to be false.

 

And, under the FCRA, the violation is failure to complete an adequate investigation and reporting inaccurate information that is known or should be known to be inaccurate.

 

Sassy

[four20nik]

Thanks for linking the thread I was referencing...and here's another one as well...

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...er=asc&start=15