could this be construed as overshadow?

Qtip · 09-17-2007, 11:50 PM

I received a collection letter, this is fist communication. The verbiage reads as follows;

Please note that this account is subject to be reported to the credit bureaus after 30 days if payment ins not received.

I guess since they did the thirty day thing sneaky they are not breaking the law, but the least sophisticated consumer would construe that it needs to pay this debt before the thirty days are up.

The interesting part they write on the back the same thing in Spanish.

Se le esta notificando que esta deuda puede ser reportada al buro de credito, si este pago no es recivido el el plazo de 30 dias.

Translated it means tat they are notifiying me that this debt can be reported to the credit bureau if payment is not received within th 30 day term.

Enigma · 09-18-2007, 05:44 AM

I would say at least two violations, if they had said 30 after you received it, then no.

drivel · 09-18-2007, 08:47 AM

Go for it qtip. Take them to task!!!!!

Qtip · 09-18-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drivel

Go for it qtip. Take them to task!!!!!

You got it! Federal material too right

I will send the good old validation request then then smack them so hard they will not know what hit them...

jlynn · 09-18-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qtip

Please note that this account is subject to be reported to the credit bureaus after 30 days if payment ins not received.

Translated it means tat they are notifiying me that this debt can be reported to the credit bureau if payment is not received within th 30 day term.

I'm going to disagree with Enigma. IMHO, this is a CYA because of the new FACTA laws that require notice by financial institutions to advise you before placing negative information on your reports. They CAN report the account to the bureaus on Day One if they choose. I don't believe this is overshadowing. They can say NOTHING about when they are going to report to the CB's and be within the law.

Is this your first notice? Are there not validation notices on the letter? If the statutory notices are missing, and this is their first communication, and you don't receive the validation notices within 5 days, that's your violation.

Enigma · 09-18-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlynn

I'm going to disagree with Enigma. IMHO, this is a CYA because of the new FACTA laws that require notice by financial institutions to advise you before placing negative information on your reports. They CAN report the account to the bureaus on Day One if they choose. I don't believe this is overshadowing. They can say NOTHING about when they are going to report to the CB's and be within the law.

Is this your first notice? Are there not validation notices on the letter? If the statutory notices are missing, and this is their first communication, and you don't receive the validation notices within 5 days, that's your violation.

I would agree with you except they conditioned the payment on being received within 30 days, not 30 days from the date Qtip received the notice.

jlynn · 09-18-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

I would agree with you except they conditioned the payment on being received within 30 days, not 30 days from the date Qtip received the notice.

I see where you are coming from, but I think he needs to wait 5 days to see if he gets a validation notice. That's a much stronger violation, IMHO.
Overshadowing would be secondary, if/when one is received.

centex · 09-18-2007, 02:01 PM

What I see missing here is a statement that the letter actually came from a third-party collector. If I go to the doctor and don't pay the bill, they can send me a letter like that and it would never be considered a violation because they are first-party billing. Thus, without the qualification as to who sent the notice in question and what it was for, any other discussion is jumping to conclusions...

Qtip · 09-18-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

What I see missing here is a statement that the letter actually came from a third-party collector. If I go to the doctor and don't pay the bill, they can send me a letter like that and it would never be considered a violation because they are first-party billing. Thus, without the qualification as to who sent the notice in question and what it was for, any other discussion is jumping to conclusions...

Thank you all for the posts! The company is third party debt collector, it is first communication and they did advice me of my rights on the letter. I have not checked to see if they are bonded on my state, I have a feeling they are not. Hum let me look into that and I post whether they are bonded or not.

"just checked they are bonded"

VexatiousLitigant · 09-18-2007, 02:48 PM

Ticky tack at best.

Qtip · 09-18-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant

Ticky tack at best.

Thank for the assessment! What was bothersome was the verbiage in Spanish, basically telling me to pay the bill within 30 days or the debt could be reported to the credit bureaus. I am sure they will claim it was a bona fide error.

drivel · 09-18-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qtip

Thank for the assessment! What was bothersome was the verbiage in Spanish, basically telling me to pay the bill within 30 days or the debt could be reported to the credit bureaus. I am sure they will claim it was a bona fide error.

Spanish, que pasa with that?

Strongest case I've seen in a long time.

This one is a winner, i'd file suit immediately.

Qtip · 09-18-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drivel

Spanish, que pasa with that?

Strongest case I've seen in a long time.

This one is a winner, i'd file suit immediately.

Drivel,

I know you are trying to be funny, I fail to see how the "1,2" liners are being of any help here? Besides, I think you know I have a little of Lizzardking in me and do not need encouragement to pull the trigger.

jlynn · 09-18-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

What I see missing here is a statement that the letter actually came from a third-party collector. If I go to the doctor and don't pay the bill, they can send me a letter like that and it would never be considered a violation because they are first-party billing. Thus, without the qualification as to who sent the notice in question and what it was for, any other discussion is jumping to conclusions...

I just assumed, since this isn't Qtip's first rodeo.

spinn · 09-18-2007, 06:21 PM

Senor Qtip.......parar el mirar del springer jerry y pagar tus cuentas!!!!!

http://http://translate.google.com/translate_t?langpair=en|es

drivel · 09-18-2007, 09:29 PM

[quote=Qtip;48795]Drivel,

I know you are trying to be funny, I fail to see how the "1,2" liners are being of any help here? Besides, I think you know I have a little of Lizzardking in me and do not need encouragement to pull the trigger.

[/QUOTE

I'm actually trying to tell you something here lil fella the funny spanish phrase was just an added bonus..

While the phrase "no brainer" may be applicable here, it doesn't apply to a positive result for a lawsuit based on these violations.

who the hell is lizard king?