[gweedoh]

I'm gearing up for court against a JDB and wanted to get some input on something.

Sorry if this has come up before....

On the back of this JDB's letters, they say:
"Unless you dispute the validity of all or part of this debt within 30 days after receipt of this notice, we will assume the debt is valid. If you notify us in writing within the 30-day period, we will mail a copy of the verification of the debt or judgment to you and will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor for this debt."

Following that paragraph is another that includes the statement, "[a]ll disputes within the 30-day dispute period will be honored."

True to this JDBs form, they never validated, sent two more collection notices, reported the account to TU and EX and then verified the account when I disputed it with the CRAs.

But let's go back to the part of their letter where they promise to send verification and to honor all 30-day disputes. Because they failed to do either one, wouldn't these be false/misleading statements, and thus violations in and of themselves?

I realize most consumers don't care about the violations if the collector stops trying to collect, but it seems like stating they will send verification and not sending it would technically be a violation if they don't include an exception statement like "or cease collection attempts".

[hannah]

Originally Posted by gweedoh

I'm gearing up for court against a JDB and wanted to get some input on something.

Sorry if this has come up before....

On the back of this JDB's letters, they say:
"Unless you dispute the validity of all or part of this debt within 30 days after receipt of this notice, we will assume the debt is valid. If you notify us in writing within the 30-day period, we will mail a copy of the verification of the debt or judgment to you and will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor for this debt."

Following that paragraph is another that includes the statement, "[a]ll disputes within the 30-day dispute period will be honored."

True to this JDBs form, they never validated, sent two more collection notices, reported the account to TU and EX and then verified the account when I disputed it with the CRAs.

But let's go back to the part of their letter where they promise to send verification and to honor all 30-day disputes. Because they failed to do either one, wouldn't these be false/misleading statements, and thus violations in and of themselves?

I realize most consumers don't care about the violations if the collector stops trying to collect, but it seems like stating they will send verification and not sending it would technically be a violation if they don't include an exception statement like "or cease collection attempts".

I think you're being a bit nit-picky but sure, why not! You can use this as another violation such as misleading to an unsophisticated consumer but only if you sue them for violating the FDCPA or your own state's consumer laws or trade practices statutes providing, of course, that your state has one or both. Are you planning to sue?

[gweedoh]

Originally Posted by hannah

I think you're being a bit nit-picky but sure, why not! You can use this as another violation such as misleading to an unsophisticated consumer but only if you sue them for violating the FDCPA or your own state's consumer laws or trade practices statutes providing, of course, that your state has one or both. Are you planning to sue?

I've got an ITS out to them now. If they don't respond favorably (or at all), I'm off to Fed court.

And isn't writing a complaint all about being nit-picky? In all seriousness, though..... If the "least sophisticated consumer" reads that and sends a dispute notice, don't you imagine they would expect to get something in return? I know I did years ago when I first read that statement.

Again, no consumer is really going to complain when the CA/JDB crawls back under their rock, but there's no stated reasons or criteria for why they wouldn't respond and it keeps the LSC from ever knowing what happened. At the very least, I think this is where a lot of noobs get the idea that a CA/JDB has to respond in 30 days.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by gweedoh

I've got an ITS out to them now. If they don't respond favorably (or at all), I'm off to Fed court.

And isn't writing a complaint all about being nit-picky? In all seriousness, though..... If the "least sophisticated consumer" reads that and sends a dispute notice, don't you imagine they would expect to get something in return? I know I did years ago when I first read that statement.

Again, no consumer is really going to complain when the CA/JDB crawls back under their rock, but there's no stated reasons or criteria for why they wouldn't respond and it keeps the LSC from ever knowing what happened. At the very least, I think this is where a lot of noobs get the idea that a CA/JDB has to respond in 30 days.

What I meant by nit-picky is if that is the only COA that you have it might not survive a well written MTD before a conservative judge.

Noobs reading this should realize that a CA/JDB DOES have to respond within 30 days OR stop collection activity.

[gweedoh]

Originally Posted by hannah

What I meant by nit-picky is if that is the only COA that you have it might not survive a well written MTD before a conservative judge.

Agreed.

[Pale Rider]

Some courts require verification of the debt, even if the collector ceases collection activity.

The Court notes that even if Defendant had ceased with its efforts to collect the alleged debt, Defendant still would have been obligated to verify the debt. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4), a debt collector must inform a consumer that if the consumer timely notifies the debt collector in writing that the debt is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification [*28] of the debt and that such verification will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. The statute could not have required such a statement without intending that a debt collector be required to follow through with the promise to obtain and send verification. Chief Judge Ezra of this District Court has so held on multiple occasions. See, e.g., Powell v. J. J. Mac Intyre Co., Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24699, Civ. No. 03-00402 DAE-BMK (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2003); De Coito v. Unifund Corp., Civ. No. 01-00379 DAEBMK (D. Haw. June 4, 2002).

TowerRat: Continued Collection Activity and validation

[gweedoh]

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Some courts require verification of the debt, even if the collector ceases collection activity.

The Court notes that even if Defendant had ceased with its efforts to collect the alleged debt, Defendant still would have been obligated to verify the debt. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4), a debt collector must inform a consumer that if the consumer timely notifies the debt collector in writing that the debt is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification [*28] of the debt and that such verification will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. The statute could not have required such a statement without intending that a debt collector be required to follow through with the promise to obtain and send verification. Chief Judge Ezra of this District Court has so held on multiple occasions. See, e.g., Powell v. J. J. Mac Intyre Co., Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24699, Civ. No. 03-00402 DAE-BMK (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2003); De Coito v. Unifund Corp., Civ. No. 01-00379 DAEBMK (D. Haw. June 4, 2002).

That puts them in a tight spot! What if they can't get verification? Of course the answer is they shouldn't have tried to collect in the first place, but we all know they do it anyway.

[Pale Rider]

I guess that particular court believes the collectors should know what they are getting into. Maybe the should actually check the accounts in the portfolio and/or get the proper documents before they start sending out collection letters. The collectors know that the odds are in their favor and a few violations are figured into the P&L statement.

[gweedoh]

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

The collectors know that the odds are in their favor and a few violations are figured into the P&L statement.

This is the part that blows my mind. Even before I started in credit repair I never paid a CA a single dime. DW paid one once when we first met because she thought it was the responsible thing to do. I told her not to do it but I just trying to impress her with my "bad boy" image.

Seriously, though. It breaks my heart that people get bullied into paying illegitimate debts by these thugs.