No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
I sent debt validation to afni for account on 10/20/12 by email & on 10-22-12 I received a reply email that they have received my dispute and are investigating, they said they will contact me in writing with the results. also sent written debt validation letter sent by certified mail on 10-25-12 which they received on 10/29,& 10/26. well on 11-24-12 after waiting 30 days for them to validate my debt i sent them a reminder letter by email stating that they have not yet validated my debt & they had 15 days to do so. on 11-26-12 they replied with we have received your dispute & are investigating. we will contact you in writing with the results, then on same day they did provide validation of debt for account. but prior to that they verified this account with transunion on 11/16 & experian on 11/20 before validating my debt on 11/26. so they violated the FDCPA law when they verified this account with Transunion & experian without first validating this account to me. (a collection agency cannot verify until they have sent an adequate validation & if they do verify with the CRA's without first validating, they have violated the FDCPA law & can be sued for $1000 per violation, also if the credit reporting agency contacts the collector regarding the listing & the collector verifies the debt as accurate they will be in violation of the law for vefifying a debt that they cannot or will not validate.
@Anonymous wrote:I sent debt validation to afni for account on 10/20/12 by email & on 10-22-12 I received a reply email that they have received my dispute and are investigating, they said they will contact me in writing with the results. also sent written debt validation letter sent by certified mail on 10-25-12 which they received on 10/29,& 10/26. well on 11-24-12 after waiting 30 days for them to validate my debt i sent them a reminder letter by email stating that they have not yet validated my debt & they had 15 days to do so. on 11-26-12 they replied with we have received your dispute & are investigating. we will contact you in writing with the results, then on same day they did provide validation of debt for account. but prior to that they verified this account with transunion on 11/16 & experian on 11/20 before validating my debt on 11/26. so they violated the FDCPA law when they verified this account with Transunion & experian without first validating this account to me. (a collection agency cannot verify until they have sent an adequate validation & if they do verify with the CRA's without first validating, they have violated the FDCPA law & can be sued for $1000 per violation, also if the credit reporting agency contacts the collector regarding the listing & the collector verifies the debt as accurate they will be in violation of the law for vefifying a debt that they cannot or will not validate.
Did you recieve a dunning on this debt prior to sending the debt validation? If they sent you a dunning, they can ignore all debt validation efforts.
-scott
You are apparently relying upon the concocted theory, generall advocated on other sites, that a debt collector is barred from verifying disputed information with a CRA based on a cease collection bar under the FDCPA. It is referred to as the "1-2 Punch" process.
In my opinion, that theory holds zero weight. Any party subject to a dispute has a statutory requirement to respond back to the CRA.
It is kinda absurd to believe that congress intended the cease collection bar under FDCPA 809(b) to be a prohibition of their compliance with required actions under the FCRA.
It is not, in my opinion, a violaltion of their cease collection bar to comply with other statutory requirements.
There is no case law to support such an interpretation that one statute precludes compliance with the other.
I dont suggest reliance on that interpretation unless willing to litigate it.
I totally agree with Rovert on this one. I've never seen anything that would suggest that the 1-2 punch would be effective whatsoever. They are only barred from collections with you, not for verifying what was already on the report. They are 2 seperate issues.
I'm reading it as the CA misunderstood a DV as a direct dispute. Or chose to interpret it that way. Either way I'd go back to Scott's question, was the DV timely.
| Chase Freedom $9500 DCU Visa $10000 Capital One QS $2000 AMEX BCE $3000 | Lowe's CC $8500 WalMart CC $3100 BOA Platinum $600 AMEX Gold NPSL |
ok, don't even know if i ever received a dunning notice, since this debt is over 5 years old but i think afni purchased it back in may 2012. well I guess ill just leave well enough alone then.
Oh no rubberman, that's not the case at all. Don't just leave it alone. Let's try and get rid of AFNI. It can be done, I've done it myself.
A lot of posters on here will convince you that you have a losing hand...In this credit game, you have to look beyond that to win...You don't have to have a winning hand everytime, you just have to 'HAVE CARDS'...and with your situation, you "HAVE CARDS"...so play them aggressively just as you would in a poker game...People fold when played agressively towards (including CA's), especially when they dont have much invested in the pot. Go after them with the violations, BBB, AG, FTC....but give them an out...If they don't take it, then sue them and go after them even more tenaciously...One thing you have to realize though, when you play the game, you can lose....so you have to prepare for that and be willing to accept that if that happens....but if you don't use your cards and go on the offense, then they most certainly will and you will be in a much worse positon....sometimes the best defense is a good offense...put them on their heels, and in the overall picture, you will come out ahead vs letting them come after you....
@tmobileguy wrote:A lot of posters on here will convince you that you have a losing hand...In this credit game, you have to look beyond that to win...You don't have to have a winning hand everytime, you just have to 'HAVE CARDS'...and with your situation, you "HAVE CARDS"...so play them aggressively just as you would in a poker game...People fold when played agressively towards (including CA's), especially when they dont have much invested in the pot. Go after them with the violations, BBB, AG, FTC....but give them an out...If they don't take it, then sue them and go after them even more tenaciously...One thing you have to realize though, when you play the game, you can lose....so you have to prepare for that and be willing to accept that if that happens....but if you don't use your cards and go on the offense, then they most certainly will and you will be in a much worse positon....sometimes the best defense is a good offense...put them on their heels, and in the overall picture, you will come out ahead vs letting them come after you....
I think I approve of this message haha Not all of it, but most of it.
I don't agree that you should sue and attempt to put the screws to a CA if you don't have the ammunition, but I do agree that every single hand is playable in this credit game. There is always a way to get the desired outcome, you just need to keep trying different tactics and approaches.
-scott
yeah maybe i should have clarified a little better about how i would handle sueing....I think the threat of sueing, when you don't have the ammunition, can work when you make it more desirable for them to not go through with it...such as offering them a settlement... I think most CA's when viewed with the choice of taking the guarenteed money vs. going through with the lawsuit, paying for an attorney, losing the suit, and even they win the suitvtrying to collect....will always take the guarenteed money...and are even more prone to that choice the stronger your ammunition is....but even with no ammunition, your ammunition when sueing or threatening to sue is the cost of their attorney and the cost to pursue collected on the judgement...not the best ammo, but nevertheless still ammo!! lol...