No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing in response to your letter dated June 25, 2008 and received into my office on June 30. Your letter starts with, “This office is in receipt of a written dispute without applicable documentation.” And continues, “This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication was sent from a debt collector.” With your actions and disregard to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, I am writing to point out a few violations.
On June 11, 2008, I had received a dunning letter from you for a claim of a small debt owed to Mr. OC. I promptly mailed out a debt verification request via Certified Mail in response to your letter. My request was signed for and received by your office on June 23, 2008 at 8:50AM.
Per the FDCPA, Section 809(b), you have the obligation upon receipt of the debt verification request to conduct a thorough investigation, during which, you must cease ALL collection activities as to comply with Sect. 809(b). To date, you have not. Moreover, you continued to engage in collection activities thereby violating this Sect. 809(b). On June 27, 2008, I received from your office the letter referenced in the first paragraph above. You include in your letter, sent after receipt of my debt verification request, that you are “attempt[ing] to collect a debt…” and acknowledging the debt verification request in the statement, “This office is in receipt of a written dispute without applicable documentation.” Per Section 813 of the FDCPA, there are penalties involving doing what you already did. Sect. 813 allows for damages to $1000, court costs & attorney fees. Mr. CA's intent was to engage in collection activities during the debt validation process.
In reviewing your actions, you also violated Section 807(10) by using false representation by seemingly avoiding debt validation through pointing out that there is a lack of “applicable documentation” in my first request received by you on June 23. “Applicable documentation” is not a burden carried by a consumer but rather a requirement of Mr. CA to verify the debt. Requesting this information continues to violate the FDCPA because “Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute…..” (FDCPA 809(b)). Of course there are penalties involved as outlined in the previous paragraph.
Mr. CA also violated the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As a licensee through the Division of Banks you should have known better. 209 CMR 18.18(2) parallels the validation process as set by the FDCPA. Mr. CA also places their registration renewal in jeopardy which is due by October.
As mentioned, on June 23, you received my request for debt validation. In part it read, “Please provide me with the following…..a detailed accounting of the debt.” Per 209 CMR 18.18(3)(a), you are required to provide me “within 5 business days…a) all papers or copies of papers, in the possession of the debt collector which bear the signature of [me]…” and “…b) a ledger, account card, or similar record in the possession of [you], which reflects the date and the amount of payments, credit and charges concerning the debt.” Five business days expired last Friday.
Your intent was clear. At this point I am asking you to cease all collection activities immediately. I am also considering filing complaints with the Federal Trade Commission, MA Division of Banks, and AG xxxxxxx.
Sincerely, llecs
That's what I'm afraid of!
ralbusta wrote:Unless they are morons (like most CA's!) ......
pdsnickles wrote:
Where did you get the laws to quote and how long did it take you to find them?
Wonderin wrote:
Okay, first off, I don't EVER want to get you mad at me. EVER,
@llecs wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
Okay, first off, I don't EVER want to get you mad at me. EVER,Are you SHOUTING at me! I'm gonna sue....No, I'm not the suing type. I just hope the CA doesn't figure that out.