Need help with First Premier response...round three. HELP!

[Anonymous]

just got back my response after sending FP a dispute on the information reported. I'm disputing the amount and DoFD. The first response was the standard form letter saying I owe the money and just pay it because we said so.  I responded using the Consumer Act in my state. I live in Massachusetts. In additional n to the standard items of request that mirror the federal guidelines, there is an additional item of request. Under 940 CMR 7.08, I asked for all documents, including electronic records and images that have my signature concerning the debt. A ledger, account card, statements, or other times that show all payments, credits, charges, and balances. Includes interest fees. 

In in return I got almost the same letter from the first request with a different signature and the last six months of statements before CO. FP stated in the letter as well that they use the Patriot Act to verify all accounts but "Due to method of application and time that has passed" they are unable to provide me a copy. It's noted the application was done over the Internet in August 2007. 

My question is the amount of or lack of information they provided. Is six months back from a CO actually validation and fall under the request with CMR 940? Also if they can't provide signatures or even validate that I'm the account holder, how can they continue to report? im not trying to shed any responsibility but I'm also not going to just hand over a chunk of money because they said so. 

[RobertEG]

The provisions of Mass 940 CMR 708 interetingly parallel the debt validation requirements applicable to debt collectors under the FDCPA, but uses the term "creditor" instead of debt collector.  It thus extends the DV process to include validation by creditors.

Similar to the FDCPA DV process applicable to debt collectors, the Mass process does not require validation.

It imposes a cease collection bar on the creditor, which remains in effect until such time as they choose to provide validation.

It does not require deletion of any prior reporting.  The cease collection bar is not retroactive.

If you consider their response not be be adequate validation, that alone is not a violation on their part.  Rather, it is a lack of adequate validation, with the consequence that you consider them to remain under a cease collection bar.  If they continue activities that you consider to be collection on the debt, you could assert violation of their cease collection bar.

[Anonymous]

Thank you. The response I got just didn't feel right and it's good to know what options I have to look at going forward. It's probably in my best interest to pay this thing off and be done investing anymore time.