cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

My last letter to CMI and their reply. LOL

ngerasimatos
Valued Contributor

My last letter to CMI and their reply. LOL

from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Mod Cut! Please see the note in the post below. 


I'm sure you know, under FDCPA Section 809 (b), you are not allowed to pursue collection activity until the debt is validated. You should be made aware that in TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity.

As of 03/15/08 you have continuously refused to validate this debt.Therefore you are in violation of FDCPA.

I request that you provide adequate validation of this alleged debt. To refresh your memory on what constitutes legal validation, I am giving a list of the required documentation:

Complete payment history, the requirement of which has been established via Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509

Agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he agreed to pay the original creditor.

Letter of sale or assignment from the original creditor to your company.

Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt.) Coppola vs.. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002) - Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff's debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.

Intimate knowledge of the creation of the debt by you, the collection agency.

As you are already in violation, I expect all reference to this account be deleted from my credit report, as this entry and any update of such entry will be considered another violation.

Regards

Message Edited by ngerasimatos on 03-21-2008 05:25 PM
Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value
Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

800+ Club
Message 1 of 12
11 REPLIES 11
ngerasimatos
Valued Contributor

Re: My last letter to CMI and their reply. LOL

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Mod Cut!
*** Federal law requires me to inform you that this is an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.*** 

I  have been out sick this entire week and am just now able to get back with you.  I am reviewing the details of the Twyla Boatley v Diem Corporation case that you mentioned in your email and will respond once I get back in the office, hopefully, on Monday. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Mod Cut!
Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value
Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

800+ Club
Message 2 of 12
fishbjc
Senior Contributor

Re: My last letter to CMI and their reply. LOL

HOLY CARP, a bill collector is trying to collect and he has no idea of the laws??????
 
Keeping my fingers crossed that you'll take him down on this one.
Message 3 of 12
stef37
Valued Contributor

Re: My last letter to CMI and their reply. LOL

LOL Smiley Very Happy
 
Tell Mr Wilson he owes me too! I just sprayed my coke when I read his response!! He isn't very bright is he?
Message 4 of 12
ngerasimatos
Valued Contributor

Re: My last letter to CMI and their reply. LOL

You would assume that an individual whom is the "Training & Compliance Coordinator" would know more about the laws and regulation.

http://www.thecmigroup.com/Ourteam.htm

Nelson Wilson Training & Compliance Coordinator

Nelson Wilson is the Training & Compliance Coordinator. In this role, he leverages 4 years of experience with The CMI Group and 16 years of collection / customer service experience from Dun & Bradstreet RMS. While with D&B, Mr. Wilson won numerous customer service awards and managed D&B's Dallas Customer Care office. He was heavily involved in training both collectors and customer service representatives for handling the accounts of D&B’s major tier client accounts

Message Edited by ngerasimatos on 03-21-2008 05:26 PM
Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value
Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

800+ Club
Message 5 of 12
Timothy
Moderator Emeritus

Re: My last letter to CMI and their reply. LOL

I just read up on Twyla Boatley v Diem Corporation
 
I am confused now too.
 
This is the standard case law that says -reporting is collection activity- It is a HUGE mess to read though-  


Message Edited by Timothy on 03-21-2008 07:50 PM
Message 6 of 12
HinH
Regular Contributor

Any news from CMI?

thanks!
Message 7 of 12
ngerasimatos
Valued Contributor

Re: Any news from CMI?

My last letter to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson,

I would suggest reviewing the following information, specifically where it states the items listed below. I also would like to note, in your previous emails sent you state the following ** Federal law requires me to inform you that this is an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.** This clearly constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, yourself representing the CMI Group. This is clearly a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.

IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8).

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm  

It is also advisable to review the FDCPA regulations as well.  

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf  

Regards



Message Edited by ngerasimatos on 03-24-2008 02:57 PM
Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value
Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

800+ Club
Message 8 of 12
ngerasimatos
Valued Contributor

Re: Any news from CMI?

Latest response.

 

 

*** Federal law requires me to inform you that this is an attempt to
collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that
purpose.***

Thank you for your 3/15 and 3/23 emails.  As I mentioned to you, I have
been out sick for the past few days, and was delayed getting back with you.

However, it did give me an opportunity to review Twyla Boatley v Diem
Corporation, specifically again.  In his decision on that case, even Judge
McNamee acknowledged that Diem Corporation had an opportunity to raise a
defense based on the validation request being received outside the 30 day
period prescribed in the FDCPA, but they did not do so.  Were we in such a
position, we would undoubtedly raise that defense, since validation
requests outside of that window are not binding on the collector.  Neither
unanswered validation requests outside of that period (30 days from receipt
of the initial letter)  nor reporting to a credit reporting agency after
that window constitutes a violation of the FDCPA, despite what some credit
help websites would lead someone to believe.  And, we have advised the
bureaus that this matter is disputed, as required.

In your 3/23 email, you asked us to review the information from the FTC,
which you quoted.  Having done that has only served to reinforce our
position that we have not violated the FDCPA.  In response to each of the
paragraphs you quoted, the FTC pointed out that, "Section 1692g(b) requires

the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written
dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification

is obtained."  In fact, both of the questions posed made that same
stipulation, as asked.  Because your request for validation was well after
the 30-day validation period instituted under section 1692g(b) of the
FDCPA, we are not obligated to cease collection activity (whether that be
communicating with you about your request to have this deleted or reporting
to the credit bureaus), nor to provide verification.

Despite that, on 3/18, our client Time Warner advised that they are sending
an itemization of the bill, which we will send on to you.  There is no
specific list of required validation items universally accepted by the
courts.

If your ultimate goal is to get this removed from your credit report,
because you have stated that you are a victim of ID theft, we can take care
of that upon receipt of the three items I mentioned in my previous email to
you:

1.        A signed and notarized ID Theft affidavit (the one you sent us is
not notarized)
2.        Proof of residency at the time the specific debt was incurred (
just prior to February 2007)

3.        Copy of your Social Security card


We already have the copy of the filed police report that you provided.

We, too, are ready to get this resolved for you, but we really can't
without the items mentioned.  These are the same items that we require in
other cases of ID theft, as recommended by the Federal Trade Commission.


Sincerely,

 

Mod Cut! 

 

Please do not post the personal information of others in the forums. Its not allowed. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

--fused, myfico moderator

Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value
Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

800+ Club
Message 9 of 12
Nonaii
Regular Contributor

Re: My last letter to CMI and their reply. LOL

is there an update to this thread?
Message 10 of 12
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.