Author Topic: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1  (Read 17600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8591
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« on: November 10, 2005 10:39:20 PM »
NOTE PLEASE: THERE IS NO CASE LAW UNDER THIS THEORY OF LAW. I AM HOPING TO CORNER THE COURTS INTO EITHER OVERTURNING DITTY V CHECKRITE OR ALLOWING MY COUNTERPOSITION - THAT VOD TO CA#1 IS VOD TO ALL SUBSEQUENT CA'S. USE THIS LETTER WITH EXTREME CAUTION - IT IS UNTESTED LAW.

1313 Mockingbord Lane
Tucson AZ 85799
November 12, 2005

NCO Financial Systems
507 Prudential Road
Horsham PA 19044

Re:   Flyingifr v. NCO Financial Systems
   Your File Number 84635999999 FACJVS

N O T I C E   O F   I N T E N T   T O   S U E

Gentlemen:

You are hereby put on notice of my intent to sue NCO Financial Systems for violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 USC 1692g) in that this debt was under a timely Validation Demand sent to your predecessor Collection Agency, Risk Management Associates (RMA). RMA received the Validation Demand within the statutory thirty-day period. Pursuant to FDCPA, all collection efforts must cease until Validation is provided. No kind of validation has ever been provided. Your letter of October 22, 2005 constitutes continued collection action in violation of 15 USC 1692g.

The Theory of Law of this claim resides in Ditty v. Checkrite, Ltd., 973 F Supp 1320 (D. Utah, 1997) wherein the US District Court was presented with the question of whether a new thirty-day Validation period was afforded whenever a debt was transferred from one Debt Collector firm to another Debt Collector firm. The Court ruled

“section 1692g does not require another debt collector, undertaking collection efforts after a validation notice has been timely sent, to provide additional notice and another thirty-day validation period. More than thirty days passed between the time Checkrite sent its initial letter and the time DeLoney & Associates sent its letter. Therefore, the Dittys’ right to dispute the validity of the debt expired before DeLoney & Associates letter was sent.”

In the Ditty case, the Consumer did not send a timely Validation demand triggering the requirement that collection efforts stop until validation is provided. In my instance, a Validation demand was placed timely (the Validation demand was signed for by RMA 4 days after their initial communication was sent). If the failure to invoke a timely Validation demand from Debt Collector #1 extinguishes a consumer’s right to demand Validation and receive the protection of the Collection Action prohibition of 15 USC 1692g from Debt Collector #2, then by rights a timely Validation Demand by a consumer to Debt Collector #1 must bind Debt Collector #2 to provide the Validation before collection action may proceed. To rule any other way would create a way for Debt Collectors to avoid forever the obligation to validate the debt by merely sending a debt with a timely Validation Demand off to another Debt Collector, ad infinitum.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a “strict liability” statute – meaning the violation is permanent and once committed cannot be “un-done” by subsequent action. You are hereby put on notice of my intent to sue NCO in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars Statutory Damages, plus attorneys’ fees and Court Costs. You can avoid the additional costs of litigation by forwarding to me One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars within twenty-one days of the date of this letter. Failure or refusal to do so will bring immediate litigation.

I have attached a copy of my Validation demand to RMA, as well as a copy of their letter and a US Postal Service Receipt of Delivery to remind you that you are not to telephone me, and that any telephone call will be considered an additional violation of FDCPA.

Sincerely,


Flyingifr
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008 01:53:48 PM by Flyingifr »
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Rottweiler

  • Guest
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2005 04:33:15 PM »
That's an even more aggressive version of Butch's "Subsequent CA " letter.  Yours, however, goes further, actually "inviting" the CA to lititgate the thing, and not just "shut up" and go away to avoid litigation,  if they should so choose...and set actual precedent to support the theory in the bargain!

This is the "subsequent CA letter"  I am talking about:

The link to the thread on "Art of Credit":

http://www.artofcredit.com/board/showthread.php?t=1920  (This link no longer works)

The initial post that outlines the "letter":

Quote
  Originally posted by "Butch" on "Art of Credit":

Butch     04-03-2004 03:36 PM
Subsequent Collection Agency Strategy
 
I've posted much about CA's selling or assigning a debt to a subsequent (unsuspecting) CA because you demanded validation that they cannot provide. [inserted 7/4/04] Keep in mind this concept is effective only if one disputes within the 30 day time frame.

This issue affecting a lot of people.

So often when we demand validation, not only is the demand unanswered but the next thing we know is yet another CA is trying to collect.

They do this for 2 reasons;

    * 1) They cannot validate
      2) They want to collect anyway


This is actually a good sign when this happens but it can ceratinly be a headache for you.


Assuming you demanded validation [with the 1st CA] that never came, or was inadequate, and then hear from the next ca, I suggest you take it upon yourself to "notify" the subsequent CA of the debts FROZEN status.



Send CA2 &3 &4 & whatever, the following letter. Obviously you'll want to customize it to fit your situation.

    * Date

      CA #2
      123 West St.
      Anytown, USA xxxxx

      Certified mail # xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

      Dear CA#2,

      It is a well settled legal principle that all opportunity for resolution must be extinguished before legal action can take place. This notice should be considered constructive notice.

      Ca#1 has sold/assigned ("dumped upon") you a NON-performing, illegitimate debt, the collection for which has already been frozen by my demand for validation, via FDCPA. My demand was sent xx/xx/xxxx and signed for on xx/xx/xxxx by John Smith, at [insert address]. Follow-up letters were sent, blah, blah, blah. Your ignorance of this fact is no excuse.

      Both you and CA#1 are in violation of Federal Law for (but not limited to) continued collection activity on an alleged debt, the collection for which MUST CEASE until valid proof sent, pursuant to FDCPA § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (b)

      May I suggest you return this account to CA#1 and demand your money back, or compensation for your wasted time, pursuant to the "qualifying RECOURSE accounts provisions" of your purchase/assignment contract.

      I further demand that you immediately delete the trade-line you have inappropriately inserted on my credit report. YOU HAVE REPORTED INCORRECT INFORMATION! You have 5 days to cure.

      OR ...

      If you report this derogatory item to any credit reporting agency after the tracked and verified receipt of this notice, you may be sued.

      Any further communication from you before I receive the demanded proof of this alleged debts validity via federal and case law and I will instruct my atty. to begin drafting a formal complaint.

      Regards,


      Enclosures:
      1) Copy of original and all subsequent val demands
      2) Copy of return receipts & green cards
      3) My atty. staff




Also - If the debt was "assigned" (as opposed to sold outright) I would also copy the OC. The OC can be held responsible for their CA's violations in many circumstances.


:)

I have used a modified version of that letter, copied below (edited to "protect" the one innocent...and the guilty...parties:

Rottweiler
666 Kennel Lane
Puppytown, CT   06000-6666

Sometime in 2005

Incompetent Collection Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 66666666
Doyoureallywanttoknow, FL  00000-0666
Certified Mail Receipt No.:  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Re:  Creditor:  Scummy Sub-Prime Credit Card Services
Account Number:   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear Incompetent Collection Services, Inc.:

It is a well established legal principle that all opportunities for resolution of any dispute must be extinguished before legal action can take place.  This notice should be considered constructive notice.

Rotten to the Core Collections, Inc., either directly or by returning it to the client, Scummy Sub-Prime Credit Card Bank, got assigned (re-assigned)  to you a NON-performing, illegitimate debt, the collection of such which has already been frozen by my demand for validation under the FDCPA.  My demand was sent 5/26/2005, and signed for on 5/31/2005 by an agent of Rotten to the Core.  Your ignorance of this fact is no excuse!

Therefore, both Incompetent Collection Services, Inc., and Rotten to the Core Collections, Inc., as assignees of Scummy Sub-Prime Credit Card Bank,  are in violation of Federal Law for, but not limited to, continued collection activity on an alleged debt, the collection for such which MUST CEASE until valid proof is sent,  pursuant to FDCPA §809, Validation of Debts [15 U.S.C. §1692g(b) ].

If you report this derogatory item to any credit reporting agency, or attempt further collection activity without the required validation,  after the tracked and verified receipt of this notice, you may be sued.

Also, all phone calls, any time and any place, are inconvenient.  Please communicate by
U.S. Mail, only.

Sincerely yours,
Rottweiler.

Enclosures: 1.)  Copy of validation demand.
                    2.)  Copy of return receipt; green card.


They've been really quiet since they got the letter.  So, this "good doggie" is waiting to see what happens...they still have time.  So do I....!   


« Last Edit: November 08, 2008 12:39:53 PM by Admin6572 »

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8591
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2005 04:46:43 PM »
It just shows to illustrate my point that a well-worded letter promptly sent will scare away most CA's. When will consumers realize that and start doing it?
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Rottweiler

  • Guest
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2005 05:14:57 PM »
I suppose that most consumers will start writing those letters when:

1.)  They overcome the "inertia" of fear, a not insignificant hurdle to get over;

2.)  They realize that suing is best reserved for those egregious violation of law cases, since it does require so much time (or a lot of money for those attorneys) to do well;

3.)  They learn HOW TO WRITE those business letters  in the first place!
Actually writing effective business letters, considering the absolutely abhorrent state of education for the last several decades, may be the hardest thing to do.  It should be the easiest...!

Nexus2

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2005 11:26:56 PM »
I've got a few intersting letter myself., lol


You're right folks, I actually cleaned off my reports prrimarily with strongly worded ITS letters that referenced the statutes, specific violations and damages....sometimes I actaully sent copies of the complaints.

Sending the complaints netted me a few checks as well.
Do it first, talk about it later and mess it up till you get it right....
Rowf Rowf!

Rottweiler

  • Guest
I have another one! Do the Flyingifr version this time? Or, even stronger??
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2005 01:13:10 AM »
Looks like lesson time again...

I just heard from another JDB...who thinks they are LVNV/Sherman.  Or, are "emulating" them by sending their own CA after me for a disputed alleged debt bought from another JDB!

They are about to get that "subsequent CA letter"...Flyingifr style this time?

Or, Snoop Dog, shall I PM you for one of your "special" screeds in the hopes these guys will quit passing this rather "substantial"  alleged account around like a bad case of the flu?

Look in the JDB Forum , soon, for a "screed" on these not-so-nice people.

Nexus2

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2005 03:42:49 AM »
Pm Me if you wish, but the letter remains a secret. I'm not ready to reveal those just yet, but they should put fear into the hearts of the CA. Give me the details so I can adapt it to fit your situation.
Do it first, talk about it later and mess it up till you get it right....
Rowf Rowf!

RogerisRight

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 77
    • How I am putting my son through school (among others)
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2007 03:07:13 AM »
okay ifr my friend lets go bag us a CA #2
I just received a letter today from a law firm named "Riddle and Associates" out of that hot bed of clear thinkers Sandy Utah....they are CA #2 for an alleged 63.75 Direct TV Bill from 2003. When I rec'd my first demand letter shortly after our closing bill from these guys (Direct) I wrote them a letter saying they had billed for one month beyond our contract date etc. and to please adjust it ...I then rec'd a letter from a letter writer dunning me for the same exact amount ...plus interest of course   and wanting this to stop immediately I elected to give them both barrels at once ...a demand for valudation /cesae and desist to both Direct TV and CA #1 certified mail RRR ...then put it away in a file and nefver heard another word  untuil todaythe account was never validated and although it did appear on my bureau for about 60 days shortly thereafter as soon as I wrote to the CRA with copies of the VOD 's it was gone the next month ...soo I have just fired off your letter with name and date changes to see if Riddles wants to pay ...or play then pay. I gave them 21 days like you did in your letter and I added a few lines suggesting that they seek out the opinion of counsel from someone who is knoweledgeable in these areas as a further non name calling slap and suggested that I could not give them any legal advice beyond that. i told them that I would be filing in US District Court District of Oregon and mentioned that they could probably obtain some names of local counsel through the Oregon State Bar website /...In their letter they say that their "law firm has been retained to collect from me the total amount due"  which in a separate box were the calculations where they generously gave themselves a fee of $98.00 labeled "attorney collection cost" even though in the body of their letter they did mention in very very small type that no one in their firm has ever even looked at the issues or claims against me.  I am attaching a copy of their letter ...has anyone else run into Riddle and AQss. before  I noticed this post is pretty old has anyone had any follow up experience ion this topic??   actually i can post the demand letter if you want me to and tell me where it should go so I dont blow it again
"Don't blame me I voted for the American"
"If you think healthcare is expensive now ...just wait until it's free!"
"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security."
William F. Buckley, Jr.

Mischievous Smurfy

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5595
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2007 03:38:30 AM »
OK does the contract require you to pay collection costs?  Even if so the OC must add them not Riddle...

is the fee otherwise allowed under your state law?

they have been sued over this very issue several times ... usually involving NSF check collections ...

Ease of Use - Smurfy's Quick Reference


why are we requesting validation instead of disputing???  Why Why Why

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2007 04:04:44 AM »
Riddle and A$$ociates is right:  This thread will tell a bit more about this Jesse Riddle, Esq. and his firm:

http://debtorboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=1214.0

Also check Bud Hibbs for current information on this "legal eagle".

Have fun:  While it's unlikely he'll sue you (unless he has gotten an attorney licensed in OR on the staff by now), his firm is a bear to deal with.  Smurfy is right:  They are known for adding illegal fees, and are sued for collection law violations as a bad habit.
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

RogerisRight

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 77
    • How I am putting my son through school (among others)
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2007 06:11:00 AM »
Well I just cleared my plate of a couple of big ones today and have alot of free time to deal with Mr Riddle me this?  I also have never lost a case in Federal Court because for some reason out west here the Federal District Court Judge's go out of their way to make sure the playing field is beyond level and tilted a bit towards the unrepresented guy ...the way it should be ...They are however unforgiving when it comes to time lines and the sooner I figured that out the easier it got and chasing anyone through a bankruptcy vis a vie an adversary complaint is next to impossible ...and I have not fared well in that forum ...I will take a look at those links now and then keep you all comprised I am fairly new to this area of the law but it looks like more consistent albeit smaller payouts ...this is the first time I have seen any one add a fee like this before to anything ...at least without posting it and disclosing it at the time of service ...I doubt they will sue me over a third tier down (they are the 3rd player at bat with the first two fanning the ball and the striking out ) and countersuing on the underlying debt in federal court is a no no. I have prepared and am getting the docs ready to file and serve on the other issue you guys have pointed mje innthe right direction on   thx   this is going to be fun  :o
"Don't blame me I voted for the American"
"If you think healthcare is expensive now ...just wait until it's free!"
"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security."
William F. Buckley, Jr.

Mischievous Smurfy

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5595
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2007 06:33:11 AM »
Bankruptcy??

I have a case where a consumer won an adversary proceeding .. therefor the court ruled the debt was not dischargeable ...  the arguement successfully used was that FDCPA judgments are fraud and fraud is not disschargeable ...

Score a big one for consumers ...
Ease of Use - Smurfy's Quick Reference


why are we requesting validation instead of disputing???  Why Why Why

RogerisRight

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 77
    • How I am putting my son through school (among others)
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2007 07:10:10 AM »
maybe i should have saved my little man with the bulging eyes going into a state of shock until after I read the threads you referenced above sounds like the guy is Perry mason as long as he is in Utah were theankfully everyone else follows the law ...except ...oh yeah then there is ....and then....ohh never mind ...get him out of Utah and into the year 2007 and he comes across as a very angry probably short (and with a whole closet of short pants to prove it ) version of Dr. Bean ...or or "Professor Bean" or was it just "Bean" the muttering imbecile. A real federal court isn't the place to come up 1/2 baked with your pleadings but it sounds like as soon as you rub this little guy the wrong way he sees red and starts abusing the civil process to punish those who would say out loud that "The king has too many wives" ..umm I mean "the Kinbg has no clothes " don't know for sure ...you know just my own opinion
"Don't blame me I voted for the American"
"If you think healthcare is expensive now ...just wait until it's free!"
"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security."
William F. Buckley, Jr.

RogerisRight

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 77
    • How I am putting my son through school (among others)
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2007 07:19:04 AM »
In the matter of the Bankruiptcy of Murray D. Etheridge I watched a very large bank who supplied him with his inventory flooring line (3 million bucks) chase this guy after they discovered that he was out of trust with them by what turnened out to be 2.75 million (they took their cars away and sold them at auction for 250k...all of them!) seems that he had been flooring trucks that he did not own ...had not owned and that belonged to other dealers all over the US ...each car floored represented a separate loan and all told there were over 250 of these loans that were 100% made up ...bank fraud that would make bonnie and clyde blush ...the bank spent over 1 MM according to records in Pacer and could not get the debt kicked under the fraud statutes ....now the p[oor bank is down almost 4 million....guess its time for them to increase fees once again. If you have a pacer acct go read the adv history on this case then ask yourself why this guy has not spent one day in jail or ever been charged criminally for anything ...20 payoffs never made ...50 extd service contracts sold but never paid for...and on and on and on ...wow  glad to hear that sopmeone enforces the laws ...this guys atty's were as good as I have ever seen 
"Don't blame me I voted for the American"
"If you think healthcare is expensive now ...just wait until it's free!"
"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security."
William F. Buckley, Jr.

Mischievous Smurfy

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5595
Re: ITS-2nd CA to Dun - VOD demand out against CA#1
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2007 07:30:40 AM »
Ha ... that sounds like a familiar scam ...  we had one of those little buy here pay here guys in my city ... he would sell a car .. then sell the "loan" to two or three different people ... 

the consumers were making payments on time but still the cars got repod because they were only paying one of the loans ... the others were all fraud and the "dealer" pocketed the money ..

but he didn't get away with it .. he has lots of prison time to think about how badly he up ...
Ease of Use - Smurfy's Quick Reference


why are we requesting validation instead of disputing???  Why Why Why