Author Topic: Understanding the 30 days of Initial Communication  (Read 35216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: Understanding the 30 days of Initial Communication
« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2008 05:17:48 AM »
What if the CA, inhouse, claims they mailed the initial communication while you were out of country, IRAQ, and you can not prove they did not. The ca continues to update monthlu but have neveer validated because I as out fo the country and did not DV them. Is this still a violation in the form of as communication?

Probably no violation.  It's likely the "common-law mailbox rule" and "bona-fide error" would hold up as defenses here.

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

PROSAY

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 63
Re: Understanding the 30 days of Initial Communication
« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2010 12:29:37 PM »
When I reply to a CA, I simply state that" telephone calls to any number , whether personal, business,  employer, relative or friend which you have on file pertaining to this "alleged account" is strictly forbidden. This pertains to not only this "alleged debt", but any other "alleged debt" which you have purchased or which you have been assigned as of this letter or at any point in the future.

WE DEMAND THAT ALL FUTURE COMMUNICATION BE IN WRITING AND SENT TO US VIA THE US POSTAL SERVICES. TELEPHONE CALLS ARE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, AND YOU ARE THEREFORE TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE ALL CALLS !

(How's this for a "BLANKET STATEMENT ")  Sure has worked well for me !

KFMAN

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5133
Re: Understanding the 30 days of Initial Communication
« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2010 01:51:38 PM »
When I reply to a CA, I simply state that" telephone calls to any number , whether personal, business,  employer, relative or friend which you have on file pertaining to this "alleged account" is strictly forbidden. This pertains to not only this "alleged debt", but any other "alleged debt" which you have purchased or which you have been assigned as of this letter or at any point in the future.

WE DEMAND THAT ALL FUTURE COMMUNICATION BE IN WRITING AND SENT TO US VIA THE US POSTAL SERVICES. TELEPHONE CALLS ARE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, AND YOU ARE THEREFORE TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE ALL CALLS !

(How's this for a "BLANKET STATEMENT ")  Sure has worked well for me !
That will work, but Maylaur always said short and to the point was just as good. 

I dispute this alleged debt.

All phone calls are inconvenient.


Why didn't you include the election of Arbitration to settle the dispute in your VOC letter?

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9962
Re: Understanding the 30 days of Initial Communication
« Reply #48 on: November 24, 2010 07:41:40 PM »

When I reply to a CA, I simply state that" telephone calls to any number , whether personal, business,  employer, relative or friend which you have on file pertaining to this "alleged account" is strictly forbidden. This pertains to not only this "alleged debt", but any other "alleged debt" which you have purchased or which you have been assigned as of this letter or at any point in the future.



Nice revival of a zombie thread.

You can ask for anything you want.  But even the CA knows that the only phones over which you have any legal say are the ones that are listed in your own name and calls to your workplace.

Me thinks, there's been too much internet copying and not enough study of what the law actually can support.


« Last Edit: November 24, 2010 07:47:23 PM by CleaningUp »

KFMAN

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5133
Re: Understanding the 30 days of Initial Communication
« Reply #49 on: November 24, 2010 07:41:54 PM »
C'mon Rottie - are you going to let them off the hook because it may cost them a little to maintain records and cross-reference them? I sure wouldn't. They expect me to remember their bill among the hundreds I get, I expect them to remember that they have been told that any calls to me at any location are inconvenient at any time and the fact that they have two accounts for me instead of one doesn't change that fact. They are on notice, I told them, FDCPA does not stipulate that notice of inconvenient collection forum is debt-specific. In fact, a stronger argument could be made the other way - that it is blanket.
Here is a case that talks about this.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17822122062057343344&q=%22Credit+Collection+Services%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2000003&as_vis=1

fisthardcheese

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3707
  • They forced arbitration into your contract. Use it
Re: Filing suit constitutes continued collections?
« Reply #50 on: July 15, 2013 07:44:37 PM »

Once the VOD is made within the 30 day period of initial communication (which begins on RECEIPT of Initial Communication), the collector is prohibited from taking any collection action until Verification is provided. The Courts have ruled the following to be violations:

* Making an offer to settle the debt
* taking an administrative garnishment without responding to VOD letter
* seeking a default judgment
* sending verification to someone other than the consumer
* when reporting to a CRA, failing to report debt as disputed (also a FCRA violation)
* Filing suit
* burying the debt validation notice on page 8 of a 16 page communication


I have seen many times on this board and others that Filing a Suit constitutes continued collection activities after a timely VOD without any reply of validation, however, I have spent many hours searching Google Scholar for any case law or other article that could lend support in the counter claim I am working on with this exact violation and I can not find anything.  Does anyone have any specific cases they could point me to for this one?

The thing that makes me shaky on this particular argument of continued collections is that it is presumably permissible for a CA to contact the debtor once after a timely VOD is made to announce their intent for legal actions.  If this is allowed, would not the legal action itself be allowed?
11 Arb Settlements (9 AAA, 2 JAMS)
3 JDB Suits Dismissed With Prejudice (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
3 TCPA Settlements (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
2 FCRA Settlements (consumer atty)
1 FDCPA Settlement (w consumer atty)
1 Small Claims Win (pro-se; Landlord/state consumer law violations)
1 State UDAP Settlement (ITS)
1 Federal PTC Settlement (before hearing; pro-se)

E. Normis Debtor

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2433
Re: Filing suit constitutes continued collections?
« Reply #51 on: July 15, 2013 07:56:19 PM »
I have seen many times on this board and others that Filing a Suit constitutes continued collection activities after a timely VOD without any reply of validation, however, I have spent many hours searching Google Scholar for any case law or other article that could lend support in the counter claim I am working on with this exact violation and I can not find anything.  Does anyone have any specific cases they could point me to for this one?

The thing that makes me shaky on this particular argument of continued collections is that it is presumably permissible for a CA to contact the debtor once after a timely VOD is made to announce their intent for legal actions.  If this is allowed, would not the legal action itself be allowed?

Filing suit is indeed a prohibited collection activity prior to providing requested verification.  Recker addresses all of your points.

http://www.debtorboards.com/index.php?topic=8489.msg60501#msg60501
I don't respond to PM's or emails for advice on specific circumstances.  My participation in this forum is general in nature, and not intended to create an attorney/client relationship.

fisthardcheese

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3707
  • They forced arbitration into your contract. Use it
Re: Understanding the 30 days of Initial Communication
« Reply #52 on: July 15, 2013 09:09:14 PM »
Thank you, E. Normis! This is exactly what I have been looking for!
11 Arb Settlements (9 AAA, 2 JAMS)
3 JDB Suits Dismissed With Prejudice (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
3 TCPA Settlements (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
2 FCRA Settlements (consumer atty)
1 FDCPA Settlement (w consumer atty)
1 Small Claims Win (pro-se; Landlord/state consumer law violations)
1 State UDAP Settlement (ITS)
1 Federal PTC Settlement (before hearing; pro-se)