Author Topic: Afni, Inc  (Read 3983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

razorsedge

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 129
Afni, Inc
« on: April 04, 2008 10:44:00 PM »
Recently I received a "settlement" letter from Afni, Inc on behalf of Charter Communictions. Unfortunately, the letter was sent to an old address and thus I did not get it within thirty days. Nevertheless, I have never had any account with Charter Communications and I believe that they have made a mistake with my name.

I have written and maiiled a DV letter CMRR. I have found no evidence of either concern on any of my three credit reports. My question is what can I do to get the matter resolved. Much of the reading I have done suggests that AFNI does not respond to DV or any other inquiry for that matter. If, in fact this is a case of mistaken identity then what course of action can I take, including litigation to resolve this matter?
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein

poker

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 227
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2008 01:53:26 AM »
I am pretty sure your 30 day period to DV begins when you receive the letter.  If they sent it to an old address that is their problem, not yours.

razorsedge

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 129
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2008 04:10:40 AM »
That makes sense to me. So if they fail to validate what course of action do I have? I am expecting that they will not respond to me as this letter references some previous attempt to contact me. Nonetheless, a violation for failing to validate should be easy to do?? Any other thoughts will be appreciated. 
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein

DefLepGirl

  • Y-E-A-H!
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2250
    • :0)
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2008 04:17:55 AM »
Razor :)

They do not *have* to validate........ There's no violation for "not" validating UNLESS they continue collections.......

Watch your CR's....... Watch your "snail" mail and watch your phone......

Keep track of your CMRRR # and a copy of the letter you sent requesting validation......... If they *pop* back into your life in the future......(Without) validation........ You've got them.
~I'm not an attorney (nor) do I play one on the internet.. Take everything I *write* as just my personal opinion and experience~

I love quoting Fleppie / Deflepgirl -  E. Normis  (Ok he actually didn't say it but actions speak louder than words..... or in this case words speak louder oooh whatever he loves it!-

Bronco

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 127
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2008 01:11:03 PM »
AFNI has yet to respond to two written requests for validation(phone bill). And they have been quiet, for now.

coltfan1972

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4745
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2008 06:39:41 PM »
Just hang tight and don't worry about it.  I DV a JDB 2.5 years ago.  They did not validate and then out of the blue they sent me another collection letter.   Now we are in the discovery phase of the lawsuit I filed against them.  It might take some time but there is a good chance they will up.  Imagine my delight when after such a long time this JDB decided to "try again"
Scroggin succeed in making this case an expensive nightmare for both CBOJ and its counsel.
Scroggin made a "mockery" out of CBOJ's deposition.

Scroggin made "perverted one-liners" during his deposition.
Scroggin called CBOJ'S counsel "a little witch"

Scroggin used the FDCPA as a "sword of intimidation."
Scroggin loves suing debt collectors.

Scroggin is proud of his behavior and "unapologetic."

Rebecca Worsham - Lead Counsel, Scroggin v. CBOJ- 3:12-cv-128, Eastern District of Ark.

WalStMonky1

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2008 06:45:25 PM »
I recently received a collection demand from AFNI that was dated 12/14/07 that I didn't read until 1/31/08 because I was out of town. I did immediately send a DV (text of letter "Your demand letter dated 12/14/2007 was received today. I do not recognize this debt as mine. Validate.")  certified mail on 1/31/08, well past the 30 day cutoff. AFNI did not respond. Apparently proof of delivery isn't required before the clock starts? Am I stuck with this debt as 'mine' since I did not respond in time? Is 'pay for deletion' my only option? It's just over $400 so paying wouldn't kill me, but I'd much rather sue and collect. Between here and CB I've found a lot of great info, but seems everything assumes a timely response to the initial demand letter. I've verified that it has been reported to both EQ and EX and I assume that TU has it as well. The comment on the tradeline reads: "Account information disputed by consumer (Meets requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act)."

Can someone please point me in the direction I need to go to deal with this thing?

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8519
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2008 07:20:26 PM »
The FDCPA clock, by law, starts when you RECEIVE their letter, NOT when they sent it.

Your DV was correct in stating clearly the date on which you received it; the date you sent the response was within the statutory 30 days from receipt.  You have the green card that proves the date that they received your response and that they are aware of both your claim and request.

If push comes to shove, it will be up to them to prove that you received the letter at a date earlier than you claim.

With a timely DV in place, they cannot continue collection activities unless and until they provide appropriate verification OBTAINED from the OC.

The FDCPA imposes no obligation on them to respond to your DV. Some states have more stringent requirements on the CA; check your state's collection laws and regulations.

Imaputz-85a

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 223
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2008 10:23:26 PM »
I recently received a collection demand from AFNI that was dated 12/14/07 that I didn't read until 1/31/08 because I was out of town.

The FDCPA clock, by law, starts when you RECEIVE their letter, NOT when they sent it.

While this may be true, I believe the courts would give less wiggle room than this case would demand. The purpose of starting the clock on receipt is to accommodate for mailing time, not vacation time.

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8519
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2008 12:07:11 AM »
..The purpose of starting the clock on receipt is to accommodate for mailing time, not vacation time.

The law is silent on as to the reason for the start of the clock being on receipt.

Point remains that the OP received it on a certain date and responded in a timely fashion. If the CA thinks otherwise, the onus is on them to establish that he received it on some other date.

The CA might also have the problem of establishing that the date on the letter reflects the actual date that the notice was mailed. I've seen postmarks that we 8-10 days later than the date on the letter.


Imaputz-85a

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 223
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2008 12:31:09 AM »
Point remains that the OP received it on a certain date and responded in a timely fashion. If the CA thinks otherwise, the onus is on them to establish that he received it on some other date.

Actually, the onus is on the CA only to show it was sent successfully. What happens after that is not really their problem. If the debtor is going to claim it was received significantly later than the CA can show it was sent, I believe the onus would be on him or her to establish some sort of fraud or conspiracy.

I have never heard of a CA being held accountable for overshadowing beyond 30 days + a reasonable mailing time (i.e. a few days). If you are advising differently, you should be able to back it up. Otherwise, it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8519
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2008 01:47:44 AM »
Actually, the onus is on the CA only to show it was sent successfully. What happens after that is not really their problem. If the debtor is going to claim it was received significantly later than the CA can show it was sent, I believe the onus would be on him or her to establish some sort of fraud or conspiracy.

I have never heard of a CA being held accountable for overshadowing beyond 30 days + a reasonable mailing time (i.e. a few days). If you are advising differently, you should be able to back it up. Otherwise, it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The statutory language is clear and unequivocal.

Quote
  §809 (a) (3)  a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;....

Emphasis added.


You're claiming that the statute says otherwise?  What do you have that supports your surmise? Any citations?

As was said earlier in this thread:

...If you are advising differently, you should be able to back it up. Otherwise, it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Well?

« Last Edit: April 16, 2008 02:03:46 AM by CleaningUp »

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: Afni, Inc
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2008 02:48:37 AM »
Actually, the onus is on the CA only to show it was sent successfully. What happens after that is not really their problem. If the debtor is going to claim it was received significantly later than the CA can show it was sent, I believe the onus would be on him or her to establish some sort of fraud or conspiracy.

No need to go to the level of "fraud" or "conspiracy" to rebut the presumption of the applicability of the "common-law mailbox rule".  All the rule does is set one date certain:  The date that the letter was turned over to the USPS for processing and delivery (the only date the CA has any control over).

What would happen?  All the OP would need to do is establish that they did not have the letter in hand before they date they claim.  Yes, the letter was delivered no later than the day they returned to "home base", but when did it actually get there?  The date it was delivered, absent certified delivery proof of mailing, cannot be established with any degree of certainty. 

The "mailing time" usually allowed for in case law is also a presumption:  The recipient was there to get the letter they certainly were not expecting!  The OP in this case, however,  could easily rebut this presumption since they were not available to receive the letter before they did due to no fault of their own. 

The fact that the letter was promptly replied to would also help here to show that the effective delivery date was the day they got back and the first possible day that they could have known about the letter.

[The case most often cited as precedent for the "common-law mailbox rule"--"Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County"--involved a situation in which there was NO question that the mailing took place following acceptable procedures AND that the Mahons were available to receive the letter the moment it dropped in the mailbox.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008 02:50:22 AM by Rottweiler »
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

Imaputz-85a

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 223
Re: Afni, Inc
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2008 02:58:05 AM »
The question is whether the CA would be guilty of a violation due to the debtor not being "available" to receive their validation notice in time to respond in the legal window.

I maintain that, unless anyone can show me differently, there is no violation here.


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: Afni, Inc
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2008 03:02:55 AM »
Yes, the CA would be "guilty" of a violation (continued collections if they failed to verify) IF it can be shown that the effective date of delivery and the date the consumer could have been available to receive the missive was within the period allotted. 

The argument to establish the time frame--and whether the DV was 'timely'--would be that simply depositing a letter in a mailbox is not the same as the intended party actually taking it in hand.  There is no such thing as "abode service" for a simple dunning letter; the addressee must actually take it in hand for delivery to be completed. 
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

 

credit