Confusion over next step and possible cause of action against CA(s)

[rockid9]

I'm going to try to get as much factual info down in this post so nobody will have to ask follow ups:
In November of 2008 I pulled a CR to review my credit situation. I had applied to become an Officer with the US Army, and credit is either a qualifying or disqualifying factor, as a DOD security clearance is necessary for qualification. I knew that I had some bad debts/charge-offs from 4 or 5 years back that might be a problem. I wanted to deal with it.

The first thing I did was send a DV letter to each CA with a tradeline on my CR. These were delivered 11/24 and 11/25 CMRRR. I disputed the debts and asked for validation with proof by original documents.

Next I initiated a dispute with Transunion on 11/18, online. I had had problems getting my CR from Equifax and Experian, so I disputed with the report I had. I was still working on getting a report from the others.

On 12/18, the TU dispute came back. Two items were deleted, and everything else remained. One CA came back as "verified no change" and the others had "new information" which was exactly the same but with a new date of verification.

On 12/29 I mailed a new letter to the remaining CA's saying that I had not received validation and demanded the items be removed. I ordered them to cease and desist from all collection activities. I sent a copy of my original letter and a copy of the green card to all of them. The packets were mailed CMRRR.

I also sent a packet with these documents for each CA to the CRA's and a letter requesting an investigation and asking for the tradelines to be removed because they were not validated. My Experian packet got kicked back as they said that I lacked sufficient ID, so I had to remail the packet, which I did last week. My Equifax (CSC) packet is still MIA. Transunion just responded the same way again, and I got those results on 01/20/09.

Also of note, one CA, Asset Acceptance sent a 'debt validation' that contained nothing but my name, the name of the original creditor, and the amount they alleged I owed. I got this between 11/24 and 12/29. I mailed copies of these to the CRA's in that request for re-investigation. Another CA, AFNI mailed a debt validation that contained the logo of the OC Alltel but just had the amount and my name and address. I am not sure if this qualifies as a proper validation or not. I got this in early January.

On 02/03, I was disqualified for the Officers package that I had been selected for on 12/4/08 by a security screener at MEPS one hour before I was supposed to get on a plane for basic training. I had to have an embarrasing meeting with parents and other humiliating events with my family who were disappointed and even though the didn't say it, embarrassed.

On 02/07 or so I got a validation from one CA, Calvary Portfolio, with a copy of the original contract from the OC.

Lastly, I got a letter from a law firm attempting to collect for their client, Calvary, demanding full payment and suggesting that if I didn't respond they would turn the item over for an atty review. Later in the letter, they said that no attorney had actually looked at the case. I got this letter after the cease and desist had been sent, and before the validation letter I received dated 01/29.

After all that, here are my questions: 1) If I had never received a dunning letter from any CA, was I covered by the FDCPA? Were they required to take my DV request as timely, or at least send me a dunning letter so that I could dispute? Even though I had already disputed?
2) When put on notice that I was disputing on 11/24, the CA's later verified the item to the CRA, which I got a copy of by 12/18. Shouldn't those tradelines have been deleted in order for the CA's to remain FDCPA compliant? Didn't they need to validate with me first before they could continue to collect?
3) On 12/29 they CA's also re-verified when they had been notified of a dispute. Isn't this further collections activity?
4) If those items had dropped off due to non-verification, I would not have lost my OCS package (which if you aren't clear, is very prestigious and requires months of screening etc). This is a significant damage to me. Can it be proven in the cause of action or complaint?
5) Even if items come back validated now, isn't everything prior to 02/03 relevant, even if it was dated prior, but received after?
6) Considering this info, what should I do now?

[Wiser Now]

I knew that I had some bad debts/charge-offs from 4 or 5 years back that might be a problem. I wanted to deal with it.

The age of the debts is such that almost surely no validation response is going to be required.

The FDCPA allows you to dispute at any time. But, it is explicit that only if the dispute is within 30 days of your receipt of the dunning letter is the CA required to do anything. Even then, technically all the CA has to do is mark the debt disputed and cease collection activity until they validate. The FDCPA does not set any minimum timeframe for a response. If the CA wants, they could take 50 years.

The first thing I did was send a DV letter to each CA with a tradeline on my CR. These were delivered 11/24 and 11/25 CMRRR. I disputed the debts and asked for validation with proof by original documents.

You can ask for anything. There is no obligation on the part of the CA to do more than the plain language of the Act (plus the Wollman letter). Nowhere does it say they have to puke up original docs -- or even copies -- or even anything depending on how the debt was verified.

Next I initiated a dispute with Transunion on 11/18, online. I had had problems getting my CR from Equifax and Experian, so I disputed with the report I had. I was still working on getting a report from the others.

On 12/18, the TU dispute came back. Two items were deleted, and everything else remained. One CA came back as "verified no change" and the others had "new information" which was exactly the same but with a new date of verification.

OK. I don't see any problems there. If there was something inaccurate, then there is a different kettle of fish to be fought over later.

On 12/29 I mailed a new letter to the remaining CA's saying that I had not received validation and demanded the items be removed.

You can demand. They don't have to comply.

I ordered them to cease and desist from all collection activities.

Entirely within your right. Not the smartest idea in the world.

I also sent a packet with these documents for each CA to the CRA's and a letter requesting an investigation and asking for the tradelines to be removed because they were not validated.

That is not proper procedure. If you have already disputed to the CRA, I guess you are asking for a reinvestigation. But it sure is a confusing way to do it.

Demanding deletion of the tradeline because the debt was not validated is not a valid reason. First, the CA was almost surely not required to validate. Second, the CRA could care less one way or the other if the debt was or was not validated. It simply is not their concern.

Also of note, one CA, Asset Acceptance sent a 'debt validation' that contained nothing but my name, the name of the original creditor, and the amount they alleged I owed. I got this between 11/24 and 12/29.

That is exactly the minimum required by the Act. Some people have different opinions. But, what you got is what courts have agreed with. I think Chaudhry is the standard -- a piece of crap legal decision but it is real.

I mailed copies of these to the CRA's in that request for re-investigation.

This is getting real confusing.

Another CA, AFNI mailed a debt validation that contained the logo of the OC Alltel but just had the amount and my name and address. I am not sure if this qualifies as a proper validation or not. I got this in early January.

It is validation.

On 02/03, I was disqualified for the Officers package that I had been selected for on 12/4/08 by a security screener at MEPS one hour before I was supposed to get on a plane for basic training. I had to have an embarrasing meeting with parents and other humiliating events with my family who were disappointed and even though the didn't say it, embarrassed.

This is going to sound terribly insensitive but you do offend me. Clearly the debts are legit -- you have not said differently and I think you would be hollering to high heaven if they were fraud. Clearly the military has the right to set standards where they want. Why do you feel cheated out of something you should have never had and did not qualify for? If you were embarrassed, don't you think you set yourself up for that? As a retired military officer, it would not be my desire to call you brother. Officers are expected to stand tall and take their lumps when they are fairly delivered.

On 02/07 or so I got a validation from one CA, Calvary Portfolio, with a copy of the original contract from the OC.

More than they are required to send.

[Wiser Now]

Lastly, I got a letter from a law firm attempting to collect for their client, Calvary, demanding full payment and suggesting that if I didn't respond they would turn the item over for an atty review. Later in the letter, they said that no attorney had actually looked at the case. I got this letter after the cease and desist had been sent, and before the validation letter I received dated 01/29.

At little confusing, there might be a violation. But probably not for technical reasons.

After all that, here are my questions: 1) If I had never received a dunning letter from any CA, was I covered by the FDCPA?

Yes. You are covered by the FDCPA regardless if a dunning letter was or was not sent.

Were they required to take my DV request as timely, or at least send me a dunning letter so that I could dispute? Even though I had already disputed?

No and no and no.

But, if you think differently, the burden is on you to initiate the remedy of litigation. At that time, the burden of proof is on you. It is not the burden of the CA to prove that you received the dunning letter. They merely need to show that they have internal procedures to ensure timely mailing of letters and notices.

2) When put on notice that I was disputing on 11/24, the CA's later verified the item to the CRA, which I got a copy of by 12/18. Shouldn't those tradelines have been deleted in order for the CA's to remain FDCPA compliant?

No. All they are required to do is mark the items disputed.

Didn't they need to validate with me first before they could continue to collect?

Probably not. If your dispute was within 30 days of the dunning letter, they are required to cease collection activity until they validate. Otherwise, you are fair game. It is highly unlike they were required to cease collection activity and would be a very difficult thing for you to prove differently.

3) On 12/29 they CA's also re-verified when they had been notified of a dispute. Isn't this further collections activity?

It could be presuming they were barred from further collections activity. I don't think they were barred.

4) If those items had dropped off due to non-verification, I would not have lost my OCS package (which if you aren't clear, is very prestigious and requires months of screening etc). This is a significant damage to me. Can it be proven in the cause of action or complaint?

Can it be proven? Prove what? That is was prestigious? Maybe. That you were damaged? Probably. That it was illegal? I don't think so. In order to even establish the basis for damage, you must first prove that their actions were violations of the FDCPA. I don't see one yet.

5) Even if items come back validated now, isn't everything prior to 02/03 relevant, even if it was dated prior, but received after?

Depends on your definition of validation. To my way of thinking, they validated more than they were required by the FDCPA.

6) Considering this info, what should I do now?

You really don't want me to answer this one.


I honestly wish there were some way to not offend you yet let me speak plainly to you about your behavior. I do try to be non-judgmental. You have touched on something that is very important to me. Truth is that you offend me with your presumptions of unwarranted and unearned privilege. There are few higher honors and responsibilities than to serve as an officer in the military service. Our country expects our soldiers and sailors and marines to make sacrifices and to do things that are hard and dangerous. We should demand leaders of high moral character to be out front setting the standard and being a role model for those men and women. I think you failed that test. You are welcome and probably will disagree with my idealistic standards. You will not change my mind and I think I have earned the right to be firm in my conviction. If you want to change my mind, go enlist and earn those bars the hard way. Prove yourself. Then I will respect you.

Whatever you decide to do from here, I wish you good luck. Have you thought about politics?

[Amerikaner83]

"wiser now" is right on. Since your DVs back in November were untimely, no CA is required to send you a darn thing. It sucks, yes, but it's the way it works. Regarding the letter from the lawyerdude? No violation there either. Your out of the blue DV letters were, in all honesty, not the best idea. What you hoped to accomplish was to get them off your reports, while what you DID accomplish was put yourself back up on their radarscreen.

Can you sue them for anything? I don't think so at this point, since there isn't really any violations you can get them on... They don't need to validate anything to you - your DVs were way untimely and they have no obligation to do so.

What can you do? Look again at your reports. Find inaccuracies. Go after those. Find acccounts you need to pay off and do so. Read about the PFD process, you can use tha process to try and get them off your reports. In another year, you can have a clean report to try OCS again.

[rockid9]

To Wiser Now;

While I respect your opinion, I disagree with some of what you said. First, I never complained about the Army or it's decision, or the standards that it sets. If I had a complaint it would have been that it selected someone in the full view of disclosure and then disqualified him an our before he was to leave for basic. After making arrangements and notifiying family members. When you said you were offended that I was presuming to claim an "unwarranted and unearned privelege" you are making an assumption that I was trying to hide something and lie my way in. I find that offensive. That was never the case. I approached the Army about joining. I told them everything from the begiinning, hid nothing from them. I was told to appy as an Officer because I had a degree by my recruiter. I put a huge packet of docs together with letters of reference. Interviewed with the CO of the Meps battalion (the only candidate to ever do this btw) and he supported me. I went before a selection panel and answered questions. They selected me. I did an interview with a security screener who signed off on me. I signed a contract. So please don't tell me I'm pissed off because I got turned down for something I should never have had. I never made an assumption I was worthy of it. They did. Then they changed their mind.

Oh yeah, when the "lump" was delivered I took it like a man and enlisted anyway. I'm still going, regardless. I view the situation as a setback. All I was asking for when I applied, which by the way had a full disclosure from the beginning, was a chance to prove myself. Now I just have further to move to get to my goal than before, but I won't be stopped and I will not quit.

I asked about what to do because the situation is not simple or easy. If i thought throwing money at the problem would solve it, I would do that. I'd use all my enlistment bonus monies to pay. But I don't think this helps me because I dont think a paid collection makes one bit of difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my research suggests that it makes things worse. And i don't know how DOD views this.

I sent the DV letters because I believed they were the proper course of action. They were not sent in an attempt to 1-2 punch or anything like that. I didn't even know what a 1-2 punch was when I mailed any of my letters. Remember when I said I went to a Credit Repair guy and found out he was lying to me? Charging me for something that would make things worse? I've been trying to do the right thing from the beginning.

My interest isn't in being litigious or trying to use law loopholes to get out of the responsibility. I care about finding a solution that helps me move forward.
If, Wiser, you think I should be forever barred because I made mistakes when poor, working full time, and going to school full time while young and stupid, then I offer no defense. It happened. But DOD doesn't seem to think that. So I'm asking you to set aside your judgement and offer some real advice if you have any.

[rockid9]

If people thought my DV letters and correspondence were not the right move, then I humbly ask for opinions as to what I should have done. Bear in mind that my debts are beyond SOL, and that I hadn't been contacted prior.

Also, whomever said that the law firm's letter was not a violation was dead wrong. They sent a demand for payment AFTER being notified to cease and desist. Violation. They then, on the letterhead of a lawfirm, threaten to turn the case over to an 'attorney review', while stating that at the time, no attorney has reviewed the case. This is deliberately misleading. To an LSC, this would lead to the belief that a suit was probable if the demands weren't met. Violation. It's obvious that whomever drafted it knows the debt is beyond SOL and isn't threatening to sue because they know they can't. Violation.

I would also like an answer as to why people think that I am the only one responsible for ethical behavior. The more I re-read Wiser's response, the angrier I get. But as I responded earlier, I am giving Wiser the benefit of the doubt because he didn't know everything and made his conclusions based on what he knows. I respect people for having strong convictions, and also for high standards, and he was only judging me by them.

But those standards need to be applied to everyone, CA's included. I do not believe for one second that their actions weren't deliberate. Not sending a dunning letter and waiting for someone to force a consumer into payment is an FTC documented strategy. JDB's do it all the time when they buy time-barred debts, simply relying on consumer ignorance or a need for credit to force consumers to pay them whatever they wish, regardless of whether it's accurate or not. If you are applying for a mortgage or need credit, then there is little choice. Which is what they did to me. But for some reason, this is unimportant. While the 'spirit of my actions' got judged to be immoral, the CA was only judged for it's conformity to the 'letter of the law.'

I'm trying to figure out why some of the people on here are here at all. This website is for people who are trying to use the law to protect themselves and to clean up their credit. Thats why I came here. It's not as if collection agencies are law abiding, ethical companies. It's not like laws haven't had to be enacted over the last 30 years and continuosly amended to protect consumers from ever more creative harm. In view of this, people wisely view these entities with suspicion and judge their actions accordingly. They cannot be taken at their word and cannot be trusted.

People making judgments about other people's actions and consequently their worth need to remember to level the playing field. I made mistakes in my past, sure. But the CA's hands aren't clean either, and they are far from honorable. I am trying to do the right thing in my dealings with dishonorable, untrustworthy people and this needs to be considered. If it can't be, then please do not offer me any advice or respond to my questions.

[cracrap]

wiser now, i take offense to equating not paying a debt, in sol or not, as being above any other sin...since when does not paying a bill, or not being able to pay a bill, supercede any other moral defect in a person?
do you honestly believe that every officer in the military is perfect? has never lied , cheated or stole at any point in their life? no officer, past or present, has ever been able to achieve this standard
and i think that military history has shown that the more of an ass a person is, the more that they have been successful...