Equidatas response to my DV

Submitted by Boxinabag on Fri, 06/11/2010 - 22:54
Forums

OK, today I received Equidata's "Validation". The first thing I noticed these scumbags are doing is saying my request was on 06/04/2010, they are doing this so I cant sue them saying that they violated by attempting to collect the debt. The first letter was sent off in Feb.

They sent me: The account number, and balance.
"Per your request, dated 06/04/2010, you will find enclosed a copy of the itemized bill from the above referenced client. Per the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, this itemized bill from your creditor serves as validation of your account. Payment in full is needed to satisfy this account with our office. "

Than it is just a statement that shows the dates and amounts that they were due. That is it...

Now this is not "validation" is it? Aren't they required to provide the signed contract by my wife, and the contract stating they are allowed to collect the debt?

They have ignored one letter, asked for more identification on the first, and finally responded to the third, during which they continued to report and attempt collection. Should I say [word removed as per forum rules and guidelines] these scumbags and just report them, than send a letter with a copy of the complaints and say remove it or I will begin legal action?

my response:

I have been more than patient with this situation. You responded to my first letter on 04/20/2010 requesting that I provide more information. I sent this information, which you received on 04/28/2010. 33 days went by with no response, I than sent a letter wanting to know the status and why it continued to be reported and why collection attempts continued. You received this letter on 06/04/2010. Instead of explaining your violations to the FDCPA , you sent what you believe is verification that this debt is mine.

This debt is not mine, and you do not have the proper documentation to prove it. A computer printout of an itemized statement is not proof, UNLESS it comes from the original creditor. There is no indication on the itemized statements that those are originals from the original creditor. This is NOT verification. To help you understand the point being made I have enclosed a letter of opinion from the Federal Trade Commission. It clearly states, “The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer.” and, “Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose.”

I am now demanding that you cease all collection attempts, remove my information from your system, and remove all information from your company from my credit report. You have made multiple violations to the FDCPA and collecting in Texas also puts you under the Texas Finance Code, which states in section 392.202 section B that you must respond in 30 days or “change the item in the relevant file as requested by the individual”. I am giving you 15 days to do this. If I have not received a letter stating that you have complied, I will file a complaint to the Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission and the Better Business Bureau.

This account is still in dispute and has been in dispute since 04/28/2010, I have received two collection attempts during this time, and you have continued to report on my credit report. These violations will be ignored if you comply to the demand in the previous section. If you do not comply, complaints will be filed, and the violations will not be ignored.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Nelson

What do you all think?

Sat, 06/12/2010 - 15:42 Permalink

What state do you live in?
how old is this debt?
who is the original creditor?
Is the negative tradeline a Collection Agency or the Original Creditor?

you should have your CMRR? right?

Sun, 06/13/2010 - 14:09 Permalink

We live in Texas, the debt is only about 2 years old so the SOL is not expired, the original creditor is Suddenlink (they said that in their letter, but no address) And it is a collection agency.

Like I said in the letter, the first DV was sent out a long time ago, they responded quickly asking for more information, I sent the information, than got a letter attempting to collect, than they reported it her report, than I sent a follow up letter (33 days after they received the information they requested) wanting to know the status, than they sent their "verification", which was a computer print out of the itemized bills. No indication that it is from the original creditor.

State law for Texas says that they are required to prove the debt in 30 days, if not, they can not collect, they failed to do so, and since they are collecting from a Texas resident they must follow Texas laws, correct?

yes I have all the return receipts except for the VERY first one (when I sent the first DV letter, it is gone for some reason), but that one is irrelevant because they sent a response requesting more info, I sent the info and have the return receipt for that, and it was 33 days after they received the info that I responded.

Whatcha think Cinnamngrl?

Mon, 06/14/2010 - 01:39 Permalink

Hi Boxinabag,

You can dispute this item with the credit bureaus. You have proof of all the letters sent to the collection agency. Attach copies of these proofs along with the dispute letters that you are going to send to the credit bureaus.

You can use the dispute letter available with this community. However, it is better to change the texting, as per your circumstances.

You should also file a complaint with the State Attorney General, and the Federal Trade Commission. This is a violation of Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). The collection agency is not supposed to collect on a debt which they aren't able to validate.

State law for Texas says that they are required to prove the debt in 30 days, if not, they can not collect, they failed to do so, and since they are collecting from a Texas resident they must follow Texas laws, correct?

Yes, if the debt was incurred in Texas, then they will have to follow the state laws on collection in Texas.

Thanks,

Aaron

Mon, 06/14/2010 - 09:09 Permalink

the first letter is not irrelevant. that is your starting point until a civil court says otherwise. TX laws are much better than federal law. I don't know how much your stated complaints will help . who is the original creditor?

you may need to sue them.

Mon, 06/14/2010 - 11:20 Permalink

Aaron - So I am able to dispute the trade line with the bureaus again? I was under the influence that they do not care about us and could care less if I sent them proof of the CA's negligence, but I actually can do that and have positive outcomes?

Cinnamngrl - Yeah I need to find the first CMRR, I think it is in the filing cabinet somewhere, might have fallen under the folder or something, its here somewhere.

Mon, 06/14/2010 - 13:22 Permalink

Hi Boxinabag,

You can try. You need to think positive. There are so many people who could dispute the wrong listings off their credit report. So, why won't it be the same with you.

Regards,

Aaron

Tue, 06/15/2010 - 11:56 Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

Very true Aaron!

Thanks for your help! It has been a hectic time, but the improvements are noticable

547 to a 626... bakc down to a 602 (never understood that) than back up to a 629.

Wife went from 607 to a 704 now :D

I am hoping to be in the 700's myself here in the next few months!

I am also trying to settle a car accident now too :X. Their first offer was extremely low lol

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 15:03 Permalink

Hi,

I think you had forgotten to sign into your account :) Well it's really nice to hear that your scores have improved so much!!!

Regards,

Aaron

Fri, 06/18/2010 - 10:16 Permalink