I have gotten calls also from people claiming that I owe us bank $600.00 from 2006. I used to have a bank acct there yrs ago but I had no loan or owed them any money. I would think that US Bank as big as they are would be checking into this scam. They never sent me anything in writing.
They have all my info and no I dont. Even called us bank and they r checking into it
0
Pabo
| 1 reply
Not only have they called me but they found a phone number to my neighbors house and called them. Now i know they cant do that and they claim i owe chase over $1000. I need to find out more about this "group" any info would be great.
There are numerous ways to pry out information about neighbors, from White Pages to Equifax city directory CDs. Once you have a name and address, you can hit the good old phone book to look for the number. (I worked for Polk City Directories, now Equifax, for a while; that was how we verified the information we got surveying on foot.) If your information is indexed somewhere, anywhere, someone can get to it. Sorry.
I to received a letter from this group last month. But it stated I only had 10 days to dispute the claim. So within the 10 days I sent them a certified letter with return card. The post office attempted to deliver said letter on June 8, a card was left for them stating they had to pick it up. Well the letter went unclaimed so on June 27 according to the post office tracking it is in the process of being returned to me. This morning I received a call from an Unknown Name and Unknown Number and it was this same company telling me I needed to call them within the next 24 hours. Within 5 minutes of calling me then then proceeded to call my mothers Cell Phone with the same message.
I should also say, my letter as well said that they garnish me, take it from my bank or take any other assets I have to pay off this debt. Only problem is, they do not say who the original debt is or was with, which I find shady.
Adding to guidance from DaFox here, the "felony charge" line was illegal, and so was the empty threat to sue. FDCPA says if a creditor wants to sue you, it has to be done where *you* live and not any place the debt collectors find convenient. Claiming otherwise was yet another violation.
You already have your answer - the USPS was unable to deliver your dispute letter - and this is now in the record. They also did not respond to the USPS notification to pick up the certified letter - also on record. Bottom line - since they refuse to send the legally required debt validation letter per your request, they have no standing to "sue" you. They also cannot garnish your wages without you being notified of a court hearing first (although I have heard of scammy agencies doing this, but they were then punished monetarily for failing to notify the debtor about the lawsuit). Another red flag - saying they will take your bank accounts, and any other assets you have to pay off the debt.
If you get another call from them, let them know that you are recording all calls they make - also let them know you have reported them to the FTC, the FBI and your state's Attorney General. I suppose you also could get the USPS involved, since they deal with mail fraud, and it does sound like these are fraudsters. As it stands right now, they are already in violation of the FDCPA for threatening you via phone.
FIRST - IMPORTANT - When the letter comes back to you, LEAVE IT SEALED and file it in a safe place.
Apparently it cannot be said often enough on this thread, go read the applicable laws. I provided the links in an earlier post in this thread. Go use them if you have not already done so.
While this seems to be a scofflaw fringe operator, I am a belt and suspenders sort of guy. I don't know the content of the letter, but I would send them a second CMRR letter. In this one, I would simply say something like:
"On (date) I sent you a timely dispute letter (certified #999999), which you chose not to accept from the postal service. That letter has now been returned to me, and I have it on file. It is my understanding that under Federal law, you have forfeited the right to collect this debt. I re-iterate that I dispute the debt. You are to accept this letter as your notice under law that you are not to contact me again in this matter. I am fully prepared to assert my rights under the law."
I do have one caveat: If this is a legitimate, substantial and collectible debt, a "drop dead" letter will put you at greater risk of being sued. If you feel this is the case, you may simply wish to limit them to written contact. Also, the forfeiture of the right to collect may be a bit of a stretch in your scenario, but it will not hurt to assert it, even if it does not hold up in court.
Finally, I suspect that this letter will also come back to you. In fact, that is probably the best thing that could happen. Leave it sealed as well, and file them both away in a very safe place. Also, when I write any sort of legal letter, I like to put the certified article number on the letter. "Sent by Certified Mail, article #2343432". It just makes the whole documentation package seem a bit more solid.
Debt collectors don't get to set deadlines for your dispute; federal and state laws do. Everyone gets the same thirty days from the time of your receipt of a "G-letter". I would keep that letter unblemished in a safe place because it hands you a violation known as "overshadowing". That and those empty threats of asset seizure are calculated to create panic and discourage you from exercising your right to validation.
The drama gets better as LMG pretty much blew off your DV letter. You must keep that returned item unopened as evidence of their refusal. I think that provides an "unfair practice" violation, but I'm fuzzy on the correct FDCPA section. I've seen some cases where violations sprang from ignoring what a consumer's letter instructed, even though nobody bothered to fetch and read it, because the sender had already done all which was required.
Now of course they're hassling you to pay something they have gone out of their way to avoid validating, much less identifying. I shouldn't have to mention here that the thugs are not in control, YOU are. In your place I would try another dispute letter containing your contact restrictions. They can state to call or not call certain people and/or ban given days or hours, or just to quit using the phone outright. Keep a mail channel open so no one feels pressured to sue you, however unlikely that action may be.
I would also find the company's Registered Agent through state business records and send a copy there of both notices. The home office can keep playing games with your mail all it likes, but the R/A's whole job is to accept and forward anything you send. The R/A may be invaluable if you decide to sue LMG for relief, which you should consider.
Recent intel on another site suggests that LMG is a California extortion shop which has been through several name changes. Wouldn't be surprised if it's a cousin of the "Corona Cabal" of hostile fake debt collectors which the feds broke up a couple years ago.
I think the first letter they sent may have covered them, although without knowing what it said, that is just a guess. I also don't know if the CMRR letter which was returned contained a validation demand or not.
I did suggest a second letter to show good faith and provide another nail in the CA's FDCPA mandated coffin, and in that letter I suggested the assertion of forfeiture, but the devil is in the details, and we do not have the details. It is not clear to me that forfeiture is a sure thing, although if you show up in court with two returned CMRRs, I can't imagine that the judge will be wearing his happy face. (happy face is a legal term of art ; )
I think you would have a hard time getting law enforcement excited about this situation. They're more likely to view it as a civil matter, and figure they have better things to do with their time. I don't think I would shake their tree unless I had something compelling and blatant.
Of course, if the CA sends you a blood stained letter with mysterious white powder in the envelope, and which reads "pay up or else", then by all means, ring up your local constabulary right away. ; )
We may have a minor conflict of nomenclature. Elspeth is correct about the requirement to validate on written demand, but misleading in the use of the phrase "validation letter". The form validation takes can vary and the FDCPA specifies nothing beyond ink and paper and mail delivery. The initial dunning letter is not validation. Sure as hell not when all it says is, "You owe this and bad things will happen if you don't pay." What "Confused" described doesn't sound like it even tried to meet the requirements of 1692g, which by the way is another violation log for the courtroom fire.
As I mentally turn this over, I'm inclined to argue a "continued collection" violation on every call and notice LMG made after the failed DV letter delivery. Even a polite call violates since validation has yet to be sent. The thugs would correctly guess that an inbound envelope dressed in green labels pre-litigation has a fifty percent chance of demanding that validation. The only other thing it could say is "STFU and go away". Should they try whining, "But Your Honor, we didn't see that letter", just point to the CMRR dates. Dispute was sent within their own fakie ten day deadline. It won't take a medium Sharpie to connect the dots.
Nodding to your caution, we're taking as read that the bounced letter did say "I dispute, please validate". We'll have to lower our "defense of the abused" pom-poms if not.
I understood, but since we know so little of the facts, including what the "initial letter" was, I felt inclined to hedge. In any case, I suspect this CA is all over the map, and anything but law abiding.
I guess if folks knew just which facts to share with us, they would already know the answers to their own questions. ; )
But now I have a question for you. Can a CA preemptively validate? I have some thought that they could, but wouldn't want to bet my life on it.
I don't at all blame you for hedging, but we could be here another five hours carefully inserting "if/then" conditionals into our responses on a site which is clearly not driven to specialize in legal advice. Ultimately people who come here "confused" have to be the stewards of their own problems and recognize that random respondents can only meet them partway.
Pre-emptive validation is I think unheard of, though nothing I see in 1692g prevents a collector from trying to leapfrog the process. I don't think we'll see it happen legitimately since validation has to come straight from the original creditor, and ordering "full media" takes money and work which collectors would rather skip. Validation of resold junk debt ranges from difficult to impossible, as you know.
But let's say an agency wants to be a wiseacre and really does fetch enough to satisfy validation, then sends a half inch of paper to an alleged debtor as the first contact with a compliant cover letter saying, "We got the drop on you, Sunshine. How would you like to pay us?" None of that effort proves a debt valid, only that enough data exists to make a debt claim plausible. The recipient doesn't have to agree with what the papers say. The data presented can still be inaccurate or wanting somehow, making that validation defective. That idea is why pre-suit one never loses the right to dispute a claim even after the window for demanding validation closes.
My further reading is that the alleged debtor would not lose the right to make the agency send validation *all over again* -- no doubt over belches of protest that "youse already gots what ya wants". Oh, and the agency can't just send another copy of what it's already compiled. The FTC says it must every time order directly from the creditor. There goes more money and a few more weeks at least before the nagging phone calls can resume. Some collectors are parts stupid and crazy, but even *they* can see limits on the absurd!
Reply to topic