to dispute or not

I know this question has been beat to death on this forum,yet here I am still missing something.I am reading thru Cornforth material in "Beating up on debt collectors" and I like the content of some letters in it,but the letters for VoD and 1st response to 3rd party debt atty all include "disputing" the debt. Anyone who is familiar with those think they are pretty good content?I'm still trying to form a good reply for VoD to law firm in Atlanta.I must also respond to their to move it into arbitration if we do not resolve alleged debt.Any thoughts on whether you would respond to both issues in same letter or separate VoD and refusal of arbitration.They say the contract has arbitration clause. I emailed buscador about recent success story but haven't heard anything yet.Anyone willing to share thoughts?
Thanks

Where is the Cornforth Material you speak of?

I have seen his Void Judgment book, but I haven't seen the one about beating up on Debt Collectors.

HB

[rushpat]

Beating up on Debt Collectors is available through Lawresearchgroup.com. That's where I got mine. Mr Cornforth didn't reply to my direct email. Maybe his email address has changed.

I'm not sure about "disputing". Many in this forum would advise against that. A different wording might be in order. Perhaps Jersee could comment?

[sadie]

Some of the CCC and the debt attys. have been raising the issue that you never disputed anything. If there was a problem then you shuld have filed a dispute as instructed on the back of your statement. The judges buy this crap.

Also if you were to try to claim the Bank violated FCBA (Fair credit billing act) then you would have to file a ?"dispute". See FCBA 1666.

I have seen on other forums where people have won their cases (had them dismissed) on this. Showing where the bank violated 1666 and the debt attys violated FDCPA.

I understand the "do not dispute" thinking but sometimes it may be better to use their own terms against them.

However in 1637 (B)
the creditor responds to and treats any inquiry for clarification or documentation as a billing error and an erroneously billed amount under section 1666 of this title.

I don't actually see the term dispute under the FCBA, only billing error.

FDCPA
(b) Disputed debts
If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.


Can someone please explain this section of the FCBA?

FCBA 1666
(e) Effect of noncompliance with requirements by creditor
Any creditor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section or section 1666a of this title forfeits any right to collect from the obligor the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section, and any finance charges thereon, except that the amount required to be forfeited under this subsection may not exceed $50

In one breath it appears the bank cannot collect any amount in question if they don't supply the documentation then they forfeit. However the last part says the amount required to be forfeited may not exceed $50.

Does that mean if I question $856 and they don't comply with docs I would have to pay $806? or do I pay $50?

[chuckhs12]

Originally Posted by sadie

except that the amount required to be forfeited under this subsection may not exceed $50

The understanding I am getting from this statement is that if the amount does not exceed $50. Then they do do not have to meet the requirements stated.

If anyone else has a better interpretation, I am looking forward to hearing it.

thanks,sadie good info, that is my concern and dilemma.It's late,I'll write more later.

HB... I sent a money order for $25.00 to Richard Cornforth
7017 N.W. 28th
Bethany,OK. 73008
Includes a spiral copy of book and a CD version with each document incl. but very little indepth explanation. Doc's seem very comprehensive, but that's why I am seeking other insights,you think you understand it a bit till it's time to stick your own neck out...BTW the documents are in a read-only format on the CD. Took about 2 weeks. must sleep now....honk cheer honk cheer

I mistakenly said in my last post that the CD documents were read-only meaning they were uneditable. That was incorrect.They can be altered and used.sorry

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by sadie

Some of the CCC and the debt attys. have been raising the issue that you never disputed anything. If there was a problem then you shuld have filed a dispute as instructed on the back of your statement. The judges buy this crap.

Also if you were to try to claim the Bank violated FCBA (Fair credit billing act) then you would have to file a ?"dispute". See FCBA 1666.

I have seen on other forums where people have won their cases (had them dismissed) on this. Showing where the bank violated 1666 and the debt attys violated FDCPA.

I understand the "do not dispute" thinking but sometimes it may be better to use their own terms against them.

However in 1637 (B)
the creditor responds to and treats any inquiry for clarification or documentation as a billing error and an erroneously billed amount under section 1666 of this title.

I don't actually see the term dispute under the FCBA, only billing error.

FDCPA
(b) Disputed debts
If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.


Can someone please explain this section of the FCBA?

FCBA 1666
(e) Effect of noncompliance with requirements by creditor
Any creditor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section or section 1666a of this title forfeits any right to collect from the obligor the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section, and any finance charges thereon, except that the amount required to be forfeited under this subsection may not exceed $50

In one breath it appears the bank cannot collect any amount in question if they don't supply the documentation then they forfeit. However the last part says the amount required to be forfeited may not exceed $50.

Does that mean if I question $856 and they don't comply with docs I would have to pay $806? or do I pay $50?

Sadie,

You may use whichever terminology you feel comfortable with. However, it has been through my experience that dispute means just that.

A paradigm of thinking must change--if it does not change then you are stuck with trying to figure out if you should pay $856 or $806--when the glaring fact remains unanswered....is the debt valid at all?

You can dispute either the $856 or the $806, but can you verify either?

[sadie]

I guess you missed my point. The judges buy that crap.
When they drag you into court the judge doesn't care about verification of a debt. The judge sees credit card not paid. The atty claims no dispute. Judgement for the plaintiff.

The wins I saw posted on another forum. Used this against the bank/atty.
They filed a dispute, requested verification, did not get it therefore, bank is in violation of FCBA1666a and cannot collect per 1666i. Judge dismissed the case.

An example of using the bank and collectors terms and rules against them in plain simple terms that the judge cannot ignore.

[Anubis]

Read the second number on the first page of the V.O.D. it states.(1) the debt is not valid,(2)it disputes the debt, (3)it demands all collection activity
cease. Ithink this covers your question.



Anubis