So, What about DV's?

[treehugger1]

A little history first. Defaulted on a C1 card about Feb. 2007 (Yep, 28 months ago.) First CA was Allied (August 2007 after chargeoff.) I sent a DV request. They clearly state, "If you notify us in writing (yada, yada) we will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification." They did neither.


Late April, 2008, NCO sends letter with identical comments related to verification or judgment. They did neither.


Around summer, 2008, up-state law firm send letter. I DV. They send nothing.

April 2009, ARS sends letter. Again, same crap about sending me verification and judgment. They did neither.

June, 2009 C1 sends copy of several months of alleged old statements and cover letter telling me they have removed my phone number from call list. They also state that C1 does grant permission for individuals calling c1 to record the calls. That's their choice, but why would I call them anyway. They also go out of their way to state they do not have a copy of original application since card was applied for via hte phone. Hmmm,.... They don't keep paper copies of phone applications, or even records of newer web applications?

Am I missing something in this picture? The FDCPA clearly states the debt collector will provide the DV if requested. Why is C1 even bothering? It seems to me that C1 has been called on the carpet in the past about this kind of BS.

Why didn't the up-state legal firm sue? Since the debt has always been an assignment, I assume they need permission to initiate a lawsuit. Is the fact that they cannot find any original paperwork associated with this alleged account problematic for C1? Give me a break, one would think that even if an account was applied for via phone or online, they would have some electronic record of the application.

By the way, this is the second C1 account that has reacted in the same way. Maybe the CA's are not willing to touch the "no copy of original account" issue. What is even mor eamazing is that in the C1 cover letter, they explicitly state they do not have a paper copy on file.

Pretty strange, if you ask me.

[treehugger1]

I looked up my state statutes for SOL. They define a contract as "expressed or implied." SOL is 6 years. I find it very hard to believe that C1 has no evidence of an original contract. And, the fact that they explicitly state in their letter that they have no copy of a contract is quite strange. Why would they state this? I wouldn't admit such a thing if I thought the alleged debt was valid. Again, lunacy.

[treehugger1]

More Info

I apologize for responding to my own posts, but here is additional information. These alleged accounts are approximately 10 years old. Maybe technology and records were not keeping up with the financial industry's desire to encourage folks to take on unsecured debt in the late 1990's and early 2000's. LOL

[Rick9972]

I will state that historically Cap 1 does not file suit until the last year of the SOL. They like to let the interest run a while. So I would figure that you have about 3 more years to wait.

[treehugger1]

Good points! I have trouble understanding why C1 would sue over a $300 debt, unless particular states allow for the plaintiff's attorney to be involved. In such cases, small claims would be generally easy. Not so in my state, where an attorney-at-law is not allowed in small claims court.

I think you may be correct in that there is no identifiable contract with respect to original intentions upon the part of the defendant. This is a definite concern with mortgage suits, and perhaps it is also an issue whem it comes to any contractual obligation. Somewhere, regardless of "terms of service," there has to be an original contract related to terms of service or future changes in terms of service. I'm not an attorney, but there is some reason C1 appears to be reluctant to act on litigation.

I guess I'll know more as I approach the 6-year SOL on these debts. In the meantime, I suspect that C1's computer programs will continue to pair up the assumed debt with a CA. Since C1 does not appear to "sell" debt in my area, they are forced to assign the charged off debt for collections. I have done some research and it appears that C1 sometimes waits until the last minute prior to SOL and dumps the debt vis 1099. I have to wonder if C1's accounting methods maintain even charged off debt as an asset under accounts receivable to boost their botom line. Maybe this is why we have heard very little of any connection between C1 and bailout/TARP funding. Eventually, one would think that any accounting tactics have to catch up with the corporations true "wealth."

Just speculating. I am not a CPA nor an attorney!