My letter to a debt collector

Dear Mr. Hanna:

I think its important we recap this matter before you “refer the matter to local counsel for suit.”

Your firm sent my client a letter on January 9, 2012. This would be the “initial communication.” Three days later you sent my client a letter demanding payment by January 16, 2012. That letter, dated January 12, 2012, went by overnight mail. Thus, my client received it on January 13, 2012. He did not receive your January 9, 2012 letter until after January 13, 2012. So, we have one violation of the FDCPA and one violation of the Rosenthal Act in that you demanded payment before the 30 day validation period expired.

On January 17, 2012, I sent you my letter advising you that I represent Mr. XXXX. I asked for validation of the debt and explained the above violation to you in that letter. I gave you 15 days to cure the defect. That fifteen day period has now expired. Then, on January 19, 2012 at 11:57am Pacific time, I received a call from your company. You have denied this happening and now you have come up with the blame the receiver excuse. This is actually worse than “blame the victim” or “blame the twinkies.” You are alleging that my business number was forwarded to my home number. I assure you in over 8 years of having my own firm, I have never once forwarded my business number to my home number and for a very good reason – I do not want debt collectors calling me at home.

But, since you persist with this ridiculous line of thinking, perhaps because you know that my number is unlisted and your employees must have obtained it through illicit means, I am enclosing a copy of a picture I took immediately after I hung up on your employee. You will see the date and time in the lower portion of the screen of the phone. At the top, you will see it says “Law Office” and has your number, 866-811-1159. Just to be certain, I called that number at 1:56pm today, February 3, 2012, and it was answered with an automated answering machine that says “Thank you for calling the Law Offices of Frederick J. Hanna and Associates, PC.”

Knowing this would not be acceptable proof to you, I went a step farther. I called my phone company. I asked them what number would appear on the caller ID if I had forwarded my business phone to my home phone. Surprisingly, at least to you, although not to the rest of the country who uses modern technology, the number that would have appeared would have been my office number. Clearly, the photograph shows that is not the case.

Of course, your defense is different than the one you gave me when we last talked on the phone, January 26, 2012. On the phone, your excuse was that you called the number on my letterhead and that the number on my letterhead must have been my home number. I assure you that the company that created my letterhead, who I might recommend to you for some updated letterhead, has NEVER put my home number on it. In fact, it’s a template that does not change and has not changed since they did it for me. My home number has never been listed on any of my letterhead.

I hope this puts an end to your blame the poor guy who gets a call from us at home when we shouldn’t even have that number argument. An admission that your company made a mistake and called me at home would be welcome, although I don’t see that forthcoming. As my mom taught me, I will not hold my breath.

Of course, this still leads us to another violation. The call on January 19, 2012 was an attempt to collect a debt. By that time, you had my information since you knew to call me. You had not provided validation of the debt. As I am sure you are aware, contacting a party to collect a debt that has requested validation is a violation of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act. This is your 15 day notice to cure that defect.

Then, on January 20, 2012, Ms. Layhew sent me a response to my request for validation. Although, her letter was not actually a response. Ms. Layhew sent me the “Assistant Secretary’s Certificate of FIA Card Services, National Association.” This appears to be a history of FIA Card Services, which I appreciate and may be interesting, but in no way is validation of the debt. This does not have any information which indicates my client owes anyone any money, let alone your office. This can, in no way, be validation of the debt.

Ms. Layhew then asked for payment of $6,006.50. I will remind you that the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act require you to provide validation of the debt. Further, both Acts state you cannot take any steps to collect money until you do validate the debt. Ms. Layhew’s letter is far from validation as it includes no information about my client, his account or any evidence that he owes any money to anyone. Further, there is no assignment to indicate that you are entitled to collect money on behalf of FIA. Thus, this is another violation of the FDCPA.

On January 27, 2012, I wrote to Ms. Layhew and pointed this out to her. This was my third letter to your office. (Coincidentally, you will see that they all have the same number listed on the letterhead – 916 247 6868. That is still my office number and still has not been forwarded to my home.) I pointed out the lack of validation to Ms. Layhew and explained why this was a violation of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act.

You and I spoke again on February 2, 2012. At that time, you asked me how much my client was willing to pay to settle this account. Again, your firm still has not provided validation of the debt. Your continued demands for payment without providing any validation of the debt is another violation of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act.

Today, I received a “MEMORANDUM” from you, which you did not sign, dated January 31, 2012. In that, you provide the defense that you really didn’t call me at home. You also state “please advise by Monday, February 6, 2012, if we can resolve the debt your client owes.” Of course, this is another demand for payment when you have STILL failed to provide validation of the debt. This would be ANOTHER violation of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act.

As to your suggestion that you will refer the matter to local counsel, let me be very clear about the response you will see from me:

1. We will answer the complaint and deny all of the allegations;

2. We will file a cross complaint against Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, Ms. Layhew, yourself, FIA Card Services and whatever local attorney files suit. In that cross complaint, I will allege the violations of the FDCPA, the Rosenthal Act, violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, unauthorized practice of law, and violation of the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1.

3. We will immediately serve written discovery on all parties and notice depositions for the county where the complaint is filed;

4. We will vigorously pursue this matter to a jury verdict.

I want to be crystal clear about this. My client takes these violations very seriously. Your firm continues to attempt to collect debts, hundreds of thousands of active files, through these means, including completely ignoring Federal and State law. I plan on showing a pattern of practice and will pursue compensatory damages, attorney fees and punitive damages against all defendants. My client hired me in an effort to work with you to resolve this matter amicably. All you have done is blamed my client, harassed him, violated the law, invaded my privacy and then blamed everyone but yourself.

If you decide to pursue this matter, that is your right. You are now well aware of my position. I will defend my client and I will look forward to meeting you in court.