|
|
Help! CA's version of validation - All advise wanted
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by Lucie
on March 06, 2002 at 17:06:51:
I sent the first letter requesting validation on a vehicle i transferred to a new owner in 1996. The CA returned a computer printout and half copied provisions from a supposed DMV document showing my liability with no date on it, they also hand wrote on it that I was in violation of the DMV law. However, i have read many times that a printout doesn't show proof, so i wrote them back a letter stating it is still disputed that 1. printout doesn't prove contractual obligation to pay them 2. The handwritten remark was unacceptable, inflammatory and unprofessional 3. that the DMV documentation was not dated to state it was from 1996 DMV Vehicle Provisions. I told them that the letter in no way extended their 30 days.
Thirty days was up so I sent the second letter giving them 15 days to cure....the responded by sending me a bill with the exact same thing stating that the printout was certified by DMV in 1997...still no copies of the tranfer that I filled out in 1996 which should state if I didn't have the full addy of the new buyer I would be liable.
However there was a label they stuck to a copy of the second validation letter that reads "Information submitted is of no value, not on file DMV prior to impound" Correct me if I am wrong but aren't they in violation? The second letter RR will be due on March 16th. What should my next move be? I am willing to go all the way to court if necessary as I believe they haven't a legal foot to stand on.
All advise is welcome!
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
