My sister received a dunning letter from Regent & Assoc, LLP, on behalf of Hudson & Keyes. It is the first letter she has received from either concerning a Chase Mastercard. The letter states that she has 30 days to accept a settlement offer of 75% of the balance owed. The letter doesn't contain language stating that she has 30 days to dispute...yada, yada, yada. Has anyone ever heard of either of these companies?
I believe that the account is hers. Can they prove it? I don't know. The last payment was 3/2003. If going by the last payment, the SOL won't expire until 3/2007. I have since found out the both of these organizations have less than stellar reputations. I have written a simple validation to send including a limited C&D. We'll see what they send for validation.
Hudson & Keyes What kind of information do you have about their less than stellar reputations? I will also be dealing with them at some point and would appreciate any info you have.
Received a reply from Regent, stating that they had verified the debt and listing the original creditor and the current, Hudson & Keyes. What should I include in the second DV to them? JBDB, I found some info on them from Bud Hibbs website.
Well, Regent is representing a company that you do not have an agreement with, then how can they collect a debt that you do not owe? "Section 808(1) prohibits collecting any amount unless the amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or is permitted by law"
Second DV sent. Thank them for their reply and reminded them that they still had not provided validation. Requested validaton again, disputed debt again. Requested copies of agreements containing her signature, copies of all statements and charges. Explanation of late charges, fee and interest rates. Copy of any arbitration agreement in effect, name of OC and each subsequent owner, as well as all legal documents showing any changes in ownership. Contact info of all persons who sign/notarize documents used for debt validation. Also requested that they send me proof of their surety bond on file with the Tx Sec of State as required for collection agencies in Texas. Even law firms must comply with filing of the bond if they mainly deal in collections. This one does. We'll see what their response is.
"Received a reply from Regent, stating that they had verified the debt and listing the original creditor and the current, Hudson & Keyes. " Did they send anything from the original creditor, or did they just say in their own letter that they "verified"? http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 "§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) 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 any 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. ..."
So the CA only sent their own letter saying the OC "verified", with nothing from the OC? Or did they even say the OC had verified, but just that they "verified" the debt? What, literally, did the letter say? Since under FDCPA, validation must be obtained from the OC and a copy sent to the consumer, the CA's own statement that a debt is "verified" cannot be validation, even if they include other information they are required to provide under FDCPA such as the name and address of the OC. To claim it is "validation" may be deceptive, since it may lead a consumer to believe that their own letter is all they have to provide under FDCPA to validate the debt. In Texas, under the state's consumer protection laws, the CA must provide validation within 30 days of the consumer's request. "The letter doesn't contain language stating that she has 30 days to dispute" No notification of her right to dispute and request validation is another FDCPA violation, and probably a corresponding violation of Texas law. They would have to claim that they either sent it, or had procedures in place to send it, and that it was a "bona fide" error if they didn't, as a defense. But their non-validating "validation" rather undermines their case that they have procedures in place to actually provide validation, when what they sent, despite what it says, is not on it's face validation. It looks instead like they have procedures in place to convince the consumer the debt is valid without actually providing validation, not a good support for a "bona fide" error defense. They may be sending out this BS to "meet" the 30 day Texas requirement, and if so that would indicate they are aware of their legal obligation even as they violate it. but meeting Texas' 30 day requirement in providing the OC name, etc, while claiming their response is "verification", is what is deceptive. It may also be that under the terms of the purchase of the debt, they may have no access to the records of the OC, or have to pay for such access. That still would not relieve them of the legal obligation to provide validation obtained from the OC. And they are bonded in Texas. And all this is in writing... At this point, even if the debt was originally hers, it is not clear how you can trust that what they claim is due, is even accurate, since nothing in their "validation" is directly from the OC, and there is no accounting for payments, interest, and fees to the current amount. Since a $3800 debt still within SOL is likely to result in a lawsuit to collect, your sister might be wise to consult with an attorney with expertise in consumer debt collection law. Maybe a better deal can be negotiated while dealing with their own legal liability for violations. You might try: www.naca.net.
Their response to the first DV was: 'Dear XXXXX We have received you letter disputing the above referenced debt. We have verified the debt and found no inaccuracies. The current balance due at this time is shown above. The former creditor is: Chase Bank USA. NA PO BOX XXXXX Wilmington, DE XXXXX The current creditor is: Hudson & Keyse, LLC 382 Blackbrook Dr Painesville, OH 44077 If you have any additional information regarding this debt please indicate in the space below. Signed by Anh H. Regent.' They included nothing from the OC, or indicated they had been in contact with the OC. Yes, I understand and agree with all of this. Yes...wesite for verifying this is http://direct.sos.state.tx.us/debtcollectors/DCSearch.asp. Be sure to bookmark this site. To do a wildcard search, put a % sign in front and behind the name. To find this one, I had to use %regent%. Oh yeah!!!!! Exactly, how can she trust what they are telling her she owes. I have the name of an attorney that specializes in debt collection if she needs it. Thanks for the info.
"We have received you letter disputing the above referenced debt. We have verified the debt and found no inaccuracies. " They don't even say they did anything but check their own records, which proves nothing. Did they mark the account on her reports as "disputed"? Your sister might be wise to run this by an attorney in Texas for advise sooner rather than later to see how she should handle this. Some will offer an initial consultation for free. FDCPA and Texas law violations have SOLs, just as debts do. Note: I am NOT an attorney. Over $3800, your sister should seek the advise of a competent one.
Hudson & Keyse, LLC is a collection agency. I to received letters and exaactly 5 phone calls from them for a vehicle loan we had. We had it for 1 year and stopped paying on it and let the bank repo it and did not make any payments for 4 years now. The bank never pursued it. After I was down to my last payment on my other vehicle with this bank they sold the repo to Hudson & Keyse, LLC for pennies on the dollar im assuming and they tried to collect saying we owed $16,000! The truck was sold at auction for $10,000 by the bank so we only owed like $9,000 on it. They tried to add all this money to it and if your dumb enough to pay I guess they make out. We ignored them and all they did was put it on our credit reports. When I checked them it will come off in 2 years and The amount owed was only $9,000 on the truck and they wanted $16,000. They are theifs. I think by you verifying the debt with them you have started the SOL all over again. I would have ignored them if you have not been paying on this debt for a long time. I am in PA by the way so your laws might be different.
Disputing a debt, or requesting validation, is a consumer right provided under FDCPA, and also under many state laws. It has nothing to do with reaffirming a debt, or resetting SOL. Under FDCPA, failure to dispute a debt is also NOT an admission of liability. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809 "(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. " (This may be another argument to support that a debt collector cannot establish an "account stated" just by the consumer failing to dispute a bill sent by the debt collector.).
I have since fired off a second validation letter reminding them that what they provided does not, in any way, constitute validation. I have requested validation again, with more specifics. Now. i was think of cc'ing their bonding company. They already have 2 violations. One for no mini-miranda on the first letter, second for not providing validation. Any thoughts?
Regent is not reporting the TL. Hudson & Keyse is. We have since DV'd Hudson as well. We have the name of an atty in Fort Worth who specializes in these things if we need him. In their latest reply, Regent is claiming the balance is now $3.100.00 and change?!?
And without validation, neither you, nor apparently even they, will know with any confidence what it really is.
Don't be surprised if the # fluctuates without reason. There is a major reason why I make sure that I specify that I want enough documentation to prove the account down to the last cent, including anything that they may have thought of adding to it; without any discrepancies. Even a discrepancy in your favor of $700 shows that who knows what else may have been supposed to have been credited to the alleged account that they're unable to provide documentation for.
