I'm Filing!! Help Me Double-check!

I'd rather file in Small Claims, but from what I have been researching, it seems that I would have to sue them in Small Claims where "they" do business, which is Lincolnwood, IL. Also, regardless, can they ask for it to be moved to their venue?

"They" do business wherever you live. By going after you they are consenting to do business under the laws and regulations of "your" jurisdiction.

Stick to small claims if at all possible. The filing fees are smaller, the forms are shorter, and your time to disposition is much shorter. If you wind up in circuit court, you're opening yourself up to all sorts of rules and regulations regarding evidence, discovery, motions, etc... that will require either the help of a lawyer or lots of your personal time to figure out. Small claims is much easier, more intuitive, and will probably get you the same result.

 

List the jurisdition statute from the FDCPA in your complaint as line one as your athority to file locally. No judge will refute it and kick it out as they will be violating the FDCPA.

 

OK. Against my better judgment I have to respond to this. When did you receive the first letter or notice from this collection agency? That is the key question. If you started this timeline after the initial 30 day period started when they sent you initial notice, then there is no case. If after the initial 30 days, yes, they still must validate, but nothing says they must cease collection activity at that point. I am telling you this not to be jerk, but to save you problems and costs down the road if this is the situation. Good luck.

 

I'd really like to see case law regarding this and not an opinion letter, etc.

From my understanding, after 30 days, they DO NOT have to validate but if they do not, they cannot continue collection activity.

Again, someone who can point to a CASE and not a letter because that letter again is an opinion and not how a judge has ruled, please step forward with this information.

In addition, (and this is not directly related to you LKH, so please do not take it as such), there are many folks who are giving out DISINFORMATION on this board.

If you're going to offer information to people, especially when someone is heading into court, don't steer them wrong! Give exact examples, case law or FCRA or FCDPA statue that applies.

Opinions are greatly appreciated but facts are needed in situations when people are going to court. Remember, these people (myself included) are really taking your words as bond.

 

You are absolutely correct about the misinformation. Do you have anything to verify what your understanding is? I have never looked up any caselaw on this, but that is what I have been told by the FTC on more than one occassion, and by my state atty generals' office.

 

I don't have any caselaw either. My understanding comes from various postings here.

Just when you think you know.....

But thanks LKH for telling me the source of your information...that gives it more credibility than someone just posting something.

 

In addition, if what LKH is stating is correct, then there may be some issue.

However, they also will have to provide proof that you actually received the initial 30 day letter from them. If I'm not mistaken, Keller has stated in a previous thread that they have noted on the CR is "unable to locate consumer".

In my case, they were sending letters to an address that does not exist and that were SURELY returned to sender. I did not know of this on debt until it showed up on my CR in November, 2001.

Again, Keller, I think it would be worth your time to take what you have and go with it...especially if they have no proof that you received any letters from them.

Be sure to use their track record (i.e. Class Action lawsuit, 100+ complaints with State AG) to discredit them. (Since you KNOW they'll say, "We sent the letter")

 

Well, I don't really know what to comment as I really don't know the details of your situation. I did use the following in a lawsuit against a collection agency, though, and it dealt with the "notice" issue. Below is that portion of the Complaint I filed.

3. The FDCPA establishes federal jurisdiction for the Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. The Plaintiff's first cause of action is pursuant to Section 809(a) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a) Defendant failed to provide "notice of debt". The Plaintiff's second cause of action is pursuant to Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(b). Defendant failed to provide requested verification and did not cease collection of the alleged debt. The Plaintiff's third cause of action is pursuant to Section 813(a) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692k(a) which states that any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of 15 U.S.C. §§
1692k with respect to any person is liable to such person.

4. In December, 2001, Plaintiff reviewed her consumer report as maintained by Experian and noticed a debt she did not recognize was being reported by the Defendant, LJ Ross and Associates. The Plaintiff had never received any type of communication from or by the Defendant in regards to this alleged debt and Plaintiff had no knowledge of this debt. Plaintiff contends that the reporting of this alleged debt to Experian by the Defendant violated the FDCPA under § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] Paragraph (a) which states:

(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;

Section 803(2) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a(2), defines the term "communication" as "the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium."

The Defendant's first communication was when Plaintiff became aware that this alleged debt was being reported by Experian and therefore she was not notified in this initial communication or within five days of same, of her rights under the FDCPA.


L

 

Find out what the official and dba names of the company are and use both. I just found out that Interstate Credit Collections is actually DATAMAX dba Interstate Credit Bureau Collections.

Well now, I seem to remember a little clause in the FDCPA about it being a violation for a CA to represent themselves as being part of a CRA. I believe that a reasonable person would interpret Credit BUREAU as being affiliated with a CRA, don't you? I'm attacking along those lines.

Anybody know the chapter and verse?

Additionally are they bonded to do business in Texas?

Dancer

 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/isgrigg1.htm

Should be part of your state law too.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Credit Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection


November 10, 1992

Mr. Thomas Isgrigg
Vice President
United States Credit Bureau, Inc.
P.O. Box 74929
Los Angeles, CA 90004

Dear Mr. Isgrigg:

This is in response to your inquiry of September 18, 1992 addressed to David Medine. You state that your agency has collected delinquent medical accounts for the County of Los Angeles for the past twelve years. At present, Los Angeles County is proposing a new arrangement in which you service the medical accounts for the County as follows:

Your call or letter written to the debtor would indicate that there is an outstanding balance and that you are posing a series of questions to the debtor relating to employment, dependents, assets and liabilities. Once you obtain this information, your firm is to refer the account back to the County for "a decision as to the debtor's ability to pay." All phone contact and letters with the debtor would be made in your name. The County does not consider such accounts as being "assigned" to your firm for collection, but rather "referred" to your firm for the purpose of locating the debtor.
You further state that the County is of the opinion that your firm would not have to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), particularly Sections 809 and 807(11) of the Act, when engaged in this "locating" service. Your counsel believes that under this new contract, use by your firm of the firm's name or letterhead when communicating with any person requires that your firm comply with the Act. The California Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services, by separate letter, has advised that failure to provide the Sections 807(11) and 809 notices would violate the Act and the California statutes.
It is not clear from your letter whether, under the new contract, your firm is required to demand and collect payments at the time it contacts borrowers. Also, it is not clear whether the County of Los Angeles considers the medical debts as current or in default at the time they are forwarded to your firm to make the contact with the debtors as described above. Essentially you ask whether the consumer contacts envisioned by the proposed County contract are governed by the Act. The ultimate question is whether United States Credit Bureau, Inc. acts as a "debt collector" if it engages in these activities.

The term "debt collector" is defined in Section 803(6) of the FDCPA as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another . . .." Since the ultimate goal of the contacts made by your firm under the new arrangement proposed by the County is to obtain payment of patients' hospital bills, it is clear that your firm is regularly engaged in collecting, or attempting to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed to others. As such, this collection effort brings United States Credit Bureau, Inc. within the definition of "debt collector" set out in Section 803(6) of the FDCPA and would, all else being equal, require it to comply with the Act.

You state in your letter, however, that, under the proposed arrangement, once your inquiries are completed, the accounts will be referred back to the County for a decision as to the debtor's "ability to pay." As stated previously it is not clear whether the County, when it refers the accounts to you under the proposed arrangement, considers the accounts in default or as accounts receivable. Section 803(G)(F)(iii) exempts from the above definition any person who collects debts owed or due another to the extent that such activity concerns debts that are not "in default" at the time they are obtained by such person. Whether a debt is in default is generally controlled by the terms of the contract between the hospital and patient creating the indebtedness or applicable state or federal laws or regulations that may define when a loan is in default (e.g., in the case of direct or guaranteed loans made or secured by government agencies).(1) If the accounts, at the time they are referred to your firm, are not yet in a default status, then the efforts of your firm would appear to be in the nature of servicing outstanding current accounts receivable which are not yet in default status. As such, they would be exempt under Section 803(6)(F)(iii), and no section of the FDCPA would be applicable to the activities of the United States Credit Bureau, Inc as outlined in your letter of inquiry . The status of the accounts when sent to you by the County is, of course, a fact-specific question.

On a matter unrelated to your inquiry, please be advised that the use of name of your firm, United States Credit Bureau, Inc. may violate Section 807(16) of the FDCPA. Section 807 of the FDCPA provides that "a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt." Included with the proscriptions of Section 807 is the "false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by Section 603(F) of this Act."

The FDCPA does not prohibit a debt collector from operating a consumer reporting agency. However, only a bona fide consumer reporting agency may use names such as "Credit Bureau," "Credit Bureau Collection Agency," "General Credit Control," "Credit Bureau Rating, Inc,." or "National Debtors Rating." A debt collection disclaimer in the text of a letter that the debt collector is not affiliated with (or employed by) a consumer reporting agency will not necessarily avoid a violation if the collector uses a name that indicates otherwise. Whether a debt collection firm that has called itself a credit bureau actually qualifies for such is also a factual issue, to be decided based upon the debt collector's actual operation.(2)

The opinions expressed herein are unofficial and not binding on the Commission, however, they do represent the current enforcement position of the staff.

I hope this information will be helpful.

Sincerely,

Roger J. Fitzpatrick
Attorney
Division of Credit Practices


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. See, e.g., attached informal staff opinion to Michael Heninburg, Health Resources and Services Administration, July 13, 1989.

2. Commentary at 50107.

 

Re: I'm Filing!! Help Me Double-ch

I'm positive LKH is correct, but tonight I can't remember how I know that either, lol. However, I am positive I've saved something about this to my infamous "important_save" subdirectory, so I'll hunt a bit tomorrow.

Doc

 

Re: I'm Filing!! Help Me Double-ch

how about if they call themself "Collection Bureau"?

 

Oh, HELL Yeah!

Thanks.

Dancer