O.K. I have been combing the FDCPA and decided to pull the company up on the BBB. They are listed as a credit reporting agency, not a ca. Now does the FDCPA still apply? I am assuming so since they are attempting to collect on behalf of the oc. Man if I didn't know what to do before, I really don't know what to do now. Court is in the morning and I thought I had it figured out, but I guess not. ANY AND ALL HELP IS APPRECIATED btw, this question is pertaing to the thread I posted last week about can a ca sue with no previous communication.
CRA's don't collect debt's, they only report them. A cause for confusion might be RMA which apparently used to be a part of Equifax - and still seems to be joined at the hip with them in many respects. In general: if a creditor assigns (contracts) with a CA then the CA has no legal standing to sue, usually only the owner of the debt can. If the the OC sells the debt to another agency, be it a bank or a CA, then that becomes the new creditor and has the right to sue you. HTH 0
Well, let me tell you what the summons says: Personally appeared before me, (nothing wrote on there) Justice court judge of district no (nothing wrote here either) of said county and state (nothing here) Credit Bureau Central AddressxxxxxHattiesburg, Ms phone # xxx who, after being by the first duly sworn, deposes and says that the amount hereunto attached and entered is true, accurate and correct, and is justly due and owing from the party against whom the same is charged; that no part thereof has been paid, except as noted on said statement, and the said account is subject to no counterclaims or off-setts whatever (fill in the blank says) past due accts. against Vickie xxxx in the amount of 543.66 (five hundred forty three dollars and 66/100) $155.01 owed to Hclinic $388.65 owed to FGHospital Plus all cost of court to FGHospital. So, they ARE suing on behalf of the oc's and according to their name and the BBB they are a cra.
Thought to what you said though, since they are collecting but supposedly a cra could that be considered deceptive?
T A CA can also be a CRA. However, they are still covered by FDCPA, as any company that attempts to collect a debt for which they are not the original grantor of the debt is covered by FDCPA. It does not matter whether they are collecting on a contingency or have purchased the debt. You should be able to treat them as a CA. fla-tan
Thanks for correcting me Fla-Tan. I was thinking of: "Section 807(16) prohibits falsely representing or implying that a debt collector operates or is employed by a "consumer reporting agency" as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. " But of course they can truthfully represent such! Now < 0
Where would I find literature that says that any 3rd party is considered a ca and must abide by the FDCPA, in case they try to say that they are a cra and not required? I am going to look in the FTC letters but I wanted to ask y'all here before everyone goes to bed, in case I cannot find anything. TIA!!
What about (D) with the exception of any person while serving or attempting to serve legal process on any other person in connection with the judicial enforcement of any debt; What exactly in lamen terms does that mean? Does it mean while someone is PHYSICALLY trying to serve you the summons, that person is not considered a debt collector? That is how I am interpreting that.
Exactly. In most states, if not all, a person serving the papers cannot be a party to the action. Meaning, they can't be the plaintiff, co plaintiff, co defendant or an employee of any of them.
Thanx alot LKH, I wasn't sure. I am not the best at understanding this legal stuff. I try to use common sense but alot of times the way I understand something is not the way others understand. Thanx again!
ok LKH and Marc, since it looks like you two are really the only ones still up, I hope you can help me again. After scouring Vickie's credit reports, I noticed that one of these accounts were deleted through dispute on her TU report (somehow this company is an affiliate of TU) anyway, she has received no correspondance concerning these accts. until this summons, the summons has the wrong address so it looks like they had no way of contacting her. BUT I just noticed that the dispute was placed on 9/02, this company PULLED her report on 9/17, therefore they would have HAD to have the correct address. But yet she received nothing but summons sometime the end of Nov. therefore has not been given the right to dispute the debt. So is this something that she can use against them in court, if so, how should it be presented?
i have a similiar situation.... i have a ca that sends me notices as CBUSA but is listed on my CR as XXXXX collection agency (totally different name but same address).(same debt, a medical collection) I was trying to deterimine whether this is a good violation of the fdcpa/fcra or both
Diva, Check this out, from: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/demayo.htm "One final point: If the agency employees you describe are "debt collectors" under the above analysis, it appears that they and their collection agency would violate Section 807(14) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(14), if they represent to consumers that they are employees of the consumers' creditors. Section 807(14) prohibits "debt collectors" from using "any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization." If the agency is a "debt collector," it may not use the creditor's name when communicating with consumers from whom it is attempting to collect debts; it must use its own.
update Well, she lost, a judgment was rendered. She told the judge she had never received anything concerning this and the judge said it did not matter b/c CBC had statements fm Hclinic, that shows the bills, though they did not have anything from FGHospital, the judgew rendered the full judgment. Is it too late to sue the ca for violations, or would that have had to have been done in a countersuit? The violation is no contact within 5 days of initial communiacation.
Re: update okay, according to the bbb website... CB USA Inc is a credit bureua. I am checking your link sassy..... I am not working today, so maybe i will call ag office also! One final point: If the agency employees you describe are "debt collectors" under the above analysis, it appears that they and their collection agency would violate Section 807(14) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(14), if they represent to consumers that they are employees of the consumers' creditors. Section 807(14) prohibits "debt collectors" from using "any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization." If the agency is a "debt collector," it may not use the creditor's name when communicating with consumers from whom it is attempting to collect debts; it must use its own.
Re: update awwwwwwww tnobles, That's what we get for being honest, humphhhhhhh, and why I like LK's identity theft stance; that's the standard we have to insist on. And, it seems that is the only way they will do what is required of them -- I guess this goes to show it's a good thing to be dumb and not know anything about anything. Truly, I maintain, it doesn't matter what we know or don't know, or what records we have or don't have, it's all irrelevant -- all that matters is what they can prove. It's their burden and record keeping requirement, hold them to it! Sassy
Re: update sorry tnobles, are you gonna sue for violations? Sassy.... is this enough to file a lawsuit over... should i just include it in an ITS letter. the debt is $199.00 and they refused pay for deletion. I disputing it for CHOD!
Re: update I mentioned it to her, that would be nice, sue them for 1k after they have sued her for 500. she just called me and said that she contacted them to make payment arrangements and now they are claiming she owes them 800. These people are jerks. Can she still sue for violations? If not, I have them for violations on my dh over a 40 dollar bill. They sent a bill, I sent validation, they called 3 times after that w/o sending validation (yes, I have copies of the caller id print out) and they have sent another demand for payment. So they will pay us a thousand over a 40 dollar debt, plus this ;lady told me when she called they had submitted it to CRA's AFTER receiving request for validation.
