Over 15 years ago, I signed up with an at home study course [Liberty Bible Study]. I paid a deposit for the fee and was supposed to receive study material and books. I did not get all the required material and did not get much help with the customer service. Within the 30 day period according to the contract, I sent them a notice stating I wanted to drop the courses. I never got the deposit back because the contract specified it was something they would keep. Anyway, I did not hear anything from them for 2 years. I disputed the claim. They never sent me proof and I never heard back from them. I thought that was the end of that. 7 years after the course, I get a call from a collection agency threatening me they would sue and force me to make payments if I did not agree to a settlement amount. I told them the debt was over the statue of limitations and I did not get services promised. I never heard back. 10 years passed, same thing. Out of the blue they call with the same tactics, same threats, and I hear nothing back from them. 12 years later, same thing. Now here it is over 15 years later and they are trying to claim they will sue me if I don't agree to make payments. I told them this is an SOL expired and disputed debt. Then he tells me the SOL is only in regards to the ability to sue in court. He claims if I do not agree to a settlement, he will put it on my credit record as an inquiry until I pay it. I asked him to provide me proof of the validity of debt, but for now I will not agree it was a valid debt and refuse to pay it. Is there any way to get them to stop harassing me every few years?
Unfortunately, you cannot stop a letter or a phone call, they are allowed to ask for the money..... BUT..... The debt is out of Statute for Collections, so if they DO sue, you countersue (suing over an Out of Statute Debt is a FDCPA violation), AND The debt is out of Statute for Credit Reporting, so if the DO put it on your credit file, you sue (re-aging is a FCRA violation). If he puts it on your CRA as an INQUIRY, you SUE, since he has no Permissible Purpose (he has no legally collectable debt, and tehrefore no Permissible Purpose).
Is it the same collection agency that harasses you every few years? If so I believe you will find a "time-barred" letter here. I would send the Validation Letter, followed by the Time-Barred Debt letter all certified mail. This way if they then try to put an inquiry on your report (only a few points hit by the way) you will be able to sue them for inquiring with no permissable purpose
The time-barred status doesn't exactly take away the permissible purpose to pull inquiries... So if they want to pull inquiries, they may be able to do so. The caveat is inquiries, even if you believe like I do that reporting itself is a communication as defined, and specified by the act, do not, because inquiries do not convey information about the alleged debt, in the same way that a trade line does. Hopefully what it will do though is to get this collection agency to decide to wash their hands of the account.
Re: 15 Year Old Debt Collector Prob -Why not just sue for collection harrasment or continued collection activity?? "The time-barred status doesn't exactly take away the permissible purpose to pull inquiries" -I could kiss your feet for that!!!!! I argued this for months when Lizardking filed tons of suits for inquiries on SOL accounts. -A collection agency HAS A PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE TO PULL A CONSUMER'S CREDIT REPORT "to collect a debt" PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: 15 Year Old Debt Collector Prob Then how do you handle a case such as this, where the "service" was apparently terminated, for cause, under the terms of the contract, the vendor failed to press any claims they may have had at the time, yet sold the account as a valid "debt"? When and how can a disputed debt be resolved with finality, or should we all file suit, or send regulatory complaints, against the seller in all disputed cases, whether the the seller appears to acquiesce or not, in order to back up every dispute with a court judgement, or regulatory record? Does selling a disputed "debt" make it more valid than any claims the seller could have pressed in court? Why should failure of the buyer to press a complaint in court leave the debt considered valid, yet failure of the seller to press a complaint in court also leaves the debt considered valid, simply because it is sold? Why should failure by a debt seller to pass on, or a debt buyer to retain, complete records of contracts, returns, disputes, etc., leave the debt buyer with a "right" to make inquiries in perpetuity? Note: FDCPA: �§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1692e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: ... (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. (6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to -- (A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or (B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title.
Re: Re: 15 Year Old Debt Collector Prob ca0me15: I didn't say that I *LOVED* the concept, but when courts have taken the position that even the cease of collection activities in Section 809(b), doesn't even temporarily take away the collection purpose permissible purpose, (although it would be continued collection activity in violation of Section 809(b)), you can only guess that time-barred debt collection inquiries would likewise fall into the same category. And of Lizardking can win on them, or get them to settle for them, all the better. Even better if he'ld get a defendant who wanted to take it all the way to the supremes, just so we had a firm precident like Heintz v. Jenkins on the issue.
The poster doesn't need to send any letters to have grounds to sue. ANY collection activity through the courts or CRA's chould bringa suit.
Threatening to sue, when "debt" is past SOL, or threatening to place on credit report, when debt is past 7 years, is itself an FDCPA violation, whether they actually do it or not.
