Alegis Group LP

I would recommend that you play dumb and send them a validation letter and see what they do from there.

At the end of that time I would follow up with an estoppel letter and 15 days after that I would follow up with filing a complaint under Section 528 (maybe it 524) of the bankruptcy laws which is the contempt of court section dealing with continued collection activity.

Of course, all you can do as a private individual is to complain to the court. Don't think you would have any right to private action under that statute but since I'm no lawyer and actually know very little about bK I suppose that some right to private action might be available. You would have to do your own research on that or ask a BK lawyer which would be a heck of a lot faster.

 

Didn't SEARS have to pay a FINE >$1,000,000 because they tried to collect "POST" BK???

 

I wouldn't have the slightest idea George.

 

$59,000,000 SHORT

http://www.cardweb.com/cardtrak/news/1999/february/11c.html

 

Interesting indeed, George

 

If I remember correctly they are related companies. I've got a link to Sherman on my message board in the resources forum that links to Sherman and tells the story on that deal.

 

That letter is a right to cure letter. It's purpose is both to notify you of their intent to collect the debt, AND to give you the opportunity to dispute the debt if there is an error.

So...why not exercise your right and dispute the debt? Send them whatever paperwork you have that shows their claim was dismissed and be done with it.

What am I missing?

 

Well Mycroft it looks like they violated the deceptive pratices section of the FDCPA in threatening action they aren't legally allowed to take.
If they've looked at his credit report they know he's under BK court protection and they're violating the automatic stay.
Other than those 2 little mundane items, I can't think of a thing they've done wrong. I hope the OP scorches 'em.

 

That's the point right there. The only way to put an end to abusive and illegal practices is to make them pay for their mistakes in cold hard cash.

If we are going to talk morality issues then while it is our moral obligation to pay our bills it is also a moral as well as a legal obligation on their part to obey the law and to do the right thing.

Morality is a two edged sword exactly as are legal issues.

They are both equally obligatory upon all parties to the transaction.

Anyone taking only the viewpoint of one side or the other is simply failing to face the facts of life. To do otherwise invites lawlessness and promotes disobedience to the laws of both God and man.

IF the debtor must be taken to task and punished for
his actions then so must the creditor and the collector.

It is our duty as good citizens to be sure that their transgressions are properly punished.

Letting them off the hook easily may be appealing because it is so easy but it was shirking our responsibilities that got us into trouble in the first place according to many folks.

So if we are to learn to act more responsibly and do as the moralist approach would have us believe that we should do then we are morally obligated to sue the hell out of them every time they violate moral or legal principles.

Its just the right thing to do, doncha know!!!

 

Okay, I was missing something. The point.

Give me a bit of patience while I shift mental gears. When I read the OP's post, I thought the problem was that this might show up again on his credit report, but I wasn't looking at it with the right point of view, was I?

Let me play devils advocate for a sec.

You say the violation is deceptive practices...they're not allowed to threaten something they can't do, but the letter just said pay or we will take "appropriate action".

If the debt is uncollectible, then "appropriate action" could be doing nothing, right? If they don't actually do anything, is it still a violation? Or is sending the letter (itself an attempt to collect the debt) the violation?

What about First USA? If they missed the boat in getting in on the bankruptcy, didn't they also commit some violation in sending it to Alegis?

 

Yes it is a violation. At least in their initial contact with the debtor it is. As most of us know the initial contact letter must contain certain language which specifically outlines the debtor's rights. Anything whatsoever that might tend to overshadow the reqired disclosure of the debtor's right to dispute in the mind of the debtor is a definite violation of the law and is not looked upon favorably by the courts at all. It is asssumed that the debtor will always fear the words of the collector more than they will heed the delineation of their right do dispute.

Even such wording as "take the appropriate action" can and usually does breed fear in the mind of the debtor and fear of the unknown can be as devastating or more so than knowledge based on statement of intent.

Not as long as it does not stray afield from what the FTC and the courts have outlined.

I would certainly tend to think so.

 

Actually, I was referring to the OP's comment that the letter said they would reflect a negative credit report if he/she didn't respond in 30 days. An action they're not legally allowed to take.

Personally, I think the bk code should be amended to prevent creditors who have accounts in bk from selling or otherwise disposing of the accounts. But, I suspect that's beyond the power of the OP.

 

Again, I think that it is against Sec 524 (or maybe 528) of the bankruptcy code.

Again, I recommend that you speak with the attorney who filed your case or the court itself about this matter. That way you will know for sure and can take whatever action may be dictated by your findings.

 

I would worry a whole lot more about getting the violation
ruled on by the BK court right now than I would rushing off to small claims court.

Seems to me that if you got them held in contempt of court under BK that would strengthen your small claims case a whole lot.

That can wait until after you see what the BK court does about it.

 

That would be one option to look
into once it was vacated.