Asset Acceptance Re-aging

Hi,

Welcome to the board.

You will learn so much here, and remember, there are VERY helpful people here.

Yes, I had a huge problem with Asset Acceptance re-aging my accounts.
One of them was to fall off March this year, and they re-aged it to show it was falling off March 2009.

I searched this board for Asset Acceptance posts, gathered all the information I could find, and wrote a nice threatening letter and it immediately came off.

Do a search on Asset Acceptance, and you will see the horror stories.

Read everything you can, they you will form some plan of action for them.

Good luck on your credit journey......

 

Oh goodness, I haven't had my coffee.

I meant: 'Read everything you can, THEN you can form some plan of action for them.

 

Whatever happened with this? Did the CRA(s) delete?

Even if they did, this is still ammo against AAC.

 

Did you send or fax a copy of the older credit report showing the original DOLA? If so, why are they investigating?

Setting that aside, why don't you include the fact that AAC illegally reaged this account as a violation against them?

 

Have you read the FCRA and FDCPA? I suspect you haven't.

Simply put, if a collection agency violates your rights under the FCRA and/or the FDCPA, they need to be held responsible. If they cannot provide adequate validation, then they have not proven that the debt is yours. If they did not place the colletion account in dispute after receiving your validation request (on all 3 reports), they've violated the FCRA. If they verified that the account is correct to the CRA's(before validating to you), that's another violation. If they keep calling you at work, or sending letters asking for payment, before producing adequate validation, that's a violation (continued collection activity) of the FDCPA.

Forget about what beach says what is validation and what isn't. Why are you listening to him anyway? We here at CN have nothing to gain by assisting you, on the other hand, beach has everything to gain by misleading you into believing you have no rights and that you need to pay.

Do you see where I'm going? Why is it that you are completely ignoring the rights you have, and keep saying "if I go to court I'll have to tell the judge it's my debt." "i'll have to pay"... ?

That sounds like what a collector would say. Would pay someone just because they send you a letter saying you owe them money? Of course not. They would have to prove to you that you owe whatever money they're attempting to collect.

 

This is a smart move.

 

Even if a debt is valid, a collection agency still MUST abide by the FDCPA and the FCRA.

Just because a debt may be valid does not dismiss them from following the law.

A debt can be 100% valid. Does this mean AAC can just forget about validating, placing an account in dispute, go ahead and illegally re-age, abd verify back to a CRA when they have not produced validation to you first?

The answer:

NO

 

If March 2002 is the correct delete date, the debt is past the SOL and is uncollectable by anyone!

Why are you validating debt that is uncollectable in the first place?


JohnM

 

Good catch John!

I didn't even think about that. If the original deletion date was 3/02, that means the original DOLA was 3/95. And if the SOL in her state is 6 years, it's passed.

You're right, she doesn't even need to see if they can validate, just a c&d letter saying the SOL is up, debt is uncollectable, and they need to delete.

 

The debt is past the SOL they can NOT collect, you are OUT of the whole debt. You do not have to pay them a dime.

 

Pulse,

Have your read spears v brennan..... take this to the judge.


CLIFFORD W. SHEPARD THOMAS J. GRAU
Consumer Protection Law Offices CAROL A. NEMETH
Indianapolis, Indiana White & Raub
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GREG A. SPEARS, )

)
Appellant-Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-0003-CV-169
)
TIMOTHY L. BRENNAN, )
)
Appellee-Defendant. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Kenneth Johnson, Judge
Cause No. 49D02-9802-CP-236

Direct Quote;

An FDCPA claim â??has nothing to do with whether the underlying debt is valid. An FDCPA claim concerns the method of collecting the debt. It does not arise out of the transaction creating the debt[.]â? Azar v. Hayter, 874 F. Supp. 1314, 1318 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (refusing to find waiver of FDCPA claim as compulsory counterclaim to state court action on the debt because claim â??does not arise out of the transaction creating the debt, and thus was not a compulsory counterclaim under state law in the action to collect the debt.â?), affirmed, 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1048 (1996). The Act makes debt collectors liable for various â??abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practicesâ? regardless of whether the debt is valid. McCartney v. First City Bank, 970 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992). Our analysis is further consistent with the well-settled principle that the FDCPA is a strict liability statute and that a consumer need not show intentional conduct by the debt collector to be entitled to damages. See Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 33 (2nd Cir. 1996); Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 60, 63 (2nd Cir. 1993)

 

You said in a previous post:

Well, now that John has shown you that the account will go away you're bringing up another excuse. Do you realize he just caught something that no one else did until just now? He realized that $5K of your debt is past the SOL and no longer valid or collectable. That's gold. Forget about court for now and see how the CRA's come back from their "verification". Bottom line: The account will go away, and if you are forced to take AAC to court to get it to happen, it'll be costing THEM money.

 

why would asset take you to court on a debt that is past the SOL? especially if you send them a letter saying you have an absolute defense? they don't make money by wasting it in court cases they can't win.

briana