What is the difference legally and jurisdiction-wise between these two? I know that a CA can be assigned a debt to collect. That's just like the creditor asking someone to collect on their behalf, right? And I know they can purchase a debt. That's where they buy the debt from the original creditor for pennies on the dollar, and they're trying to collect on their own behalf, right? Which is better (sic) from our standpoint? And what are the differences in the licensing requirements between the two? I appreciate the help. Dancer
They both suck. BUT, from a validation standpoint, I have had better luck with CAs that purchased the debt- they generally do not have all the required documentation for proper validation. Licensing?? I have no idea.
I seem to have heard that a CA that has purchased a debt must be licensed in the state they are trying to collect in and a CA that has been assigned a debt can basically operate anywhere without needing a licence specifif to that state. (Basically they would be operating in the interests of the original creditor and thus have all the original creditor's rights.) Do I have this right? "anyone? anyone? anyone? Bueller!" Dancer
If I have my facts straight, In TX, I was told a 3rd party debt collector has to be bonded. I was told if they try to collect, even if the c/a is in another state they still have to be bonded to collect the money from a TX citizen. These people, (Consumer Credit, SOS, AG's office) did not say anything in regards to, "did this company purchase this debt or is it just assigned to them"? Any one else w/ any input?
God BLESS The Great Republic of Tejas! Fortunately, I live in Dallas! Got any good paper to use against 'em? Dancer
