Can OC still charge after CA???

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by snakeman, Oct 4, 2003.

  1. snakeman

    snakeman Well-Known Member

    I had a rental truck from a company in Ohio 3/28/02.
    I rented the truck for a while (it was a log loader truck for the business I used to have). I eventually decided to stop paying after it broke down and they took their sweet time fixing it. They eventually, in May of 2002, came and took it back.

    They then sent me a bill for $8,000 the next month.

    After just 2 months they forwarded this to a CA who I have been making payments that both the CA and I agreed on of $50 a month.

    Every month since then though, this OC keeps sending me a bill which shows an addtion of interest of $107.23 every month!

    We asked the CA about it and he says ignore the letters from them. He said the amount were paying him will be the amount we pay for the whole thing.
    Although we don't know what that amount is (scary), because he says that if he puts it in writing and we miss a payment, they can start legal proceedings against us.

    I am not sure about this so I need info on weather this is even LEGAL for them to keep doing this.

    Thanks in advance

  2. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    The CA can't put into writing the amount owed? Can they put *THAT* in writing?

    That seems like a FLAGRANT violation of the FDCPA, in SO many ways... These are just the two that comes to the top of my mind...

    The purpose of the FDCPA's validation section is to get the CA to put into writing, and to provide supporting documentation for, the amount of the debt that is allegedly owed, so that the consumer can make a knowing payment arrangement IF the debt is valid, and theirs.

    Yes, the OC can charge fees including interest if it is allowed by the contract and/or state and federal laws, this is why in the validation process, you request that the CA provides the application, contract, and invoices (minimum) so that you can see what fees, etc are allowed under 808(1).

    Chances are the payments that you are making are being negated by the $107.23 a month in interest charges which you are being billed. In other words, you are 'paying' -$57.23 a month on the bill, and possibly keeping the account within the Statute of Limitations for them to sue you, and making the bill more for when they finally decide to sue you.

    § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e]

    (2) The false representation of --

    (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

    (B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

    § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

    (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.
  3. snakeman

    snakeman Well-Known Member

    Interesting. I read somewhere once that these OC's cannot have their pie and eat it too.

    In another words...they cannot send out bills for the purpose of collecting a debt while they also have a CA doing the same. I don't know if this is the law, but it sure makes sense that there should be some law protecting against this type of behavior.

    Also, nothing from this debt has been reported to my bureau/s.

    I also wanted to say that I disagree about what you stated earlier. Something about keeping the SOL from either starting other words you were basically saying that they can sue anytime because I keep making payments.

    There is a FDCPA regulation that says (and a FTC opinion letter to back it up) something about making payments does not re-age an account.

    But then again, I am relatively new at this.

    What do you think????

  4. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    How soon after the account was overdue did you get contacted by the CA. Remember that if the account wasn't 'defaulted' when it was given to the CA, then the FDCPA doesn't cover the CA, and technically the CA could be an agent of the OC.

    There is a difference between reporting SOL, and SOL for being sued, in most states payments for an account are considered to restart the clock for the SOL.

    The reporting SOL doesn't get started over when you make a payment, but the local jurisdictions SOL for being sued may.

    I will tell you a similar situation that I had with an OC which was just nipped in the rear by the FTC...

    The OC was charging $38.03 a month in interest, the payment agreement was $25.00 a month; the OC's tradeline continued to rise as the high balance, and current balances continued to rise. On their final statement when the FTC forced them to mark it as paid in full, there were FOUR (4) pages of $38.03 interest charges.

    The major difference was that the OC was getting the initial judgement in their state court, and hiring an 'attorney' to get the judgement locally, and then the 'attorney' would accept the payments and send the notices for the OC.

    Of course, unless I was watching my credit reports like I was for the last year and a half, I would not have known that the amount was going up every month, instead of going down. So, I found out exactly how long of a 'month' I could make it without getting sued, and made the payments on my terms.

    Luckily it was the tactics of the OC that got the FTC to force them to nullify more than $24 million dollars in accounts, mine included, so, in a way, OC thank you for being SCUM... ;)

    At the time they were stopped, they had more than 2000 active pending suits in MA... BTW: the $24 MILLION was only the amount of actual foreign judgements that the company was carrying out at the time of the settlement. There were more accounts which had to be voided because of numerous other types of fraud.
  5. dixidriftr

    dixidriftr Well-Known Member

    Have you read your contract with the OC yet? If the truck broke down and they didn't fix it they defaulted on the contract and you may not owe them a thing.
  6. snakeman

    snakeman Well-Known Member

    Yeah I read it. They got me. I signed a very lopsided contract with them. We all do stupid things from time to time. I should have read it more carefully.


Share This Page