Butch I would agree on some of the debt but I believe Amex will tie me up on the consumer side of things. Have you seen an instance when a corporate card hit a credit report on the consumer side. thanks for your info to date, its appreciated.
Re: Re: CA's turning up the heat It happens all the time with AMEX. A common post on these and other boards is "I worked for this company and they gave me a Corporate Amex card for my expenses. Four months ago I left that job (for whatever reason) and the company has not paid the expense account. Amex is after me....."
Re: Re: CA's turning up the heat I know whatcha mean Flying. I felt the same way. Here's what I found out; FDCPA: § 803. Definitions [15 USC 1692a] 5) The term "debt" means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment. FDCPA applies to the collection of "debt" as defined in the act. Although I agree with ya that our OP may be a consumer, I've seen case law where it was argued [successfully] that the definition of "debt" in this instance is what would hang us up. Business debt is excluded from this def. So the nature of the debt is [also] a critical component in applying the FDPCA. See what I mean? Also; Jtek, ought not misunderstand me here. I'm not saying he doesn't have "rights". I'm sure he does. They may even be more stringent. I'm just saying we can't turn to the FDCPA. I think he needs to look elsewhere. UCC, or Contract Law perhaps. .
Re: Re: CA's turning up the heat sorry butch - i'm kinda grumpy today. PLEASE call a lawyer. Thank you.
Re: Re: Re: CA's turning up the heat I RESENT THAT!!! I'M GRUMPY BUTT at work AND DARN PROUD...(teddy bear inside)
Re: Re: CA's turning up the heat Ok, now we are getting somewhere. I will talk to a consumer lawyer hopefully tomorrow. I have talked to a bk lawyer and all I got was "check your agreements" Ok, I wish I could, the fact is I don't have that agreement from 6 years ago. I guess this is where validation comes in. CA sent me their letter dated 1/14 w/miranda. If they validate, can I expect to get a signed copy of CC agreement with all statements of the account from inception?
Re: Re: CA's turning up the heat Check out http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0559/ch0559.htm PART V COMMERCIAL COLLECTION PRACTICES (ss. 559.541-559.548) doesn't provide much in the way of protection for business debtors but if the CA isn't properly registered/bonded (or if used fake PI name...) you can hang em by the body part of your choice. Perhaps you can negotiate it into making the debt go away. HTH.
Re: Re: CA's turning up the heat Butch... Not sure if this will add even more confusion to the mix. FTC v. LeaseComm - http://www.ftc.gov/ro/leasecomm/ Although LeaseComm could be considered an original creditor, and the obligations are business in nature -- cc processing 'virtual terminals'; the FTC forced them to comply with the FDCPA in their settlement. Not sure whether or not that requirement came out of the fact that the 'leases' (which it couldn't be, since it was a non-tangible item), apparently obscured the involvement of LeaseComm.
Re: Re: Re: CA's turning up the heat You can expect anything, but don't count on your expectations being realized. I have a CA which sent an application which contradicts the transactional history (one page illegible fax dated 1998), and they STILL claim that they properly verified the account. If the accounts DoLA is six years ago, chances are they won't be able to provide anything. If the opening date was six years ago, chances are that they won't be able to find the application, or the beginning statements; and they may try to 'verify' by only providing a handful of statements. But if they are trying to charge any other fees, they'll need the 'agreement' to try to prove that those fees are legal.
