Citi collection - illegal procedure

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by txstep, Mar 4, 2002.

  1. txstep

    txstep Well-Known Member

    I had a Citibank Visa that went to collection in 1998. This was before I even knew what a credit report was.

    I started getting lots of phone calls from a CA about it. I agreed to make 6 payments of $400 each to pay it off. I gave the CA my bank routing number, bank account number and 6 check numbers. I paid off the debt.

    I know that CAs are not allowed to do this without notifying the person a certain number of days in advance of depositing each check. Is there a way to get this listing removed from my credit reports by using this fact? (The CA is not listed on my credit reports, only Citibank as a paid collection.)

    I tried the nutcase letter, but got no response.
     
  2. txstep

    txstep Well-Known Member

    anyone?
     
  3. rubyjean

    rubyjean Well-Known Member

     
  4. txstep

    txstep Well-Known Member

    § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

    A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

    (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.

    (2) The acceptance by a debt collector from any person of a check or other payment instrument postdated by more than five days unless such person is notified in writing of the debt collector's intent to deposit such check or instrument not more than ten nor less than three business days prior to such deposit.
     
  5. bobbidk

    bobbidk Well-Known Member

    Rubyjean:

    I have to disagree with you. Setting up a payment schedule is equivalent to post dated checks. The creditor must notify you 5 days before depositing the money. In this case I would write a letter stating that they are in violation 6 times ($6000.00). Tell them you want the tradeline removed or you will file suit.

    I'm sure there are other opinions on this. Just my .02 worth.

    Good luck with whatever you do and keep us informed!

    Bobbi
     
  6. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    My hubby is suing a CA and this is one of the violations. It reads exactly as you read it. They ARE required to "remind" you that they are posting thos epost dated checks to your account.

    I actually called 2 other CA's to find this out, and I called the FTC all 3 of them said regardless whether you gave permission or not, they are supposed to remind you UNLESS the check is postdated within the next week, then obviously they can't.

    They are in violation. However I am not sure if its a violation PER post dated check (which would make sense) or PER account.
     
  7. txstep

    txstep Well-Known Member

    KHM,

    Thanks for the info. So your hubby is suing on a paid collection?

    I guess I need to get my old bank statements out. Too bad I have moved 5 times since then!
     
  8. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    It's 2 paid collections, and I thought I would be able to "bully" them into deleting, NOPE NOT THEM. They swore up and down they were within the law, but they weren't they talked to me about hubbys debt (and at the time we were just BF & GF). I have 5 violations between the 2 debts.
    Two weeks before I filed I faxed them an offer to settle for deletion, they refused: "within our rights".
    I filed, offered them at settlement $1K, deletion, and court fees, the declined. So now I'm just waiting.
     
  9. rubyjean

    rubyjean Well-Known Member

    BOBBI,
    YOU ARE CORRECT THAT IT IS ILLEGAL WITHOUT PERMISSION EITHER VERBALLY OR WRITTEN.. BUT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.. AND I USED IT OFTEN IN SETTING UP SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ECT.. WAS TO HAVE PAYMENTS AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED ON A CERTAIN DAY OF THE MONTH FOR THE PAYMENT OUT OF THE CUSTOMERS CHECKING ACCT..ALL THAT WAS NEEDED WAS THE VERBAL PERMISSION AFTER READING A DISCLOSURE.. THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AS LONG AS THEIR IS AUTHORIZATION TO DO SO.. IF THERE WAS NOT AUTHORIZATION, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY.. SUE THEIR ASS OFF.

    GOOD LUCK
     
  10. brad

    brad Well-Known Member

    STOP SHOUTING!!! Only George is allowed to do that -:)
     

Share This Page