collection agency vs debt purchase?

Obviously one is a contractor and the other is a buyer of debts. There is a difference. But they are both still 3rd party collectors.

Yes, you can. But you can also write a letter to Santa Clause telling him all you want for xmas is your two front teeth. (LOL)

Sorry, just being funny.

But trying to tell the purchaser of the debt that you are not going to deal with him would be about as useless as my suggestion. You do have to deal with them one way or another and simply telling them you are not going to deal with them just isn't going to cut the mustard.

I gotta run right now so I'll get back to you with more later

 

Bill: So what if the Creditor still owns your debt a/c, but has Contracted a collection agency to Act for them.Can you still contact the CCC (amex) ???
KNDT

 

The short answer to your question is yes, of course you can contact the CCC. But there is a lot more you really need to know and think about before you do that. For security of information purposes, if you want to know the true and full answer to your question you will have to send me an email and I will be happy to give you my further thoughts on the matter.

In the event you do want the rest of the story, please use your screen name so I know who I am talking to.

 

Doing that is not in your best interests. You are far better off dealing with anybody other than the original creditor. In fact, I always try to get around dealing with the original creditor except in special circumstances. I go to almost any lengths to get original creditors to turn to collection agencies if at all possible.

If you want to know the reasons why then you can send me an emal and I will be glad to tell you why, but I won't discuss that on open forum because of potential security hazards. Too much information put out on public forums can and does backfire on us.

 

It depends on the Company involved.. At MBNA , when an account is Charged Off, it is sold to a collection agency and all dealings will have to be done with them.. MBNA does not own the account any longer..the only comments on the account are the Name of the Collection agency and the toll free Number. I make it a point of explaining it to The Customers in my cycle that are 180 day and about to be written off as a bad debt.. I send out Fed Express Personal Letters. stating that with out a 1.35 % payment to start an arrangement, ect.. Your account will be written off as a bad debt.. after This Date.. MBNA will no longer own you account.. It will be sold to a collection agency who will try to collect this debt for 7-10 years, it will affect you in applying for Mortgages , car loans ect.. You will be surprised how many people call back 1 or 2 days after the deadline and are told that their account has been charged off.. Every Company is different though.. So I would Contact them.. \
Good Luck

 

Well, that's all and good. And you would probably be amazed to know that after you charge them off and send them to the collection agency who comes after them like they were some kind of an enraged bear and the people call me in after that and I teach them how to whack them with a creditwrench and they turn tail and run for the tall timber like they was ruined bruins.

http://www.creditwrench.com/osirenig1.html

http://www.creditwrench.com/works1.html

http://www.creditwrench.com/EMCCINC1.HTML

That don't help them any because we also teach the people how to go run them down and haul them back out of their deep dark caves and haul them over to their lawyers offices where they really take a pounding.

They don't even learn after that. They come trying it again on some other poor soul and WHACK! Hit with the creditwrench again.

A body would thnk they would wake up and die right someday, but I seriously doubt it.

Hey, RubyJean and all, have a happy thanksgiving and save a few old bones for them poor collection agencies. They need it badly after having been whacked so many times.

Rubyjean, did you say something about them ruined bruins trying to collect for 7 to 10 years???
I don't think so. Not after a good whackin with a creditwrench they don't.
LOL

 

Bill:

In the third link (letter from Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay), the collector signed off the activity and returned the consumer's file to the original creditor.

Can the creditor assign the file to another collector?

If so, will they do so?

 

Yes, they can and under all normal conditions they would be highly likely to do so. However, there is an answer for that sneaky little tactic too. The situation has been turned over to David Szwak for legal action against Mitchell N. Kay and so we will see what happens next.

Under all probable normal conditions, the answer would probably be yes. However, since they will most likely be sitting right beside Mr. Kay at the defendant's table, it's not all that likely. My understanding is that a separate suit is intended for each.

Mitchell N. Kay and the rest of them all seem to think they can run away from their responsibilities under the law. We plan to teach them differently the hard way.

This is a nation of laws and none is above the law. High time they learned that and quit trying to convince people that they are worse than dogs because they couldn't pay their bills.

There is no earthly excuse for two old people sitting in my office bawling their eyes out because some klutz made them feel so bad when they couldn't suddenly come up with more than $28,000 after their daughter was nearly killed by a hit and run drunken driver. It's true that they do owe the money and I made them understand that. But making mental wrecks out of them is simply inexcuseable. It shouldn't happen to a dog, much less two people who have been honorable all their lives and got hit with this tragedy.

What's great is that when they left the office, they knew they had a way to go and a fighting chance of not losing their home. They had been made to believe that the sheriff was gonna come and move them out of their home which they owned free and clear over this deal. What a crock!

 

Greg:

Of course, probably one of the most insidious tricks of all is where they send the debtor a letter saying CapOne is going to give them a new credit card to pay off what they owe the collection agency. The collection agency makes no demand for payment, only a nice letter saying CapOne will issue them a new credit card to pay off with if they wish.

Bright idea to say the least and one I'll bet a lot of suckers fall for. There is no demand for payment here so it can't be directly attacked until they put it on a credit report. Once that happens, then they just lost their cute little hidey-hole because you have direct evidence of a collection attempt and can go after it with agressive tactics to put a stop to it.

Sooner or later, their patience will wear thin if one just sits back and ignores the CapOne offer and they will have to make a move. When they do, they suddenly learn that little trick didn't help them a bit.

Don't fall for it. Just ignore it and wait for the inevitable to happen. After all, it says that CapOne don't have to issue a new card if you already have one, so they will just load it on your present card and if it shoves you over the limits they can simply whang you for another $25 or whatever just to add to your miseries.

 

Hello Again,
Let me give you my perspective on this matter as the owner of a collection agency and the buyer of consumer credit debt.

When we make the purchase or servicing transaction, we receive a power of attorney that gives us the inherit rights under the original cardholder agreement. We have the ability to "bind" the original creditor in certain situations. This gives us the right to settle an account and REQUIRE that the original creditor, such as Citibank, MBNA, Household etc. remove the original trade line and OURS.

Why am I taking the time to tell you all this? Because I want you to know how it really is. I have been where you have been and I used to be a high profile credit restoration "master", charging up to Ten Thousand Dollars to fix peoples credit. I no longer have the time of desire and after having watched this board for over 8 months and having interacted with BREEZE, I feel it is my MORAL obligation to help you!

Another suggestion.. Go to Office Max and have a rubber stamp made (make sure that it will fit on the back of a cashiers check size) that says:

CASHING OF THIS CHECK REPRESENTS PAYMENT IN FULL TO WHOM THE CHECK WAS ISSUED. CREDITOR AND/OR ITS ASSIGNEE, AGENCY, COURT, LAWFIRM AGREE TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL DEROGATORY INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED AGAINST SAID ACCOUNT BY SAID FIRM AND BY SAID FIRMS ORIGINAL CLIENT AND CREDITOR WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF TENDER. TENDERING OF THIS INSTRUMENT SHALL INDICATE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE AMENDED TERMS OF THE CARDHOLDER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. VOID IF RIGHTS RESERVED

This stamp is the most valuable weapon that you will ever own. NEVER PAY A COLLECTION AGENCY. LAW FIRM OR COURT JUDGEMENT UNLESS THIS IS STAMPED ON THE BACK OF YOUR CHECK! This gives you the "slam dunk" proof of the amendment and agreement.

The bottom line is if they cash the check, the deal is done, and then it is simply a matter of forcing compliance to the agreement.

If you have any questions as to my sincerity or motivation, simply ask BREEZE.

 

I HAVE SEEN IN THE "FINE PRINT" ~~~~"We do NOT have to accept any restrictive endorsements on any check, if we cash your check with a restrictive enforcement, we can not accept any of the terms, we may also return the check and charge you a late fee and the same fees if it had bounced, and may include an increase in the interest rate to the "penalty" terms."

OR SOME SUCH WORDS...

...THE RESTRICTIVE ENDORSEMENTS WORK SOMETIMES...JUST FOR F.Y.I. IF IT DOES NOT WORK...

 

George:

I've been thinking real hard about westcap's post today. I've turned it every which way but loose in my mind, and I still have some mixed feelings and thoughts about it no matter how much I thank him for his post.

And I really do sincerely thank him for his post, and even more so because of who(what) he says he is and/or has been and done.

Your thoughts are also very pertinent, George.

The thoughts of Westcap are so extremely important because of the fact that even if one can feel comfortable with beating his/her creditors and has no compunction whatever about doing so there still remains the practical situation where a bill is so small that it's just not worth the time and trouble to fight about it very much. His restrictive endorsement should take care of the problem quite nicely. But you also have a very valid comment and I think one that deserves his answer if he will give it. Let us hope that he will.

But what about the person who has a sincere moral desire to do what's right, has the money to pay what he owes, or can make arrangement to pay it in whatever number of payments, don't want to beat nobody out of nothing and refuses to do anything that he feels is somehow shady or not right and insists on paying what he owes but also refuses to pay unless he can reach some kind of a workable solution such as Westcap has possibly provided us with?

I've never really felt all that good about being more or less forced to advocate that no one ever pay a bill once it has gone to collections because you can't get it off your credit reports under any normal conditions. I wish I didn't have to take that hard stance. Maybe Westcap can tell us what to do under the conditions specified by George. I think I already have the answer to the problem, but I'd much rather hear more of what Westcap has to say.

I'd very much like to be able to change my stance on this issue and I firmly believe that Westcap may well be able to solve the dilemna presented by George.

Let us see what comes of this.

 

George.
You are correct in your post.. What you have written is in the Terms and Agreements of Credit Card Companys.. You would be surprised how many people try to send a payment of around 10.00 on a 10k line of credit.. stating that if you cash this check.. this account is paid in full, ect.. It just does not work that way with Credit Card Debt.. Best way to find out for sure is to call your credit card Company and ask them to send you a letter stating the terms and agreements of your account..

 

A lot of people would use that..."BY CASHING THIS $5.00 CHECK, YOU AGREE TO PAYMENT IN FULL, I NO LONGER OWE THE $25,000, AND YOU WILL NOT TRY TO COLLECT ANY ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS EVER, AND YOU ALSO AGREE TO REPORT TO THE BIG 3 CRA'S THAT MY ACCOUNT IS PAID/NEVER LATE, BALANCE $0, CREDIT LIMIT $25,000."

 

Bill,
Thank you for taking the time to post a detailed reply to my post.

Let me be perfectly clear. The business of debt collection and debt purchase is a very highly regulated industry. All actions, movements and words uttered by our collectors are subject to the FDCPA and FCRA.

The methods that I have given you are not fiction, but were methods that I was required to take to assist my family members and honestly, myself in a prior time.

The key to this is the fact that you are stating in the restrictive endorsement that the "tendering" in a sense "amends" the original cardholder agreement. So the original text of the agreement is really moot. This is also covered by the VOID IF RIGHTS RESERVED statement.

I have used this in over 100 cases for very high profile and high net worth clients and family members and have had a 90% success rate of getting the trade lines completely deleted without legal intervention. Many times, we are required to provide detailed data to back up our prior conversations with the collectors and managers and a copy of the front and back of the check that was cashed. When you consider the use of litigation, I am 99% successful. One creditor took it too personally and felt they got screwed and we ended up dropping the case....Three days later the trade line mysteriously "disappeared". Was it simply a matter of saving face?

The bottom line is that when faced with the possibility of being pulled into litigation, the creditor will usually take the path of least resistance and remove the trades. You have done the legwork and all of the data proves that you had an agreement.

In the event that there is any type of resistance or statements such as "we do not have to do that", we simply send a detailed legal demand letter to the legal and compliance Liason for the agency or creditor. The data is presented along with all of the notes of the conversations and the copy of the check.

Remember, the FDCPA, requires that collectors deal with the public so that the "least sophisticated consumer" can understand what is going on. When presented with this type of internal "jargon" the agency and original creditor want absolutely NOTHING to do with the debtor who presents their case to them in their own language.

I understand that there are numerous experts on this board who have every angle of this situation under control. All that I am saying is that there may be more that one way to skin a cat.

"Remember, I am the one (the creditor) that you need to convince to remove your trade line. My day is clock in and clock out. I do not like problems and god help me if I get the company in any litigation because I made the wrong decision. I need my job and although I want to be the "enforcer" of the credit world", I know when to back down"I am simply showing you my weak points.

This is the mindset of the people that actually can delete the trade lines for you. This is the 8.00 per hour employee syndrome.

With that said, I welcome your replies and questions. If someone would like to cut and paste this part of the forum to another section, I would be happy to assist any member in the quest for success.

One final word of advice. If you have to file suit against an agency or CRA, NEVER file in small claims. You must file in circuit or district court. Creditors have teams allocated to deal with the Small Claims issues. At this point, they really could care less about small claims. Now federal or District Court... That is a different animal. They must retain counsel to fight you and the procedures are much different, plus it elevates your credibility as a serious "player" over 100%

Hmmmm....

 

Rubyjean

That is due in a large part to the teachings of a man named John Gliha who has an organization he calls dueprocess.org and can be found on the internet at that address. He holds nationwide phone conferences two to 3 times per week and I often listen in on and tape it although I never participate. He also teaches that one should use their credit cards to buy his books for $750 and then sue the credit card companies because they never loaned the people anything but rather created money out of thin air and a few electrons. He has a rather large gathering of people who seem to think this is a valid way to do business and get rich quick. He claims to have a large number of courtroom successes and of course, I have no idea whether or not this is true. I have my own opinions, but the truth of the matter I know not. I bought one of his books and that was more than enough for me.

Also, the teachings of the radical group known as the MONTANA FREEMEN were somewhat along the same lines although the relationship between the two is a bit tenious at best, there are some similiarities.

I think that Westcap however has a totally different set of ideas and I am fairly sure you are well aware of that. Until I find out different (which I find highly unlikely at this writing} I most assuredly want to hear more from this person if he has more to say.

 

LOL. rubyjean, they really do that?? What a riot!! Anyone ever send monopoly money? Hahahaha!!

 

Mr Gliha got taken in by that offshore credit card scam. I don't think I'd trust his judgment, hehe.