Risk management is not bonded to collect in the state of Texas? If anyone has a link that would tell me what CA's are it would be much appreciated! Thank you!
From what I understand from reading other posts in the past you have to send a request to the AG in Texas and pay him $5 or $10, don't remember which it is. Maybe somebody from Texas who knows can give you the straight story.
no no no... I just called the secretary of state yesterday and spoke with Nina Weston. (pronounces n-eye-na). She is the one to ask. Someone in her office was able to look up 3 ca's for me right over the telephone. Not sure if risk management is or not. Only 1 of the 3 I called about was bonded here in TX Someone posted her # yesterday or the day before. Do a search on Nina Weston.
LMAO, Bill... One was CBSJ-Collection Bureau of San Jose The other (in WA) is Everett Associates of Credit M-something. The full name doesnt show on my credit report. But, they also go by EACM. These guys arent bonded in TX. If my disputes come back verified, I will send them estoppel for deletion of paid ca accts. Then, we'll see what happens after that.
Good point, Bill. Well, it doesnt apply to THIS situation...this is further leverage if they continue to report. Estoppel totally applies to the original situation. the bonding thing is just a back-up plan I am sitting on for a while. I have 3 paid collections. A little time has gone by, so I am sending estoppel to see if I can get them to delete. They can keep the money, I dont care. Estoppel is perfect for these guys. If they dont respond, THEN my plan will switch to use this levrage to see if they will delete.
OK. Well I could not see how it would apply either. That is why I asked. Ok. If it don't apply then how is it going to add leverage? OK. in what way does it apply to the original situation? Again, I fail to see how Estoppel would apply. And how do you plan to use the bonding thing as leverage? In most states consumers do not have the right of private action in cases where collection agencies are not bonded nor licensed nor in violation of the state's laws regarding such things. The AG for that state is the only one who has any right of action in such matters. I've had enough of this silly estoppel letter invented by some internet glue-rue who didn't have the foggiest idea what estoppel is nor how to use it properly. I have just now completed a thorough investigation of the matter of estoppel and have devised an estoppel letter which does not mention any silly Englehardt v. Gravens cases and is on point, does apply and at least stands a crying chance of getting their attention and the matter resolved in an equitable manner.
Bill, how do you fail to see how estoppel would apply? Is it or is it not for paid collections? Maybe I'm missing something here...I have read your website and all you say about estoppel. It is a great tactic...but that is all it is. If I have a paid collection and play dumb enought to the ca and lead them to believe that the whole graves thing is applicable and is a legitimate cause of action and they delete...well, isnt that how it would apply? The bonding issue is just a little thing to give them a little grief from the AG...I can pursue them seperately. Thanks jlynn!
Is your revised letter on your website? I've been referring to another link on here to see the old one. Hey, Bill, U ok?
I do not know about that. I am relying on a post here on creditnet from someone else from Texas who said that TX does not allow for private action. I don't live in Tx. and I have never researched to find out for myself.
As I have stated many times before the Englehardt case does not apply to any type of debt collection activity. I got all ticked off this morning and decided to do some additional research on the matter and I can see how estoppel can be applicable and I have authored my own letter as of this morning and no, it isn't going to be on any website. As usual I'm not going to put good stuff out for the collection agencies and other snoops to grab up and develop a defense for. What any man can invent another can destroy. To make matters worse unknowledgeable and uninformed people will always screw up a good defense. They will do it every time.
SUBCHAPTER B. SURETY BOND §392.101. BOND REQUIREMENT. e) A person who successfully maintains an action under this section for violation of Section 392.101 392.202, or 392.301(a)(3) is entitled to not less than $100 for each violation of this chapter. Here's the complete code, if you enjoy reading such: http://www.occc.state.tx.us/pages/Legal/Laws/Laws_01.htm#Ch392
Hey Bill, I just "saw things through your eyes" so to speak...and yes, you are right...estoppel does not apply in the manner you are thinking. The whole graves thing, all of it...nothing applies to debt collection. What I meant by it applying is totally different. I meant to say the paid-collection knockout letter (what many call estoppel letter) may work in this situation. The Doctirne of esotppel, as you say, is a buncha hooey, but, it relies on the ignorance of another to work. I understand that concept quite well and agree with you that estoppel has nothing to do with debt collection.
WOW! A whole hundred bucks! Whoop-de-do! Its worth more than that to just shut up about it and wait until they sue you and then scream to the judge that they are not in compliance with state law and have no right to bring action against you and demand dismissal with prejudice and see what happens. Judges don't much care for those who are in violation of the law themselves complaining about the actions of others.
THANK YOU!! I call the one I have posted on my message board an estoppel letter. That one looks like it is for real because the basic principle of estoppel is explained to the recipient in a manner that at least sounds logical but is in reality a "junk" application of Estoppel. It scares the P out of them from time to time. Exactly! But my new one is/should be right on target. Based on this morning's research I think I can see where it does. There might be some question if reiied upon alone but when logically tied to another cause of action as I have done it just might be effective all the way through the court system. Only time will tell. But one thing for certain is that using Englehardt v. Gravens should be a dead give away to any knowledgeable debt collector that the sender don't have a clue. One would tend to think that even if it is received by some two-bit office clerk they would ask someone with at least some legal knowledge about it and the answer they give would probably be to just ignore the fool who wrote it and move on. And my experience has been that that is exactly what happens. I don't like getting ignored. I want results and the results I want is for them to pay the bill they were trying to collect and take it off the credit reports as well.
