CA has been done......they just keep ignoring me or should I say they sent me that stupid print out. So, since I've gone through estoppel on them...and they now have these latest violations (multiple entries, etc.), I figured the AG (Collection Agency Board in Colorado that has done me good before), the Original Creditor, and then the suit? Am I wrong? You think I should just stick with the CA then? I can do that..makes it easier...
By law, the CA must turn the account back to the OC if they can not get verification. Since they are not providing you with any info, and not turning it over to the OC, then they are liable. I would pursue them since all the violations are on their part. Dragging he OC in might open Pandoras box. hey sold it to the CA, sue them for 5000.00. See how fast those deletions take place. Any judge in America would award you at least 75% of that amount, if not more. Remeber, small claims court is not a guilt or innocent court. You just have to prove that the violations took place, and u have that.
Oh, Creditman, you rock! You've really given me confidence. Ok, so, I was reading Marie's things to do before filing and she said (and so did many here) that the intent to sue letter is a good thing for the judge. So, my letter should be to the CA for intent to sue, 15 days, then file, right???
I read somewhere that OCs are liable for the wrongdoings of the CAs they hire. Dang, I need to find that site, thread, whatever it was.
Here it is: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...195210&highlight=hire++responsible#post195210 and another: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...d=67517&highlight=hire++responsible#post67517
Thank you, Love! I've bumped it and asked if anyone had the documentation for this so we could use it in letters, etc.
Well my terminology might be a little off. Normally if the CA decides not to collect on a debt, they tun it back to the original creditor. I have letters like this from 3 different CAs. They say that they have ceased any collection activity and returned debt to OC. They also said that they have removed any negative marks they placed on my reports.
That's what I feel. From all the research I have done, if they know they are in violation, they will settle before court.
I have to say that I've had that happen, as well...them turning it back when it seems too much trouble to deal with.
More evidence: Carolyn Flint, CCE, corporate credit manager, Oregon Steel Mills, feels that credit managers must be wary and astute when hiring an agency to collect accounts. "This is the sort of thing that can come back to haunt you someday," Flint said. She shared an article and appellate brief on a lawsuit involving a collection agency and the company that hired them. Although it was a consumer case, Flint cautions that it could easily apply to commercial collections. The case involved a $2,000 debt on a credit card. The debtor did not dispute the debt. The credit card company hired an agency that seriously disregarded lawful collection practices. The debtor sued the agency, which was bankrupt by the time the debtor filed the suit alleging unlawful collection practices. The debtor also sued the original creditor company claiming they were responsible for the actions of the agency they hired to collect this account. The court awarded the debtor $11 million! Of course, the creditor company is appealing the case. "But remember," warns Flint, "on an appeal, all the courts consider is whether or not the case was tried according to law." In this case, the creditor company may only get a reduction in the judgment amount. http://www.nacm-bcs.org/res_bcj_2.html Dang, we need to find that law (if it exists!)
Ok, I just got report for hubby from CSC Credit Services which states that "they verified all three duplicate accounts and they have been reported correctly." So, I now have more proof for the AG. CSC is idiotic!
Like the way you think, Creditman. Do I have to file each distinctly or can I still do it as one? I just faxed this proof to the AG of Co! Outragous! I'm pissed! :::Gasp::: Nana said "pissed!"
Unfortunately, I only found it in Georgia statute: 120-1-14-.25 Use of Debt Collectors; Agreement. Every creditor shall be presumed to know that any debt collector engaged by the creditor will be an agent of the creditor and will be acting for and in behalf of the creditor in connection with the collection of any debt allegedly owed the creditor. Every creditor shall be absolutely responsible for observance of these rules and regulations by the debt collector in connection with all activities of the debt collector so far as they are taken in collecting or attempting to collect any debt allegedly owed to the creditor, and it shall be no defense to the creditor that any violation complained of was not an activity of the creditor himself or itself. Before engaging any debt collector, a creditor shall require the debt collector (or a responsible officer of the debt collector) to execute a sworn certificate under the penalty of perjury, that he has read and understands each and all of these rules and regulations pertaining to debt collection and that each and all of them will be carefully observed in the activities of the debt collector. http://www.ganet.org/rules/index.cgi?base=120/1/14/25
UPDATE: Tripled entries Ok, hubby called CSC and spoke to a rep and pointed out the tripled entries. She said she'd remove two immediately. So, that's something anyway but the violations are all documented for the AG on this company which should do in the last entry. On another note, this means that the letter we got saying that they were "validated" and remained had to be bogus, too. Imagine that?
Re: UPDATE: Tripled entries Well, SOMEBODY say you're happy that we got 2 of them suckers off... :::::::tapping foot like a good Nana would, arms folded::::: LOL
Re: UPDATE: Tripled entries good job, I hope they do it. It may take 2 months. These guys are slow to report to CRA.
