I am dealing with two CA's right now concerning a few collection accounts on my credit report as well as FDCPA and FCRA violations that they have committed. I've sent them letters stating that since they have not validated but yet verified with the CRA, I will sue them, please send me notification if you wish to settle this out of court. Well, it seems that they are turning these accounts back over to the original creditor. My questions are: 1.) I still want to be compensated for the violations so I want to file suit anyway. Does that seem like a good idea or should I just let it go? 2.) Will the SC judge throw it out since they've turned the acct back to the OC? I mean, haven't they still committed the crime, like a bank robber turning the money back in to the original bank but yet he still has to pay for the crime ) right? Please advise. These accts still show up on my credit report since they are back to the OC, it's just the the OC's name is listed instead of the CA.
Only if you're Al Gore does returning illegally gotten gain absolve you of your crime. Once an illegal activity is committed returning the acct. doesn't eleviate their responsibility. If they return it to the OC any derogs should be removed also. If the debt is legit., I'd try and strike a deal with the OC to settle the problem in exchange for your not suing their asses. GL Let us know how it goes. .
Well, Butch it is now with the OC but it was with the CA when I was trying to get validation as you would expect. Now the OC has it but I still want to hold the CA liable for the violations that they committed. I don't think I can hold the OC liable for anything can I? These are medical bills by the way.
How does this "turning it back over to the OC" work? Is this only for accounts that haven't been charged off? John
These accounts have not been charged off. They are collection accounts that are now back with the Creditor and the OC's name is listed on the report now instead of the CA. But I still want to file suit on the CA's for their violations. I actually am just asking for $3,000 in violations.
I don't think I can hold the OC liable for anything can I? jdcompute ><- <>- ><- <> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This very thing was just discussed in this thread? http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=407585#post407585
Here is an example of how you can easily go after the OC and CA. The example is from Georgia law, but quite a few states have similar statutes. ---------------------------------------------------- O.C.G.A. 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. Good luck!
CAs either buy the debts or they Collect on behalf of An Oc If the oc owns it. Charge off has nothing to do with it. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~ ~ ~ ><- <>- ><- <> If the CA owns the debt it's sold to another CA. If the CA don't own it they hand it back ever to the owner I.E. The OC
