Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please By Guru's I mean anyone who has anything that's helpful. You don't have to be a guru to know a little about something. I know quite a bit about cars, but I'm no guru. The more opinions on the subject the better. I just didn't want to get too off-topic on something else. However, as with all topics, if you've got something to say that might help.. even if it doesn't it might cause someone to think about it in a different way.. that's how answers are found.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please I completely agree with ya DOJ. Along with the exchange for money the OC agrees to transfer ownership to the buyer. Along with that goes all rights and responsibilities. That's why they don't even wanna talk to ya about it. It's OUTTA their hands. Didn't know ya had that letter. Kinda says it all, don't ya think? Good luck and stick to your guns. .
I am in no way an expert in this area, but I remember Butch saying not to deal with CA ever, because we are not in any agreement with the CA. I don't see this as a correct example, because it involves two parties only. We have three parties now - consumer, OC, and CA. It's more like this ... I [consumer] owe you [OC] a refund of $100, because I didn't fix your car properly. You sell the car to MisterX [CA]. Do you think MisterX [CA] has any chance of getting any money from me [consumer]? .
Ordinarily VgHost I'd agree with ya. But here the OC has sold the debt outright. DOJ has no choice but to deal with the CA, (now the owner). .
Re: Re: Guru's Only Please here's another question along the same lines... after an account has been charged off and then sold to a CA, can the OC still sue me? (sorry if that's a dumb question)
Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Why would they want to if the proceeds of their effort (assuming success) were to go to the new acct. owner, the CA. They wouldn't sue anyone if there's nothin in it for them. .
Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Ok, another question... Do we, as consumers, have the right to know if the account was sold? (better yet, how much it was sold for?) Is there anything in the FCRA or FDCPA regarding this that you know of?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please I agree with this analysis. I think your key arguments can be made from the Isaac-Gowen letter as follows: a. The FTC argues that a "closed-end creditor" is unlikely to have a reason to consider "whether to retain or modify current account terms" and thus would not have any routine need to procure consumer reports to "review" its accounts. WHY? Because the terms are predetermined and cannot be changed unilaterally by the creditor unless the contract expressly provides for such action. b. Using this same logic, the "OC" is unlikely to have a reason to consider "collection on an account that was sold to a third party" and thus would not have any routine need to procure consumer reports to "review" its accounts. WHY? Because the OC no longer owns that account or has a right to collect on that account since ownership and collection rights have been transferred by contract to the third party. c. The FTC also points out that the creditor is required to "certify the purposes for which the information is sought and to certify that the information will be used for no other purpose." How can the OC certify that it needs the CR for collection purposes when it has already SOLD the account to a third party and is therefore no longer engaged in collection activities on that account? That would be lying to the CRA and would invalidate the PP which must be expressly stated by the credit user. The OC has the burden of proving his PP. In a lawsuit, I would use discovery to produce the OC's certification statement to the CRA along with the contract between the OC and the CRA. It would be interesting to find out from other CNetters how a typical OC-CA contract reads for a sold account, but I can't imagine that the OC would retain any collection rights once the account has been sold to the CA. Even if the consumer sent the OC a payment, the money would still belong to the CA. Bottom line, sue them and make them prove their PP in court. I think the odds are in your favor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Not sure about a "right", but it'd sure be nice!! At any rate, if accounts are sold it's usually for pennies on the dollar...! If they collect on it, they get it all including any fees they add! America, what a country! I have said for years that selling dbts to other parties should be ILLEGAL!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please While selling debts to others might be a bad thing in the consumers eyes, it's what makes the economies turn. The state you live in probably sold their debt to someone in exchange for money up front. Then the state makes payments on the debt at a higher rate of interest. It's all how the system works. If America didn't buy and sell debt or for that matter ANY country, companies and countries would simply go out of business all together. I still see it as a matter of the OC looses all rights to the debt when it's sold. Either that or the CA cannot legally do anything with the debt at all. We all know that a CA wants their money. There's no way a CA would even enter into an agreement that wasn't going to make them any money somewhere. I'm sure most of the debts are sold in bundles and they expect to collect on 20-30% of those. Image having five small debts for $20 and three large debts for $2500. If the CA can add fees and interest to the $2500 debt and make it $5000 (not unheard of) and then collect on it. It makes up for the small debts. I'm still looking for definitive proof and if we all look togther..I'm sure we'll find something.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Okay as LB let out of the bag, it is First Premier Bankcard that I'm dealing with. The Attorney is Daveport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, located in South Dakota along side them. He's bumping all my old threads :> I personally like the C&D letter, which is another variation that's out there. I like LB too!
Re: Re: Guru's Only Please It is a correct example. It takes the consumer out of the deal. Were not apart of what deal they make with the CA.
Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Does it get better? You tell me: So I decided to review my Experian report today and low and behold, guess what I see: Status: Paid/Account charged off. $85 written off. Date Opened: 11/1997 Reported Since: 09/1997 Terms: NA Date of Status: 09/1999 Monthly Payment: $0 Last Reported: 09/1999 Responsibility: Individual Recent Balance: NA Recent Payment: NA They updated the account! They still continue to report that they reported the account two months before it was opened. In addition to that, they now mark it paid and show the last date of activity as 1999. I have letter from the Executive office listing the date of payment as 9/1998. Now they've admitted that what they've been reporting was infact incorrect. In addition to that, they now CONTINUE to report in accurate information about me. This is all in addition to the non-pp inquiries. Luckily they keep sending me copies of all the correspondence that they've already sent me. (each new letter has the previous letters photocopied and attached). How nice of them to provide me with documentation! In her own words, the person who wrote me in April 2002 states: Account was turned over to outside CA in July 1998. A payment was made to the collection agency on 9/1998, bringing the balance to $0. Why then do they report it as 9/1999? Either she got her dates wrong in the initial letters to me or they didn't even really investigate in the first place. Notice the balance still doesn't say $0 is still says NA. However, they have now marked it as paid. I still dispute the fact that they state that $85 was written off, when it was in fact paid. Cannot write off something that was recieved. I think I have them now, especially after they updated the account. I've got them on Duty of Furnishers to report accurate information, non-pp inquiries, and probably on a whole number of other violations.
Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Here's the way it originall reported: Closed/Account Charged off. $85 written off. Date Opened: 11/1997 Reported Since: 9/1997 Date of Status: 10/2001 Last Reported: 10/2001 Recent Balance: NA Account History: Charge-off as of 9-1997 to 3-2001 Here's the way it SHOULD be reported: Closed/Paid after Charge-off Date Opened: 11/1997 Date Reported: 11/1997 Date of Status: 9/1998 Last Reported: 9/1998 Account History: Payment after charge-off 9/1998
Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please [sarcasm]Experian didnt investigate? I'm SHOCKED.[/sarcasm] Don't forget to file a complaint with the FTC. (you probably already knew that.)
Guru's Please but I can't imagine that the OC would retain any collection rights once the account has been sold to the CA. greenva______________________- ============ Of course they don't . Creditors sell their accounts all the time .It's a common practice . If the seller retained rights to collect after the sale you would have to pay owner after owner after owner for the same account again and again.
Guru's Please but I can't imagine that the OC would retain any collection rights once the account has been sold to the CA. greenva______________________- ============ Of course they don't . THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''Interesting clicks http://www.ohiobarns.com/othersites/miscellaneous/oh/35-58miningshovel.html http://www.ohiobarns.com/othersites/buildings/oh/35-45bigbasket.html http://www.ohiobarns.com/othersites/wallmurals/ia/15-93calmar1.html """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
