have you read the info on the budhibbs site? The one really interesting thing is regarding medical collections. This is right up your alley. Once a doctor sends an account to a collection agency and the collection agency puts it on your credit file... Since it's on your credit file by definition that means they gave you a line of credit...right. Now, a line of credit, as defined by Federal law would mean they would need to have substantiation. Eg: A credit application Complete disclosure of financing, terms (Apr, conditions etc) and of course, the line of credit they gave to you. Now, if you send a letter to the doctor stating that they certainly must have this documentation of your line of credit (else they're in violation of the law)... they can either send it to you or you can sue them! Now, I hope this does generate some valid legal discussion by the great legal eagles here! Is this a valid approach? If so, would it be a Truth in lending violation? IF it's a credit issue, how about finding some Fair Billing Act violations too? But I really like the "there's no initial disclosure" issue if it's a line of credit. Anyway, this may be smoke and mirrors as well... but it certainly is an interesting approach. I bet most clinics/doctor's offices don't see this one coming. But it seems. logically. if they can put something on your CREDIT report then it must be credit. And if it's credit there are certainly requirements for such... I'm just not sure what those requirements would be. Food for thought
This is interesting indeed. But I always thought that the reason these parties used debt collectors is because they arent setup to handle reporting and credit issues. Since they have assigned the debt over to a third party, they are not directly pursuing the action. Your idea are really interesting though and I would love to hear what anyone has to say also.
