Ok, I've searched but not found a firm answer to my question. I have an out of state CA that is trying to collect an alleged debt. I will verify tomorrow the the AG, but on my state's website, when I put in their names and alias (we can search online) it comes up with 3 entries, all are the same agency, but each is from a different state than my CA - and all 3 licenses are expired. If they do not in fact have a license to collect in my state, do I: 1. Dispute the debt AND inform them that they are not licensed and pursuit will cause action on my part to report them to the AG? 2. Ignore the dispute/validation part and just inform them that I know they are not licensed to collect in my state and that further action will cause me to file with the AG? 3. C&D and inform them about further collection activity (ie AG) 4. OR??? thanks! Shanyl
PS - They called today and didn't do their mini-miranda. They simply said "I am Blah Zblah from XXXX Credit Manatgement. We are calling about a settlement letter for x amount." They did verify that I am who I am via name (VERY common name btw) Is it necessary to add comment about that also to the letter? Shanyl
I want them to go away KayKay and remove the TL, not wait for them to file suit. In my state, to be licensed they have to take a written test and become bonded for 50K. I doubt they'll want to do that and even if they do, they'll have to do that FIRST before they can legally attempt to collect this alleged debt.
IMO I would file suit they will probably back down rather than face fines and penalties. ck the BBB for the company name it may have an agent for process or ceo listed. are you saying the CA is not licensed with their city hall to conduct business ? or just not licensed with the secretary of state ?
What could shanyl file suit about? I don't know what it costs to file a case in Florida. Depends on which court mostly. Shanyl will have to do it pro se because no lawyer in their right mind would take the case. So let's say shanyl pays $150 for court costs, another $50 to get them served so that is $200 and sits there in the courtroom on trial date waiting for the judge to rule that shanyl has no right of private action in the case because shanyl isn't the injured party as I said before and dismisses the case with prejudice meanwhile muttering something about people following bad advice they found on the internet Your bad advice would have just cost shanyl $200, and an awfullly big embarrassment. Such bad advice as you have just given out just gives attorneys and judges good reason to hate internet lawyer wannabees every time one of them files a frivolous lawsuit and then they end up falsely blaming somebody for teaching that kind of nonsense. It also hurts future pro se litigants because the next time somebody stands up there without a lawyer the judge is going to remember that last pro se who came before his court and wasted his time and the court's money. Bad advice hurts everybody. I'll bet you didn't even read what I posted above. You probably just looked at who wrote it and thought "Oh damn! There is that dumb idiot CA woman shooting off her big mouth again and just zoomed right on by it and posted your bad advice.
Update. Well I'm glad I called the licensing bureau. They told me that indeed, the information I looked up is accurate. HOWEVER... Even though the law reads that a CA must be licensed in the state of Michigan to collect - that is ONLY if the CA is based in Michigan. If however, the CA is located in state X, and collecting in Michigan (I think she called it interstate collection) then they don't have to be licensed. Then the purpose for getting licensed is?????? Can she be wrong? What good is it to check for licenses? Shanyl
Re: Re: If CA isn't licensed to collect.... Your questions are really very easy to answer. First of all the reason for demanding license of a collection agency never was for the protection of consumers in the first place. Such license laws were brought to the various states due to the demands of lenders, banks and such. They get all bent out of shape when they turn an account over to a collection agency who goes out and collects the debt and then stiffs the lender, never pays them. They just don't hear any more about it from the sleazier debt collectors and sooner or later they turn it over to another debt collector who starts hounding the debtor who screams he already paid the sleazy one. Then the bank tries to get their money from the sleaze and can't get it. So they try to get laws passed so that debt collectors can be licensed and under the law must report to the state who they are collecting for, how much money they have in their escrow accounts that have not yet been paid to creditors and have only a certain amount of time to pay their clients, the lenders. Has nothing to do with consumer protection. And as to your question about what good it is to check for license compliance? Little or none whatever. The reason the idea is so popular is because some gooroo thought that one up and it sounds like such a cute idea that everybody bought into it. But like so many ideas that abound on the internet, that one is pretty worthless when you understand it and what the law is really all about and what it's purposes are. But as I said before, if you save it until you get hauled into court on a judgment then it might come in handy if you inform the judge and let him take whatever action he deems necessary to correct the situation. That might get you some mileage and maybe a snicker or two but that is about it.
