Is It True ??

Nothing in the FDCPA refutes Jerabathga. Remember in the sample letter forum the subsequent CA strategy? Its just a theory. Haven't heard of any case law that backs it up.

 

Where are you finding this crap?

 

He obviously doesn't have a life and has nothing better to do than take quotes out of the context of the thread they were in.

 

Actually, there is something in the FDCPA which specifically talks about the issue in the subsequent CA strategy.

Since under 809(b) if an account has collection activity prohibited while it has not been validated, it would be a false and misreprentation for anyone to claim that the transfer or sale to anyone allows collection activity to resume.

While the actual transfer or sale may be allowed, all the legal rights which are in play from the consumer remain; so if the account was frozen by 809(b), it remains frozen by 809(b). So if the new owner or assign does anything which is collection activity, it is a violation. and how many collection agencies don't begin collection in some way, shape, or form when they receive an account.

In the commentary, the FTC made this even clearer that this includes situations when the account is sent back to the original creditor.

SO, even if the original creditor recalls the debt in an unvalidated state, one could argue that under 807(6)(B) of the FDCPA, the FDCPA now applies to the OC since the transfer of interest does not terminate the consumers rights under the FDCPA.

 

OMG why haven't you brought this to our attention before?????????????

I keep saying that the "subsequent CA is a theory - I haven't looked at 809b that way to date.

Well worth discussing, and revamping that letter! How many of us request validation, only to have a collection moved to another CA???????

Great job Jam!

 

Actually, I do keep bringing this up.

Just no one notices it...

Except for maybe the illustrious Butch...

I think my first mentioning of this was on 08.18.2003 @ 09:06 in this thread... At least I think that was my first mentioning of it...

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50655



Remember (even if you weren't around back then) when the drinking ages were changed to 21 way back, they had to exempt anyone who was over the then current drinking age on the day that it went into effect, because they had already been confirred upon with the right to drink, and a right once given, can not be taken away.

Likewise, our rights under the FDCPA are confirred upon us the second any CA touches the account, and under 807(6)(B) those rights are kept even when the account is transferred or sold to anyone else.

 

Two things that I always include in all my corrispondence now.

"TAR NOTICE" -- essentially a notice explicitly stating that the notice applies to all parties involved, ca, oc, etc. and any future parties involved.

"Notice to agent is notice to principal. Notice to principal is notice to agent. Applies to all successors and assigns."

If you look at it closely, it essentially puts them on notice that this notice applies to everyone who touches it from then on, without actually referring to 807(6)(B) directly.

and

"Please be advised that I am also exercising my rights under Federal Law to ensure that the transfer or assigning of this account to any other company including the alleged original creditor will not enable any action which is prohibited by the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act, including but not limited to the resumption of collection activities prohibited following the request for validation, before that complete and total validation is provided by your company."

Again, this phrasing actually goes the step further and frames 809(b) inside of 807(6)(B), without actually quoting the law directly...

If the CA only takes a quick glance at it, they may not catch the reference, and if they don't and they violate, "oh, that's just too bad..." I can still claim that I took extenuating measures, above and beyond the call of duty for a consumer, to ensure that the CA would not make that mistake, and they still made it anyhow...

Of course, there are probably a lot more concise ways of phrasing it. But that's my personal phrasing.

 

Ok, to be honest, I got so confused in that story that I quit following it Alot of what was going on also went thru email...

Also, I think the thoughts that have become the subject of this post got lost in all the issues of the post you referenced.

And its always well worth hammering out again, and possibly resulting in the "tightening up" of the subsequent CA strategy.

We may need to start a new thread to get Butch's attention, since he was the author.

 

Maybe not a 'tightening up' of it, but an explaination of how and why it is supposed to work...

I knew from looking at it the basis of it, but most consumers don't spend the three weeks from being served to the hearing date doing little more than eatting, drinking, breathing, sleeping the FDCPA... Hmmm, maybe that is why they never bothered to show up to their own hearing...

Boy, that CA probably would be so hated by their peers, if I mentioned their name as the reason why everyone else in their industry that I've come accross so far is starting to hate me so much...