I received a letter several months ago from a collection agency that states in part, "If we have to start the collection process, the size of this debt may be taken into consideration. In many cases, the party owing the debt is reponsible for all cost of collecting the debt. If it is warranted, a claims specialist may even be instructed to check out any credit available to you which would help liquidate the debt. Obviously vehicle ownership and or property ownership are matters of public records that anyone could check on." I know that it is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act to threaten to take property unless they intend to do so or unless they can legally do so. Obviously they did not intend to do this as almost a year has passed. The debt is $382. Do I have a valid reason to file a complaint with the FTC?
Treats And Inferences Trisha: The statement youâ??ve provided isnâ??t a threat but more of an inference, which is perfectly legit. Because taking into consideration the tone of the statement. The collection agent didnâ??t threaten suit was immanent, but that an investigation (asset search) would be conducted. If the letter stated that the asset search results would be referred to its legal staff? Then the â??least sophisticated consumerâ? doctrine could be applied, but from what youâ??ve provided that doesnâ??t seem to be the case. Based on your IP I presume youâ??re in California (Go Stanford!). Which means that even if the collection agent were to file a lawsuit (which they shouldnâ??t due to the debt amount), the California courts have consistently taken a conservative view on awarding â??collection feesâ? and such. But that doesnâ??t preclude a collector from trying; they do all the time. Bottom-line here is that yours is a small debt, one not cost-effective enough to litigate. Certainly, youâ??re free to file whatever complaint with the Feds. Albeit, they wonâ??t take any aggressive action on a single complaint, and neither will the AGâ??s Office. Thus, have you considered negotiating with the original creditor (or the collection agent) to resolve the matter? Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor CreditDefenses.com
note: Stafford, not Stanford I have a neighbor who was sued for a $750 ambulance bill in California, and the total judgement was about $1300. It was a default judgement (he didn't show up on the court date) in the regular docket of the Superior Court in CA (not small claims)
Duhhhâ?¦ Pat: Yes I noticed the Stanford, Stafford gaff right after I postedâ?¦ Oh well. Certainly if a case is prosecuted in Superior (given the consolidation factor), attorney fees and costs could definitely drive a $750 debt to $1,300. What I was referring to formerly were fees such as where on a $4,000 debt the collection agent seeks $250 in â??collectionâ? costs, outside the scope of litigation. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor CreditDefenses.com
Stafford Law School Having studied at Stafford Law School, which is coterminous with my kitchen table, I can offer the following opinion: If a lawsuit is stated to be imminent, that is a threat. If a lawsuit is immanent, in other words intrinsic or inherent in the subject, then we are all in serious trouble. The only treat involved would be the fees unjustly awarded to attorneys for the prevailing party.
