Re: Re: Re: Re: Need help with letter This is what the NV licensing folks told me: (I checked with two different offices, because I read it the same way you did.) A non-NV CA collecting for a non-NV OC from a NV debtor does not need a license or bond. A non-NV CA soliciting business from a NV OC DOES need the license and bond, regardless of where the debtor is. His quote: "Just because the debtor moves into NV doesn't mean the CA needs to get a NV license to collect from them." I may still have them on violations, but as it turns out, this is something the OC and my HMO should have straightened out between them LONG ago, so it will go away by virtue of that. I pursued the licensing issue before figured out who the OC was and that it was an invalid medical bill. Since I don't need the leverage, I don't really care about the violations. (OK, I care about the general dishonest nature of CAs in general, but not this one in particular.) Thanks again, NanaC, for your help.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Need help with letter Ok..I'm just trying to understand how it will just go away? That confuses me..I guess..but I sure hope it's true! Best of luck.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Need help with letter OC was a doctor's office, charges were for office visits. OC originally billed my HMO, only came after me when HMO denied part. However, because of the contract between the HMO and the doctor, they weren't supposed to bill me for any differences. So, the HMO is going after the OC for billing me. They insisted that the OC remove the account from collections and write off the debt. I may be naive, but I am trusting that the HMO has enough leverage with the OC to get this done. This will make the collection account disappear. The OC never reported, so once the collection is gone, the whole thing goes away. Right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Need help with letter I would sure stay on top of it and not trust that it will get taken care of....others may have more opinons on it..but with CA's, I don't trust ANYTHING will happen as it should...Good luck..keep us informed!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Need help with letter I read something at another site and I want to put my thoughts in on this...the idea was that, because the CA had been paid, the fact that they were not licensed or bonded properly somehow didn't matter anymore. OF course it matters, as long as they are reporting to a CRA and you are being damaged by their illegal actions as an unlicensed/unbonded CA. Please don't let the fact that they are paid stop you from pursuing this approach. If they are on your credit report, check them out!
Re: NanaC's Notions i just reread this entire thread....whew! there is a wealth of information here....please read the whole thing if you havent in awhile!!! ok, now for my newest questions... I've read and read and read about licensing/bonding. Problem is, I'm still fuzzy on some things. 1. If a debtor's home state requires licensing/bonding (l/b)...does that mean they require it of CAs who are based elsewhere? 2. If a debtors home state does not require l/b, does that mean mean any CA can collect from said debtor, even if the CA's home state requires l/b and the CA is not l/b in their own home state? (this is my situation with Sherman.) and can any of these l/b issues be construed as "misrepresentation" therefore making them a FDCPA violation as well? "Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affilitated with the United States or any State...." just grasping for whatever I can, lol....
Re: Re: NanaC's Notions 1. I believe it depends on the laws of each state for the specifics of out-of-state collectors collecting from residents of the state. When in doubt, I write the people in charge. 2. If they are a collection agency residing in Co, and I'm elsewhere, and they are operating as a CA in CO, then they must be licensed as a CA in CO in my opinion and my experience. I have used the licensing depts. in other states to discipline a ca in that state who is violating that states collection laws even though I don't reside in that state. 3. I believe it is misrepresentation to act as a collector without having obtained the proper license or bond. Again, my opinion, only. However, to be perfectly honest, I've never had to work that hard to get anything removed once I found them unlicensed/bonded in any state that pertains, home or otherwise. Good questions..and again, I have to state, these answers are just from my experience in dealing with this..and the outcomes.
Re: Re: NanaC's Notions nana, I have found your posts to be so true right down to the very tee I am in Ca and was dealing with an out of state CA who was not lisc to conduct business in my state ( which is requirement of Calif)and like you said I simply brought that to the attention of the vp or ceo of that co and whalah I was provided with a deletion letter. they were afraid that I may report their illegal activity and they get fined or worse yet that I would file suit against them on top of that.. thax for reposting this wonderful thread it really helped me out .
Re: Re: NanaC's Notions I love reading posts like that...it really makes my day!! Congrats on the deletion!
Re: Re: NanaC's Notions good point. I guess I (like a lot of others) feel like I have to know "for sure" before I start spouting off something about it in a letter. I think tho, that what it comes down to, is not whether the l/b issue definitely proves violations or lawbreaking of any sort, but whether the CA wants to mess around with someone who is willing to tattle, lol. thanks so much for sharing your experiences Nana. I will be sure to update if/when this gets sherman off my back.
Re: Re: Re: NanaC's Notions Ok...I guess it seems so clear to me, I never considered otherwise...law is in place stating license/bonding required. CA chooses not to be licensed/bonded. They are operating illegally and will face consequences of the state for their violations. I don't think there's any question about that. I was personally successful with Sherman.
Re: Re: Re: NanaC's Notions OH, and again, when in doubt, call the licensing/bonding folks and discuss it with them.
Re: Re: Re: NanaC's Notions This court found there was no FDCPA violation for an unlicensed CA, 9th Circuit, Wade v Regional Credit: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9535434 Sassy
Re: Re: Re: NanaC's Notions You know, there again, I never had to go past the state violation and draw in any other possible violations, etc...only focused on state..was always enough..when unlicensed/bonded. When licensed/bonded, I just reported violations to the licensing/bonding board of state. LOL..sometimes I've been tempted to write "you are not Licensed in XXX state..delete" on a paper towel, mail, and I honestly think most of them would without any further discussion to avoid state repercussions. LOL
Re: Re: Re: NanaC's Notions Flying with Nana there, The threat of reporting them to the licensing authorities and the possible penalties and repurcussions that the state can pursue threatens their business and livlihood. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: NanaC's Notions Nana, could you please post the letter required to do this, as you have said you would post it earlier int he thread. I have to beauties to use this process with and I can't wait LOL
Re: Re: Re: NanaC's Notions Nana, could you please post the letter required to do this, as you have said you would post it earlier int he thread. I have to beauties to use this process with and I can't wait LOL
Re: Re: Re: NanaC's Notions Sorry Nana...I found it earlier in the thread. Thanks for your info though
