Need a Legal Walk thru Here!

It would go weeks with maybe $5 or $10 in it (no mthly service charge), and no activity.

Given my pattern, I didn't really blame them for sending it back.

 

Since I'm in an all fired hurry to sue these guys on the principal of the matter , and you guys are expressing concern that if I don't pay the $30 they may nail my cr's, here's a thought:

I'm drafting my ITS today, and was thinking of adding this blurb at the bottom:

THIS LETTER SHALL ALSO SERVE AS NOTICE THAT I AM EXERCISING MY RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 809(b) OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT.

Or something like that, suggestions welcome.

What do you think?

 

I think I'm beginning to talk to myself LOL. Maybe I should go find the ignore this thread.

Anyway, Rck entries are going to become more the norm than the exception IMHO. I believe that this information will be valuable to someone (besides myself!) at some point. I have finally found some NACHA operating rules, and they are interesting. If an originator is going to possibly submit your check electronically to attempt repayment you must be notified in advance. They cannot send the check plus fees in one debit. It must be separate.

There are no specific rules saying how this notification should take place, but some very clear suggestions within the rules. Some good text:

The full text is here:
http://www.nationaleft.com/faqarct.html#RCK

To originate an ACH debit to collect fees, (see RCK Fees allowable by state) an Originator must transmit a traditional PPD transaction and must follow all rules governing PPD entries, including having first obtained the consumer's written authorization for such an entry in accordance with the requirements of NACHA Operating Rules.

Some Originators may desire to place an authorization stamp on the check being used for the payment of goods or services in order to collect a returned check fee in the event that the check is returned for insufficient or uncollected funds. In order for this practice to be compliant with the NACHA Operating Rules, the following requirements must be met:


An authorization placed on the check must be signed (not initialed). This signature must stand alone, i.e., the authorization language for the ACH debit entry must not be stamped in close proximity to the maker's signature on the check. The signature must clearly relate to the authorization language itself.

The authorization on the check must be identifiable as an ACH debit authorization and must clearly and conspicuously state its terms (i.e., the print cannot be so small or smeared that a consumer would be unable to easily read the authorization and understand its terms).

The authorization on the check must contain information that explains how the consumer may revoke the authorization.

The Originator must provide the consumer with an electronic or hard copy of the authorization.

The Originator must retain the original or a microfilm (or its equivalent) copy of the authorization for two years from the termination or revocation of the authorization.
Authorization language, if stamped on the back of the check, should be in the endorsement space provided and not lower on the check. Before stamping the back of a check with anything other that an endorsement, Originators must ensure that they understand and are in compliance with both the NACHA Operating Rules and all regulations that govern the collection of checks


More in a minute...

 

6. Retention of Original Item / Copy of Item

Return to Top
Originators must retain the original check to which the Re-Presented Check Entry relates for ninety (90) days from the Settlement Date of the Re-Presented Check Entry, and a copy (e.g. scanned image, photocopy, microfiche, etc.) of the check to which the Re-Presented Check Entry relates for seven (7) years from the Settlement Date of the Re-Presented Check Entry.


Is this 7 year time frame just coincidental?

The FTC, as best I can find in my search is absolutely silent on Rck transactions. I have found nothing that relates these rules to the FDCPA.

Do they circumvent the FDCPA by requiring a consumer's written authorization to collect electronically? If so, how?

 

Re: Re: Re: Need a Legal Walk thru Here!

I think so. I know I have enough background info to hold my own in a conversation with anyone. Pulled my bank statements yesterday, and I have a 2 day window that I can dispute the NSF charges with the bank. I'm going to run down there with my letter today.

I'm still straddling the fence between being a least sophisticated consumer and sending the $30 first, or approaching it from a rabid I know my rights consumer and going straight for the jugular.

Guess I'll flip a coin today

 

Update, I've decided to take the rabid approach, and am sending out an ITS today. I called the SOS and they do have the requisite bond for a 3rd party debt collector. That says to me they KNOW what they are and have chosen to ignore each and everyone of the consumer protections.

I called my county Hot Check Division. I swear the woman I talked to must have been fired from EX. I merely wanted to know if it was $25 period or $25 + taxes, etc. You know what she told me? If they have a sign posted in the business establishment they could charge whatever they wanted. I'm opening a business, accepting checks only, and charging $1000 per hot check.

Seriously I'm 99 9/10% sure I'm right, and the sign posted in the DQ said $25 (even though it wasn't this company LOL)...so I still think I'm safe here. Besides, that I have so many other violations in that one letter, that was is just icing on the cake

I did go down to my bank yesterday and delivered a dispute for the $40 dollars in charges for the NSF fees on the ACH fee debit. Quoted NACHA rules. I luckily had 2 days left before my 60 days were up. Couldn't see spending $4.42 at the Post Office across the street. Ought to be interesting what they do.

 

UPDATE ITS SETTLED

Most fun I've had all week. Got a call today from the CA. He was absolutely amazed. I kept getting questions, how do you know this stuff? We're in 48 states now. We settled for $1500. Not to shabby given I wrote a hot check for 7.88! He said "the law says $1000" Me - that's punitive damages, I have actual damages from you mining away in my checking account.

He said I would want some sort of settlement agreement. Me - I can type that up and fax it to you.

The guy started laughing. Do you make a living at this? I said no, but after having CAs hounding me hour after hour after hour at the worst time in my life, I said NO MORE! If you don't play by the rules, I will make it expensive for you. He laughed again. I swear I thought he was going to offer me a consulting job

Off to type up the settlement.

 

UPDATE ITS SETTLED

Thanks guys it feels good. DH was so funny - he doesn't follow much of this credit stuff. But he was in the background going "Hold out for the 5K!" as we were negotiating a dollar amount. I have a piece of paper I scribbled to him that says in HUGE letters I WON'T GET THAT IF WE GO TO COURT - I PROBABLY WON'T GET THE 1,500 SHUT UP.

He's cute.

 

UPDATE ITS SETTLED

9/23 final update. Got a call from the CA today. He received my signed settlement and was letting me know he was "reluctantly" overnighting my check.

New tires for jeepy then Barnwell Mountain here we come!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.texasmotorizedtrails.com/ohvareas/barnwell/index.html