I rqstd vald from an old medical bill; they sent a letter and an invoice from that is on their letterhead, printed on a laser printer. It looks sufficient but who knows! I'd like some original documentation. At any rate, this is the OC I am dealing with. They are the ones that are on the TL on my CR's. They tell me in the letter to send payment to an outside CA. I am a bit confused because what rules do I follow here? There is an OC and a CA involved, but no mention of the CA until now. Any insight??
Here's the other thing...this letter from the OC does not list an address for this CA, just an 800 number. I don't like this non-kosher sounding situation!
If you're thinking of paying, restrict your inital payment to the OC despite their instructions. They should be happy to have it. If not, they'll send it back. Either way, you'll learn something about who owns the debt.
Re: Re: Need Input: Strange Situation lbrown Quote---This could be a good way to pay them both What do you mean? Pay twice? Pay the CA and they pay the OC less their commission? I am just perplexed here...I am wanting to find some violation to use as leverage here!
Re: Re: Need Input: Strange Situation Anyone know anything about a situation like this? My main question would be: Whom would own this debt and whom can legally report it? THe OC is reporting it to the CRA's but they are directing pmt to a CA.
Re: Re: Need Input: Strange Situation lbrown Quote---This could be a good way to pay them both 1*What do you mean? Pay twice? Pay the CA and they pay the OC less their commission? T.<------------------------------->Just calm yourself! ----- 1* If you pay someone who dosent own the debt the real owner can still come after you for it as you are still liable to him for the debt. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
Re: Re: Need Input: Strange Situation If the CA "settles", but the OC or a new CA continues to try to "collect", are the CA's actions legal, and what is the OC's liability for the CA's actions? It would appear that the CA representing the OC should be able to bind the OC, particularly if the OC says "pay my CA", since the OC is saying the CA is their agent. If the CA actually owns the debt, and then sells it after "settling", it would appear to be fraud on the part of the CA toward the second CA if they were not told the account was settled, and fraud and breach of contract toward the consumer. Parties should be held to their agreements. If an OC is sloppy in its choice of how a CA handles its accounts, it should not benefit from its own failures at the consumer's expense.
