I was trying to do a search for the info LK needs in another thread and ran across this interesting case: Sokolski v. Trans Union Corp. 53 F.Supp.2d 307 E.D.N.Y.,1999. May 21, 1999. (Approx. 9 pages) Creditor may be found liable under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if, in the course of collecting its own debts, it pretends to be someone else or uses pseudonym or alias. Consumer Credit Protection Act, § 803(6), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692a(6). L
Interesting. I dealt with this a few months ago. I had a medical collection pop up on my credit report when I was getting a mortgage. I called the CA find about what it was for, and it turned out to be a company owned by the hospital itself. I paid it and wrote the hospital a goodwill letter and it was immediately deleted as they had never billed me (and admitted it). I found it curious the hospital would subject themselves to being accountable under more stringent guidelines. Gib
Exactly. There is also an FTC letter on this. I don't remember which one, but I posted about this many months ago and my comments were rejected as nonsense.
Don't worry, this time it won't. more importantly, What is considered an alias or a different name? Does it have to be common knowledge or "least educated consumer"? humblemarc
I never saved the letter and now that I've been trying to find it, I can't. It is there somewhere under the rule 803 letters. It basically said, if a creditor does it's own collecting using a different name, it is liable under the FDCPA. Example: Capital one is the oc. If they are trying to collect as Capital one collections, they are liable.
LKH posting nonsense, humphhhhhhhhhh I know I read that same letter before and then I get off on a surfing tangent on Quixote's thread. I was trying to think of how to word it. They can't be misleading at all and there was an opinion or decision, I'll have to look tomorrow. The problem was employees of one company, like Cap One (that's an example) being paid contractually or part-time by a collection agency that they regularly use to collect under another name. The problem was, they were the same person, collecting the same debt, for the same company and just twisted where they told you they were from. ALL of the employee's were sitting in the same room. It's like, I work for cap one 7-Noon, then from Noon to 7p, answer the phone as working for nicest-cap-one-CA, while remaining on cap one payroll and whatever the agreement was that the nicest-cap-one-CA would reimburse cap one for the use of it's employees. Or how's this, I have to go to bed, babbling, there's two bathrooms in one house. Before noon you use the master bathroom, after noon you use the 2nd bathroom -- same person and all the bathrooms are in the same house! One person buys all the toilet paper and the other person reimburses the first person for the use of it. Sassy
LOL, i THINK that's a good metaphor!? Sassy, do you have to use the bathroom? Very Freudian! Get some sleep, hon'! LOL. humblemarc-
Uh...just one thing...be sure to shepardize this. There may have been a negative action taken somewhere in there. I only posted it when I ran across it and have no idea where it leads. My guess is there is conflicting case law on this area, because I've seen plenty of cases where the court ruled that an OC did not fall within the meaning of the statutes of the term "collector" and therefore did not fall under the FDCPA, despite them using in house collections or a different name to collect under. L
Wait a minute. Let's just get one thing straight. ***I*** am the only one around here who posts nonsense regularly. That said, GREAT info whyspers and LKH! Doc
