OC liable for CA Actions

jlynn · Dec 16, 2002

Re: Rough draft to OC

Originally posted by sassyinaz
I like your letter, short and cuts to the chase while backing up your claims.

You noticed that the letter falls under the deception provisions, yes? I think, once you've communicated with the creditor (OC) they then can't claim there was no "knowing."

Finally, you ask whether a creditor could have potential liability under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for "engaging and directing" a debt collector to send Letters A and B. Using the principles outlined in the complaint and the consent decree in American Family Publishers cited in your letter, we answer affirmatively. If a creditor knowingly approves of representations made by its debt collectors that violate the Act or acts in concert with or knowingly assists its debt collectors in making these representations, the creditor may have engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5.

Yes, I did notice that it fell under the deception provisions. I haven't been able to find Section 5 of the FTCA anywhere, but will keep looking, might be interesting.

I decided to use the press release to make my point rather than the Douglass letter, because his letter talks about "approves of representations", which is not exactly my case. I felt the release dropped that part out wonderfully for me.
Click to expand...

jlynn · Dec 16, 2002

Re: Rough draft to OC

Originally posted by Butch

I love it. There may be only one minor point that needs to be contemplated. If CA1 sends the debt back to the OC, and OC sends the debt to CA2 without telling them that val. has been demanded, then CA2 has NOT violating anything. AT least not knowingly.

Therefore, "CA #2 , may be in violation of Federal Law"

That's why I suggested trying to find out how it came about that CA2 has the account. I think I'd try calling CA1 and ask why CA2 is now collecting this alleged debt, and see what they say.

I see your point, but its RMA anyways! LOL. Seriously, I ended the letter (you wrote) restating validation demands - so it should have the cease collection activity effect as well.

See?

Side Note: CA1 may or may not be guilty of wrongdiong. If they just sent it back to the OC because Val. is not available, then they did the right thing.

If CA2 is blissfully unaware that Val. is demanded then THEY are off the hook.

No matter what happened the OC is culpable as hell. That's why LKH's advice to notify the OC is fabulous advice.

If CA1 sent the account directly to CA2, then it's CA1 who's in violation of continued collection. Unless CA2 is aware that CA1 has a val demand they're (CA2) off the hook. If they are aware then, yes, I believe them to be guilty also.

But ya just don't know do ya?

This is one of those weird situations where just a little information can clarify a lot.
Click to expand...

I called CA1 today, and they said they sent it back because it has "expired" still fishy in the timing. They did not delete in 5 days, but it was included in CHOD, so I will wait till that is over before I push. If they don't delete, I can "double bang" them.

And no, ya never know who is on the hook here, I will just wait for the fallout and keep everyone posted.

Big Hugs for everyone's help!

sassyinaz · Dec 16, 2002

Re: Rough draft to OC

Originally posted by Butch

fave Butch growling dude:

I love it. There may be only one minor point that needs to be contemplated. If CA1 sends the debt back to the OC, and OC sends the debt to CA2 without telling them that val. has been demanded, then CA2 has NOT violating anything. AT least not knowingly.

c'mon Butch GROWL!!!!!!!! What is this?

Why should she care if the OC didn't do their job -- all the better for her, I say.

If CA1 returned it to the OC then the OC darn sure knowingly passed that non-validatable and non-verifiable debt on to CA2. Shame on them!

CA1 and CA2 have a problem with the OC. A request for validation is a request for validation and until it's provided collection activity has to cease.

The FDCPA doesn't say we have to keep on requesting validation.

Therefore, "CA #2 , may be in violation of Federal Law"

phooooooooooooey, GROWL, they are and you know it!

That's why I suggested trying to find out how it came about that CA2 has the account. I think I'd try calling CA1 and ask why CA2 is now collecting this alleged debt, and see what they say.

Why? If the OC still owns it and only keeps reassigning it to varied CA's, who cares what they have to say.

Validation is validation is validation is validation.

Once requested collection activity has to stop until it is provided.

See?

See?

Side Note: CA1 may or may not be guilty of wrongdiong. If they just sent it back to the OC because Val. is not available, then they did the right thing.

CA1 may have their tushies covered but the OC doesn't nor does CA2. We don't have to tell CA2, the OC does!

If CA2 is blissfully unaware that Val. is demanded then THEY are off the hook.

CA2 may or may not be blissful, they may have a valid complaint with the OC, but, they sure aren't off the hook.

No matter what happened the OC is culpable as hell. That's why LKH's advice to notify the OC is fabulous advice.

as hell, nodding

If CA1 sent the account directly to CA2, then it's CA1 who's in violation of continued collection. Unless CA2 is aware that CA1 has a val demand they're (CA2) off the hook. If they are aware then, yes, I believe them to be guilty also.

CA's don't send things to each other, they sell bad debts to each other. CA1 and CA2 are both responsible. It's not our problem that they don't communicate. We only have to request validation. Ignorance is no excuse and isn't allowed for. The FDCPA says once validation is requested it has to be provided -- it doesn't even imply that we have to keep track of the under-handled sales or assignments or re-assignments.

But ya just don't know do ya?

This is one of those weird situations where just a little information can clarify a lot.
Click to expand...

Sassy

sassyinaz · Dec 16, 2002

Re: Rough draft to OC

jlynn,

Have you checked your state laws as well?

Howard v Recovery Consultant, Inc.
CaseNo. 88 SCI ((Muni Ct Lorain Co, 5-26-8
Judge Ewers
Type Decision
PIF 979

The failure of a debt collection agency to verify the validity of a debt when requested by a consumer before closing and returning the account to the creditor is an unconscionable practice which violates R.C. 1345.03

Sassy

jlynn · Dec 17, 2002

Re: Rough draft to OC

No, I haven't done that yet! And TX has some really great consumer protection laws.

Log in / Register

Forums

OC liable for CA Actions

jlynn Well-Known Member

jlynn Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

jlynn Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in / Register

Useful Searches

OC liable for CA Actions

jlynn Well-Known Member

jlynn Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

jlynn Well-Known Member

Share This Page